Katrina vanden Heuvel — Registering the Cable Channel RT as a Foreign Agent Is a Threat to Press Freedom

Stigmatizing Russian broadcasting is the latest unnecessary escalation in the new Cold War.

Western elites are playing with fire in the expectation of political gain at the expense of risking war and threatening liberal democracy in a bogus attempt to defend it.

On the other hand, sates do has the right and responsibility to protect themselves from foreign influence, and tin this regard the US has also been a key player in influencing other countries.

So there lines that need to be drawn. The questions are how and where to draw them. These questions become more pressing with the sophistication of state-sponsored propaganda and disinformation apparatuses operating domestically as well as abroad, in addition to the proliferation of "alternative" media that make narrative control difficult for elites.

The Nation
Registering the Cable Channel RT as a Foreign Agent Is a Threat to Press FreedomStigmatizing Russian broadcasting is the latest unnecessary escalation in the new Cold War.
Katrina vanden Heuvel

See also

British Prime Minister Theresa May sought to divert attention from her Brexit troubles the other day with some inflammatory remarks about Russia at the annual banquet of the Lord Mayor of London…

May accused Russia of ‘threatening the international order on which we all depend,’ and concluded by saying that, ‘I have a very simple message for Russia. We know what you are doing. And you will not succeed. Because you underestimate the resilience of our democracies, the enduring attraction of free and open societies, and the commitment of western nations to the alliances that bind us.’

As if to back May up, Ciaran Martin, the head of Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre, stated yesterday that, ‘I can confirm that Russian interference, seen by the National Cyber Security Centre over the past year, has included attacks on the UK media, telecommunication and energy sectors.’ To this Martin added, ‘Russia is seeking to undermine the international system. That much is clear. The PM made the point on Monday night – international order as we know it is in danger of being eroded.’…

And then we come to question b) – does this constitute an attempt to ‘undermine the international order?’ The answer to this is fairly simple – No, and two times no! Yes, the Russians engage in espionage. They try to influence people. They always have! And so have Western countries! This isn’t an attempt to undermine the international order. This is the international order!! Let’s not be naïve about this. The international order consists of a whole set of institutions and rules which states for the most part abide by. At the same time, they occasionally break the rules, by for instance carrying out espionage on one another. Yet the order continues on nonetheless. Russia spies on Britain. Britain spies on Russia (remember the British spy rock in Moscow, anyone?) That’s how the order works.

Western elites understand this, of course. It's obvious that the faux outrage over "Russian interference" in democracy is a political ploy to protect Western elites from the political consequences of their own failed policy by creating scapegoats.

Irrussanlity
The international order
Paul Robinson | Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

See also

Debunking the latest "Russia did it" headline hysteria.

BuzzFeed’s latest “explosive” scoop on “secret” Russian financing of a 2016 election turned out to be an instant hit by burying a key detail: it was a Russian election.

Russia Feed
Scandal! Russia nefariously funded 2016 elections – its OWN

related

Earlier on Tuesday, the BuzzFeed internet portal claimed that the FBI was scrutinizing the Russian Foreign Ministry’s money transfer through Citibank, bearing a note that said the money was to be used "to finance election campaign of 2016."

According to the report, the transfer, totaling $30,000, was allegedly sent on August 3 to the Russian Embassy in Washington and was a part of more than 60 money transfers sent by the Russian Foreign Ministry to its embassies across the globe. The transfers via Citibank, totaling about $360,000, were carried out between August 3 and September 20, were directed to various countries "from Afghanistan to Niger."

The article, however, notes that on September 18, 2016, Russia held elections to the State Duma, the lower house of parliament. Russian embassies and diplomatic compounds opened polling stations for voters living abroad.

TASS
Issue of ‘Russian meddling’ in US polls about to be marginalized — Russian embassy
Also

Russia Feed
BREAKING: Russia approves foreign agents bill for media in ‘mirror response’ to US

Geopolitics Alert
Russia Passes Bill That Will Label US Media As ‘Foreign Agents’

Jim Carey

RT — US & Ukraine vote against anti-Nazi glorification resolution

US stands up for freedom of expression.

Ukraine, United States, and the Pacific island of Palau were the only three UN members to reject a Russian-authored resolution against rehabilitating and promoting Nazi beliefs.

Talk about being on the other side of an issue. The US has some selling to do on this one.

RT
US & Ukraine vote against anti-Nazi glorification resolution

Gilbert Doctorow — Press Freedom in Russia? Tune in to the Political Talk Shows to See for Yourself

Don't believe all the Western propaganda about state control of the media in Russia. The Saker put up a similar post recently that is also worth a read if you hadn't seen it. It's broader and more detailed.

Une parole franche
Press Freedom in Russia? Tune in to the Political Talk Shows to See for Yourself
Gilbert Doctorow | European Coordinator of The American Committee for East West Accord Ltd

Bill Mitchell — Information is dangerous for neo-liberals

Chiefly about the situation in Australia but applicable pretty across the board in Neoliberal Land, where the play book is essentially the same. In the US it's even worse, where certain advocacy within the right of free expression can get one on a no-fly list, or labeled as a suspected terrorist for intelligence to surveil. This extends to whistleblowers and the press. As communications channels expand with technological innovation, so do governments' attempts to control and even subvert them.

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Information is dangerous for neo-liberalsBill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at the Charles Darwin University, Northern Territory, Australia

Corey Robin — University of Oregon to Faculty: You Belong to Me!

Admin versus faculty. Admin winning.

University of Oregon to Faculty: You Belong to Me!
Corey Robin

Ben Jealous and Philip Radford —How Shell is trying to send a chill through activist groups across the country

This summer, the 9th Circuit Court in California is weighing the question of whether companies have the right to take preemptive legal action against peaceful protesters for hypothetical future protests. This will be an extraordinary decision that could have a significant impact on every American’s First Amendment rights.

The case, Shell Offshore Inc. vs. Greenpeace, was filed by Shell Oil Company. Last summer, Shell assumed –based on conjecture — that Greenpeace USA would protest the company’s drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.  Shell asked the 9th Circuit court for a preemptive injunction and restraining order against Greenpeace USA [Full disclosure: Philip Radford is the executive director of Greenpeace USA].

Despite Greenpeace’s appeal, the court granted the injunction for the entire duration of the drilling period, a decision which effectively gave a federal blessing to the company’s wish to do its controversial work in secret.

Greenpeace has asked the court for a full review, and this summer, the court will decide the ultimate fate of the case.If the court rules in Shell’s favor, it would have a profound chilling effect on First Amendment rights across the country. Nothing would stop other corporations from taking similar preemptive legal action against anyone they deem to be likely protesters. That could be an environmental group, it could be a civil rights group, or it could be a Tea Party group — or anyone in between.

Grist
How Shell is trying to send a chill through activist groups across the country
Ben Jealous, CEO of the NAACP, and Philip Radford, executive director of Greenpeace USA

Taste of life in a Libertarian utopia where property rights are recognized but not human rights and civil rights.

Citizens United recognized that money talks and so corporations have the right to free expression by through legalized bribery. Social protest? Not so much.

Pretty twisted meaning of "liberty." Sociopathic?

Addition to double-speak lexicon — political repression is now "lawfare"

"The government can always articulate rationales for why they're prosecuting one person and not another."

Oakland officials have shifted tactics since conducting a series of violent assaults on Occupy Oakland in October and November in the glare of the national media.

Oakland officials have taken a new tack in their suppression of the Occupy movement, one that seems addressed to the city's public relations problems. Gone are the mass arrests, “less-lethal” weaponry and tear gas, replaced with a kind of "lawfare" on the few protesters who remain in the plaza at the foot of Oakland City Hall where the occupation's tent city once stood.

Authorities are no longer routinely claiming that Oakland's occupiers are rioters, arguing instead that they are blocking public access to walkways and possessing unpermitted property -- conduct that may or may not, in fact, be protected under the First Amendment as "expressive" political activities.

Over the last month, the arrests have come in fives and tens, repeatedly targeting some of the same few and most visible activists. 

Read it AlterNet

Stung by Bad PR, City Officials Adopting New Tactics to Suppress Occupy Oakland

by Susie Cagle

Twitter caves to censorship

Micro-blogging service unveils shift in policy as it seeks to expand into new territories and expand its user base.

The micro-blogging service, Twitter, has announced that it has altered the technology behind the service to allow for country-specific censorship of messages.

The announcement comes as the San Francisco, USA-based company makes a push to expand into new territories hoping to increase their 100 million active user base and generate more money.

Read it at Al Jazeera
Twitter to enable country-specific censorship

Selling the human spirit of freedom to the devil for filthy lucre. Sad.

Twitter follows Google:

Twitter says it has authored the new feature with transparency in mind. In a move similar to search engine Google, Twitter says it "will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld." 

Though Twitter says it has yet to utilise the feature, it, like Google, will share removal requests from companies, individuals, and governments on the website.

U.S. Drops 27 Places in Press Freedom Rankings

The nation drops 27 places in annual index thanks to the harsh treatment of reporters covering the protests.

Read it at The Slatest
After OWS, U.S. Drops in Press Freedom Rankings
by Abby Ohlheiser

Ron Paul — Stop Internet Censorship

Read it at Congressman Ron Paul
Stop Internet Censorship

by Rep. Ron Paul

(h/t Edward Harrison | Credit Writedowns)

Ron Paul gets it. Democrats by and large are on the wrong side of this issue, other than wrt to the donors.

Congress is using a sledge hammer to kill flies and threatening to break the Internet and stifle innovation.

A lot of people across the political spectrum, especially younger people, are flocking to Ron Paul for this and similar reasons, even though they may disagree with some of his other views.

Rachel Maddow: "It's no longer OK not to know how the Internet works." — 'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Wednesday, January 18, 2012

AnonyOps on SOPA and PIPA

Read it at AnonyOps — We Are Legion
Bright, and Clear: The Future of Free Speech

Rachel Maddow summed it up pretty well on her show last evening, saying that it's no longer OK for politicians NOT to understand how the Internet works.

SOPA and PIPA are like trying to kill flies in the house by swinging a sledge hammer. There is no reason to break the Internet and undermine freedom of expression in the name of controlling piracy and protecting intellectual and artistic property rights. It's overkill based on lack of understanding of the technology.

This is coming from the content producers, the same people that did their best to hobble hardware and software technological advances to prevent illegal duplication. It was stupid and self-serving then, and it is stupid and self-serving now.

Looks like the blackout got some results. Quite a few politicians are now walking back their support of SOPA and PIPA. But it is not over until it is over. They aren't going away in this attempt.