Tsk, Tsk, Titian

The AFP:

India on Tuesday vowed to ban offensive material from the Internet after Facebook, Google and other major firms told the government they were unable to screen content before it was posted.

"My aim is that insulting material never gets uploaded," Sibal told reporters in New Delhi. "We will evolve guidelines and mechanisms to deal with the issue.

"They will have to give us the data, where these images are being uploaded and who is doing it."

Sibal said the government supported free speech and was against censorship but that some material on the Internet was so offensive that no one would find it acceptable.

We go round and round about this stuff all the time.

Let's take that last sentence:

"Sibal said the government supported free speech and was against censorship [nonsense; you want to censor something] but that some material on the Internet [what are the limits of "some" material] was so offensive [eye of the beholder, so forth] that no one would find it acceptable [define "no one." Define "acceptable"]."

Ah, the slippery language of a censor looking for someone to hang.

The goal of censors is always the same. It's not about eliminating the art/photos/text itself, it's about eliminating the person behind it. If you control language, you control thought. The ultimate power trip comes from two little words: Shut Up.

Hence, Sibal's statement: "They will have to give us the data, where these images are being uploaded and who is doing it."

You have to respect Sibal for his honesty. Canada is really no better than India in regards to censorship. Various "human rights" commissions in Canada run roughshod over free speech all the time, and drag all kinds of people into the star chamber for punishment. At least Sibal has the guts to say what he means.

In the meantime, until someone decides that Titian was way out of line and shuts down the Internet, enjoy gazing upon his Venus of Urbino (turn your head if you're offended).

Asking for Money vs. Begging for Words

If the film grads want some censorship to complain about, they should have a look at this. I'd be 100% behind them on this account, were they raise it as an issue.

Begging for money to complete a film is not censorship. The ancient rule of Crown Copyright, however, comes close.

This piece is an excerpt from an article by Michael Geist:

Dating back to the 1700s, crown copyright reflects a centuries-old perspective that the government ought to control the public’s ability to use official documents. Today crown copyright extends for fifty years from creation and it requires anyone who wants to use or republish a government report, parliamentary hearing, or other work to first seek permission. While permission is often granted, it is not automatic.

The Canadian approach stands in sharp contrast to the situation in the U.S. where the federal government does not hold copyright over work created by an officer or employee as part of that person's official duties. Accordingly, government reports, court cases, and Congressional transcripts can be freely used and published.

The existence of crown copyright (or lack thereof) affects both the print and audio-visual worlds. For example, the 9-11 Commission’s report, released last year in the U.S., was widely available for free download, yet it also became a commercial success story as the book quickly hit the best seller list once offered for purchase by W.W. Norton, a well-regarded book publisher.

By comparison, a Canadian publisher seeking to release the forthcoming Gomery report as a commercial title would need permission from the government to do so. To obtain such permission, the publisher would be required to provide details on the intended use and format of the work, the precise website address if the work is to appear online, as well as the estimated number of hard copies if the work is to be reprinted. If the work is to be sold commercially, the publisher would be required to disclose the estimated selling price.

The difference between the Canadian and the U.S. approach is just as pronounced in the documentary film arena. Consider, for example, a Canadian creating a film about a controversial political issue such as same sex marriage or gun control. The filmmaker might want to include clips from politicians speaking to the issue in the House of Commons.

After obtaining the desired video from the House of Commons, the filmmaker would be presented with a series of legal terms and conditions limiting its use to school-based private study, research, criticism, or review as well as news reporting on television and radio outlets that are licensed by the CRTC. Everything else, including any commercial use of the video, would require the prior written approval from the Speaker of the House.