Original subtitles

Downloaded from YTS.MX

Official YIFY movies site: YTS.MX

Hi. May I pet the horse? It's alright?

Sure, go ahead.

They're the best thing about this rally.

How much does one of these weigh?

How much...800 kilograms or so?

That much.

The ones over there are pretty heavy too.

- The other...horses? - Well, yeah.

- I didn't get that policewoman tried to be funny,

comparing the horse to the pumped-up Nazis,

shouting behind me.

Throw out the scum!

If you had any guts, you'd tell your employer to fuck off!

"Our green banner flies..."

Fucking hell...

Traitors of the blood!

- I just dialled down the madness.

It seems stupid to ship in half the country's police

to look after Nazis,

so they can freely express their shit,

without interruptions.

Everyone's got to have freedom of speech in a democracy.

But have you never felt

that this might need some adjustment?

Is it time to call in the state

and simply censor the most polarising,

deranged expressions?

- To be white is to be a striver,

a crusader, and explorer and a conqueror.

We don't exploit other groups.

They need us and not the other way around.

- He said, "I send the messenger Muhammad,

"with the guidance and the deed of truth

"for it to be dominant upon the whole of the world."

No matter how much they hate it,

our objective, the objective of...

is to dominate the whole world by the Sharia.

- When the preaching of God's word is taking place,

first of all, it's not for a woman

to be doing the preaching.

And second of all, it's not for women to be speaking.

Even the Bible is really clear on this,

even if they were to have a question,

they are not to ask that question in the church.

- What if censorship has become necessary?

Just to keep our societies decent.

What if there's a form of state censorship

that could actually work?

That could be good?

So basically, we're gonna travel

to all those different countries

and figure out the rationale behind why they're censor.

And what do you think about it?

- Well, I wish you luck.

Figuring out rationales is not an easy task.

I would say it's anthropological, basically,

or ethnographic.

The point is to understand censorship, not to condemn it.

- Yeah.

- People tend to take a simplified idea of censorship

as a struggle of good against evil,

of liberty against oppression.

It's a sort of Manichaean view that gets it wrong.

I mean, having studied censorship

under various authoritarian regimes,

I must say, I am convinced that censorship

can be positive, it's complicated,

so I would recommend,

as you go around interviewing people responsible

for filtering communication

that you try to...

Not exactly identify with them,

but to listen to them, to understand them.

- Hm.

- And by doing this, I think it might be possible

to get a deeper comprehension

of what censorship actually is.

- Can we film outside up from the window

when we're driving, or not? - No, no.

These guys you see, I think they are from national security.

- Testing.

Okay, the sound is okay.

If you try to say a couple of words?

- Well, only to welcome you to this compound,

the Citizen compound. - Yeah.

- I have thought for myself,

that the government of South Sudan censor,

because the country perhaps needs censorship,

to calm things down.

Hard to argue that the country don't need to calm tensions.

How is journalism being done?

Are everyone really careful, or?

- You are told there are certain areas

which you cannot touch.

You cannot talk about the corruption of the system,

you cannot talk about freedom of expression

freedom of assemble.

You cannot talk about,

a relation between the rebels and the government.

We were closed down because they they told us

that we are pre-empting the peace talk.

The national security they are protecting the government

from being criticised over the issue of peace,

because they don't want anybody to talk against,

to talk in favour of peace.

Because the government programme is war.

- Mr. Minister, hello?

How are you?

- I'm fine, fine. - I'm Havard.

I have been talking to some journalists.

And there seems to be some fear

that if you film outside, we might be stopped.

- If you film outside?

- You might be meeting some soldiers

that will tell you, you should turn off the camera,

you should not do this sort of things.

How do you think the relationship

between that sort of army activity and the journalists is?

- Well, really, that's right.

You know, there are military installations,

that in any country, photographing is prohibited.

If you go to Juba here,

you will find there's no soldiers that is moving

with gun on the streets.

But people have made it known outside,

as if there's insecurity in South Sudan,

and it is the UN that is keeping security?

Is not the UN.

It is a government of South Sudan

that is keeping law and order in the country.

- Your chief says that we should finish now so.

- Yeah. - Yeah.

Do I need to move?

- No it's okay.

But what would happen if the national security found us now?

- Well,

well, if you got away with it you may be lucky.

Yeah.

You might be lucky.

'Cause they may not like it.

Although you have the papers,

but they may not be happy.

- Most of the little

we were allowed to film in South Sudan,

looked like a fucking stereotype circus.

I guess I fear being seen as the arrogant white man,

showing his prejudice view on Africans.

So I deleted the scenes that could put me in a bad light.

I just can't find believable arguments

for why they censor and jail journalists here.

I guess for a government leading

the third most corrupt country in the world,

whose army have used child soldiers and raped girls,

censorship must seem like a tempting way to kill criticism.

So in the morning would you perhaps

go through the newspapers and see what's being written?

- Yes, we have a whole directorates,

and this is called Directorate of Information.

That direction is headed by the Director General.

So generally when I come in here.

First,

I see what we did yesterday,

and what we did not do yesterday,

and then look at the schedule of today.

I can take it later.

- Okay, but we can't talk when it's ringing.

- That's okay.

It will give us peace of mind.

- Okay.

- We told all the media houses,

that we don't censor the media.

We don't censor them.

But just do your work responsibly.

Respect the Constitution, respect the laws,

respect yourself and respect your profession,

by following the professional ethics of journalism.

So whenever there's a mistake,

as you said, or you mentioned.

Whenever there's a mistake in the newspaper,

we call the chief editor of the newspaper,

we sit down with them,

we tell them what we think is wrong

and what is supposed to be done.

- How does it work in practical terms?

What are the steps?

If for example,

they want to say that peace has come to South Sudan?

- Yes.

Excuse, can you bring that?

I think the minister is calling me.

- Ah.

- Yeah.

They try to call on the phone.

- Oh no, and we disconnected it!

- Yes.

Yes.

It's already transferred, I just got the message.

- Okay, now. - Mm.

- Let's try to wind it-- - Mm.

- Because they're going to turn off the generator.

- Ah, really?

- Yeah.

- Do you have a wide shot? - Yes.

- It's already off.

Okay, let us take five minutes.

Is that okay?

Yeah, let's do a five minute, and that's fine.

- There was the case with the Citizen newspaper?

- Citizen newspaper?

- Yeah. - Yes.

- There was a commentary in there

that was not looked, it was not very good.

- Well, there was a commentary, but at the end of the day

when the Citizen newspaper was shut down,

it was not because of the commentary,

since the newspaper

hasn't been paying taxes to the government

for very long, and that's a crime.

So they were told to go and clear their tax.

- So and that was the Ministry of Information

that told the newspaper?

- It was not the Minister of Information,

that's economic section in the National Security

that follows those who don't want to pay taxes.

It's a tax evasion.

- Right.

- Yeah, you know there are always articles

in the newspapers, very critical of the government.

And now we believe in democracy, so let them write, yeah.

As long as they're not endangering national security.

- I jumped out of South Sudan,

had to find a more uplifting example of censorship.

Something I could at least like the intentions of.

- Good morning, Herr Billen? - I'm Havard.

- Hello.

- That's it.

- Hey, Havard how is it?

- So I went to Germany.

The Ministry of Justice,

has made this new censorship law,

a device to fight hate speech on the internet.

The name is a bit unsexy, though.

Netzwerkdurcgsetzungsgesetz,

and it's criticised across the world

with comparisons to Stasi methods.

How did it go in Brussels yesterday?

- It went well.

I talked with the Commission

about hate speech, among other things.

Why is this law so important to you personally?

I have spent a lot of time talking to the social networks,

as well as civil society,

prosecution authorities and police.

I find it important for one thing,

because there are a lot of victims.

People who are not only offended and insulted,

but who are threatened with violence,

discriminated against, goaded.

And I do not find it acceptable in a democratic society.

We need political dispute over opinions,

but physical or psychological threats are going too far.

Nazi slogans. Incitement of the masses. Hate speech.

Platforms such as Facebook, YouTube or Twitter

must remove it within 24 hours of notification,

according to the Network Enforcement Act.

- I mostly like and understand the Germans.

I want to flush down the internet hate too.

But I don't get this new law.

All it seems to allow the state

is to hand Facebook or Google a fine,

A Euro-slap on the zillionaires' wrists.

Is that it? - Yeah.

- To make them care about the hate

spewed out on their platforms.

And guys,

why the detour?

Why not just remove the filth directly?

Free, socialist and nationalist!

We do not have to use the word,

because we all know which old parasite we are talking about.

In our hearts, then and now, we are Hitler's People.

Here, for instance.

Here the hearing is finished, and it goes to the network.

They have to be questioned and heard.

Then a deadline will be set.

In this instance, their statement

has been timely received.

Then it will be presented to the case officer.

But if there is no timely response,

and the resubmission deadline is passed,

the case officer receives the record as is.

All these instances have to be played out and drawn up here.

Section 86, for instance:

Distribution of propaganda from unconstitutional organisations.

Section 184b concerns distribution

and possession of child pornography.

If I were to display a swastika, for instance,

the case would be relatively clear.

But when it comes to insults or libel,

that will be a challenge for the networks to evaluate.

And for us as well, afterwards

deciding if it should have been deleted

and whether the complaint management

of the networks functions.

So there are a couple of points where it gets difficult.

We have no experience yet. Neither do the networks.

Nor do the courts. It's all new.

In this sense, judicial review can only be a good thing.

Due process of law will be strengthened.

- I was slowly realising the sheer scope of it all.

- The Germans had decided to clean up the internet.

The fucking internet.

Here are the filing rooms.

Yes, here we are, still empty.

We'll see by the end of January.

What exactly will be here? Documents?

The complaints that we receive cannot be stored digitally.

Well, technically they can,

but there's no software for that yet.

They have to be printed out and kept as files here

In a hanging rack synstem,

so that everything is properly documented.

How many documents will it be, do you think?

Are we talking, like, ten thousand?

We won't resort to fortune telling.

We'd rather just be surprised.

Beginning Sunday, Facebook and other networks

must remove illegal content.

Failure to do so could result in fines of up to 60 million euros.

Right. Before I forget: Will both of you sit in on this?

Yes, in the background.

Right. You don't want to be in the frame?

- I'll stand by the door. - I see.

We're not allowed to film the screen,

but he'l explain a case for us.

How fast can you look through a case

and still preserve every nuance of context?

That will differ from case to case.

Some things will of course be easier to recognise.

Representations of unconsitutional organisations,

or their images, are of course easier to recognise.

But even then you have to look at the context,

how it's represented.

Not every swastika is a violation.

There are differences.

A fist smashing a sawstika, for instance.

This is where it gets more complicated, legally.

In case of doubt, I think the answer we would give

is that we move forward by first securing evidence.

And at a later stage, if the case becomes stronger...

So of course, before administrative fine

proceedings are set in motion,

the social network in question will be invited

to make a statement on the case.

- Not quite... - It's not like that?

No, that's not correct. The fine proceedings do start here.

And...it's complicated.

We don't ask law enforcement to take action,

we just pass information to them.

The decision to prosecute, based on that, is entirely up to them.

To put it more simply:

If we conclude that the matter is a criminal offence,

we pass information on to law enforcement.

- Good, okay. - Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. I hope the questions were not...

it is difficult to know exacly who to...

- After a few weeks, I started pondering

if this new law could catch on.

If people would bother to use it,

actually filed reports on the hatred they find online.

- No, up there. - There it is.

- Yeah.

- Was that it? - No, there were three more.

And that's effectively the hundred-something...

How many are there?

This isn't everything.

But it's most of those handled by the case workers.

I see.

- I had hoped that I could find a firm,

German way to censor hate.

But the law seems half-assed,

it makes me sad.

All the hard work they're putting into it, for what?

I think this field trip of mine,

won't make much sense

unless I can dig up examples of censorship,

that actually seems to do good.

The obvious start is to find someone

who simply removes the bad stuff.

- Shit!

What the fuck was that?

- Put your gun on the fucking floor!

It's not my fault!

You're the driving like a fucking dick...

- Oh so you steady yourself on the trigger.

You see those?

Those are the OSHA handles,

that's what they're there for.

- Shut up!

- Cary me over there and put me in the tub.

- Yeah, can't do that.

- What do you mean by can't do that?

- Physically, I can do that,

but I'm not gonna carry your naked ass to the tub.

- There was no way--

- Everyone's eating. - No, it's impossible.

Everyone is not eating everyone's ass.

- Everyone is not eating everyone's ass.

They are. - Oh fuck.

Oh, ho,

oh my god!

- So basically all the f-words are allowed.

But then there are like you know visuals

where they have focused on the girl's private parts.

So I think those also have to be kind of you know.

- Yeah. - There is a word,

motherfucker, that should go.

- Yeah that can go.

- It has to be universally cut, yeah, yeah.

- Then pussy, cunt and? - Dick.

- And asshole? - And asshole is allowed.

- What else, anything else?

- There's one dialogue which talks about

you know eating the ass and you know.

- That's entire scene. - That entire scene should.

- And it has no relevance to the thing going on.

Because it's not leading into it.

- The ass thing, in the tights, isn't this?

His whole sort of that's his whole focus,

that's what he talks about all the time.

What happens if you take out the scene?

- Close-ups have to be where...

It is, I think--

- Now, so it is like this.

We are allowing it in other places.

Except that parking lot scene.

We are basically saying,

that you can keep that focus on the ass part is okay,

but the crotch part, that will have to let go.

- Yeah.

- How are you? - I'm fine.

- We're allowing all users with word fucking,

but motherfucker will not be allowed.

Okay, you'll have to take care of it.

- Okay. - Next word is cunt.

Another word dick.

Dick after a long deliberation

we thought dick will be allowed okay?

Then comes yeah, where this guy Baker barges into a room

where these the two black guys are having sex and all that.

So that scene will have to be deleted.

This is what we had to say.

You tell me if you have anything else.

- That's lot of deletion.

- Yeah a lot of deletion, but this is what you know

as per the guidelines we follow you know that.

Okay, thank you.

- It's a very complex country,

it's a heterogeneous country,

the cultures are different,

the norms are different from place to place.

So if the film, this film was played in some other,

say, small town or some other place,

it can create an uncomfortable situation

for a family viewing.

You know some people may not really like it.

We are not used to public display of affection at all.

You would not see couples

kissing each other in the streets.

- Really? - Never.

- Afternoon, glass or bottle? - Just pour it into glasses.

I will just put this away.

- She supports you.

She doesn't say that you're too strict.

The films that should be have gone through.

- No,

in fact, she's a more conservative than me.

- Really? - Yeah, actually, yes.

- Can start with this?

It's getting cold.

- Oh, thank you so much.

He was saying that you are actually

more conservative than him.

So you asked if he was to give a permit for a film

that you found was too liberally permitted,

that you would complain to him?

- Yes, I would.

- Yeah. - Certainly.

- What kind of things is it that you don't like?

- Anything that I feel,

which is not supposed to be seen with a family

in any respect,

whether it be violence, vulgarity anything by girl.

- So what I'm saying if the context of the film

really needed that particular scene,

it was required from the context and the flow the story

then to cut it would be not right,

criminal, in fact.

But if it is not required then who's affected?

You're trying to just gain more audience

by inserting a scene which would be controversial.

- Something happens with my sympathies,

when I'm invited home for tea.

Like forgetting about the criticism of the film board.

That it is this extended claw

of the right-wing Hindu nationalist government

censoring anything too liberal,

too Muslim, too Un-Hindu.

The phones are running hot here.

But mostly it seems, by folks wanting more censorship.

That this or that film is offending their Hindu god.

- Faster. - Hi?

- How are you?

Hello?

- Good morning. - Good morning.

- Good morning? - Good morning.

Which film is it?

- "Lipstick Under My Burkha."

- "Under my Burkha"? - Yeah.

She could just put it on her burkha,

and it would not be a problem.

If you betray me, I'll put this video on Facebook.

Mark this entire sequence.

- How do you think this this will go?

- Oh, not well at all.

I feel that films that are quite misogynistic

in which we objectify women

where the camera just keeps me opened on the woman's body,

and she keeps dancing the singular item song,

the name itself is pretty offensive.

So nothing happens, to that content.

That's freely played on television,

and little girls are watching it and dancing on it,

internalising the whole objectification of women.

But the moment you present

an alternative point of view,

an alternative point of view

which is a more feministic point of view,

it's very problematic.

What is it?

The whole theme is...

Say it in Hindi.

First of all, the whole theme is very adult.

- All the love-making scenes

and the visuals are this way.

Bad languages, but no smoking scenes.

That's why there's no disclaimer.

What's the picture?

Judging from the whole concept,

it looks like the movie should be refused.

- Raju bhai, what about you?

- Refuse.

- Same. - I agree.

- Refuse. - Okay, and what about you?

The same, sir.

- What do you think?

- Refuse, refuse.

- What do you say?

I think we should refuse.

We'd have to cut so much that the whole theme would change.

- Then let's drop it. What about you?

- The same sir. Refuse.

The burkha is a reality in today's society.

Regardless of community,

anyone can go into a mall, change and come out again.

That is a fact.

The problem is the way the film is told.

- Yeah, exactly.

- Okay, guys. Fetch her.

- This is Mr. Nihalani. - Yes.

You are the director? We unanimously refuse the film.

- You can go to the tribunal.

Whatever suits you.

- Sure. Great, thanks.

- Excuse me miss.

Do you have any comments at all?

- No, there's no space for any deliberation or anything

since they were a unanimous decision

and it's not unlike,

so I suggested that

it's better we go straight to the tribunal.

Yeah, all right thanks.

- I can understand

that the film might provoke Indians.

It wasn't encouraging violence or smoking,

but the sex, the obscenity,

I felt the census could have a point.

You seem to be a very highly moralled man?

- I believe when you are, you have a family,

you have to be a completely part of your family,

and your society also is your family.

You are to committed with that society also,

what is your responsibility?

Don't you think so?

- I think so as well.

But at the same time I'm,

I'm very much for the freedom of expression

and for possibilities to discuss any issue in the film.

- Freedom of expression is definitely required,

but you have to keep everything in your mind,

what totality you are creating,

and what you are creating the impact of the movie.

If you want to touch the real incidents

that movie is very limited,

is not a commercial cinema, it's not a cinema.

Then you have to go on a different platform

to show your freedom of expression,

which is required, different kind of rating system.

And if you see vulgarity, obscenity,

or creating a problem for the society

is that freedom of expression?

And then I don't think it is being

perfect for the Indian audience.

- So it was refused by the examining committee

and revising committee? - Unanimously refused.

- And in fact, even though there were five lady members,

so that makes it even more...

- If you had to guess,

how many signatures have you done?

- Last year 10,000, 12,500.

- You're after the ratings. I get that.

- Mr Nihalani, the question is very simple...

If all you care about is ratings,

then just keep showing whatever

is available on social media,

and then wives can divorce their husbands.

Mr Nihlani, the question is very simple...

- "Lipstick Under My Burkha" is a clear example

of curtailing the freedom of speech and expression.

A member of Congress Party is a quoted to saying,

"And I thought the government

"was moving away from censorship to certification."

- Listen please, please listen.

The freedom of speech

is one of the holiest thing of the constitution.

We always uphold it.

Please understand that we have to follow the Act

and the rules and the guidelines which are there before us.

CBFC has follow the law completely.

- Do you think you would have been the villain

or the hero in the Bollywood film?

- You decide.

- I guess I got a bit carried away,

the censors being so friendly and all.

So I might have ended up showing

a slightly unfair selection of clips

from "Lipstick Under My Burkha."

I was just so happy to find censorship

that seemed to make sense.

But it doesn't, does it?

They silence liberal voices,

but don't do much with a raving nationalism.

And their work sure don't seem

to heal the polarisation in the country.

So either the censor's objective is off,

or they don't take it far enough.

I have this feeling,

I should try to behave myself in Iran.

With a gentleness and warmth people show me,

I don't want to come across as uncultivated.

- Professor Mohammad Mehdi Zahedi.

- Mehdi Zahedi.

- Is the head of the Higher Education Committee

of the Parliament now. - Mmm.

- He's the ex-minister of higher education.

- Yeah.

- And he's a member of the High Council of the Culture--

- These consist three different committees, five committees.

- I see. - I'm the head of all this.

- So much responsibility.

The viewers in the West,

they are probably wondering

what direction Iran will take in this culture.

If it will go for both what we in the West

will call for a more open,

or if it will continue on the line of having

a regulation based on the Islamic contract?

This question of yours really upset me.

Translate that first!

- He say, "I got upset from this question."

- I see, I'm sorry.

It is because you do not understand Islam,

and think Islam is against civil liberties.

We believe that the religion brought about

by our prophet 14000 years ago,

is a comprehensive and complete religion.

Our Quran, which is the miracle of the religion of Islam,

applies to all centuries.

And its grace is directed at all of humanity.

Is that what you mean by freedom, sexual corruption?

Then we openly say that we are against it.

- If you mean from freedom that you know,

is sexual free relation,

we say from no yes, we are against.

- Mmm.

So that means--

We believe in human ethics and dignity.

- We believe in the morality

and the behaviour of human beings.

- Yeah.

And this should also be reflected in the books

that are being published.

- You should be careful about your question!

- Yeah, I will.

And it's no, it's not meant to offend in any way.

- No problem. - Yeah, yeah.

- Okay, thank you sir.

- Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I came to think of Professor Darnton,

something he tried to get into my head at Harvard.

- I would recommend,

as you go around interviewing people responsible

for filtering communication,

that you try to,

not exactly identify with them,

but to listen to them, to understand them.

And by doing this, I think it might be possible--

- It's true that I'm not so intelligent on Iran.

I talked to the Office for Foreign Press.

They seem to be the ones deciding

what we can film or not anyway.

They offered me to go to the Holy Defence Museum.

It's annoying,

I couldn't get any substantial answers

from the political hardliners.

Their idea for why there hasn't been

another bloody revolution in Iran.

A country so split politically, gloomy priests-rule and all.

Something big should have happened by now.

I've been giving it some thought.

What if the Iranian state have found a cunning solution?

What if you can fight polarisation,

without the direct censorship mess?

What if you could just get to people

to censor themselves instead?

It's better not to show it.

It's better that we don't show it.

- I don't know what kind of colleagues we are?

We are not,

we don't have same kind of point of view, I think.

- You have a different point of view?

- Yeah , - You have a different

voice in your head?. - Yeah, of course.

- Your voice is a bit stricter than his.

- Yeah it is.

- You know that's, I do not.

I think, this is our country.

- Ah.

- So all of us,

have a duty to try to reach

to get to a better situation

for whole people, for whole country.

- And me either,

it doesn't differ from what I think.

- No, no-- - Could you explain to me

what is it that you are afraid of?

If you step over the line?

What could happen to you?

- Because actually, you know,

the people are looking some guarantee,

to continue to be able their jobs.

And they think,

if they criticise the government, so they will lose.

You know, that opportunity.

- Mm-hm. - I don't believe that.

- I think when there are some rules,

then it should be clarified.

What kind of words should be omitted from our writings?

And we should know,

what can hurt people here?

Because they believe, and I believe too.

Something can be,

it can be meaningful in other countries in other cultures,

but here it can hurt.

Show me in the book, what was that?

- Actually the, I can't find you know the name,

but I think we deleted it.

- Yeah, we deleted. - The name of the city.

- Why was that?

- It is the Vatican kind of city of Iran.

- Qom.

- Holy city?

- Holy city. - Yes.

- So this was a fiction book

about a girl living her life--

- No. - Experienced some problems?

- She was from there and she married,

then she was divorced,

and she was trying to have another relation

and she was from Qom.

- And why was it problematic

that she was from Qom?

- She was diverse, I think maybe.

- So a person from Qom--

- And she was travelling around alone.

That's not good maybe.

- Because that's all the high clergies are in Qom.

So there are several religious school,

so many students.

And so because of those issues,

they preferred to delete this one.

- So if you have to go to--

- Hanging out

with Iranian intellectuals is something.

They've got a hell of a history of sophisticated writing.

My poetry is my poetry. My personal poetry.

They took me to the launch

of an avant-garde poetry magazine,

and they seemed stimulated.

It caves my head in to think

that these guys have to go about guessing

what they should remove from the books,

just because the religious leaders won't tell them

what exactly isn't allowed.

- Okay, how much do you need?

What are you going to buy?

- A box of confectionery confectionery for him.

- Confectionery for the Ayatollah.

- Okay. - That's alright.

Is that usual

to give the Ayatollah confectionary?

- No, but it's good. - It's a good thing.

- Let's go.

To the left, this alley...To the right.

14th Alley was here before. Now it's a bit father.

14th Alley, you said?

- I mean, are we running a bit late?

- No no.

It's just him driving like a maniac.

- This is it. - This is it?

- Yeah.

- I think it's better that, unlike the previous time,

that I translate your questions in Farsi,

but let him talk. - Yeah.

- I kind of held back

this little bit of information, the punishments.

I had hoped that the state could just get the people

to want to censor themselves,

because it's the right thing to do.

But I have to admit that the fear of beating

seems very effective too.

- He's coming. - He's coming?

Anyway, there I was just focusing on not misconducting.

I don't think you should disrespect an Ayatollah.

Be welcomed.

Grand Ayatollah, I'm Havard.

- I am the interpreter. - I am Moslehi.

- If you can put it hidden underneath somewhere

around the chest. - Hidden?

- Yes, hidden please.

I am very sorry that I touch your clothes. I apologize.

- I'm sorry about the inconvenience.

- No problem. - Very good, thank you.

- So we are in the presence of Grand Ayatollah,

Ozma Mohammad Ali Gerami.

One of the prominent scholars

of Islamic seminary of Qom.

Who is one of the very prominent and outstanding students

of late Imam Khomeini.

- Thank you so much for meeting us.

I'm glad to meet you face to face.

I am happy to have this interview.

You may ask any question.

- Books should be prohibited

that are promoting and publicising moral corruption.

And for me it's a bit difficult to understand,

what does the moral corruption consist of?

Where does the boundaries for moral corruption go?

and what could be examples of moral corruption?

Anything that distances a person from a healthy life.

We think it is the same in the West.

A healthy life is a life

that does not threaten the fundamentals of family life.

- What could be concrete examples

perhaps from the West,

that the Grand Ayatollah sees as corrupting

and destroying family values?

Homesexuality and being unfaithful to your spouse.

Someone stand by the door,

the men are coming for the meeting...

- So, homosexuality should be forbidden

because a man and another man cannot have children?

Yes, they can't have children,

and also because soothing human feelings

cannot be shared between two men.

We know that.

Anyway, being able to have kids is important.

Therefore, in religious scripture

we have this statement that the best woman

is the one who can have more babies.

Anyway, if we want to develop,

the primary issue is population.

If a society is very under-populated,

it cannot use the resources very well.

Therefore, currently,

the power of a country is measured by its population.

- Wouldn't it be good if the writers

who have deep knowledge and have researched the topics,

for example, about homosexuality,

that they write about this in a qualitative manner

instead of the public perhaps going to the internet

where you can find everything anyway

that the state has no control of?

If it does not lead to propagating misdeed, it is okay.

But writing about it is propagating misdeed.

If you distribute sexually arousing photos,

it will not help to later say we are against it.

It will already have had adverse effects.

- Should there be a concise list of words

and topics that should be forbidden?

Intellectuals inherently know what is on that list.

- I see.

Have they arrived? One person has arrived.

- I see.

Our time is up. People are waiting for me.

- I see.

- I see, I see.

- I think we could learn loads from the Iranians,

how to be mild and respectful to people.

Perhaps I should remove my swearing from the film.

But I had hoped that could pick up on something else though,

how a state could just nudge people in a decent direction.

My problem is that the Iranian state

has a fucking severe way of nudging.

Hell, I'm making a film about censorship.

I haven't even dared to use the word censorship in Iran.

So I'll go to state, that don't leave it to the people

to figure out what should be omitted.

I've got him here.

- Let's go.

Let's go.

- We can drive.

This is the director. His name is Havard.

First, don't mention any names.

Only talk about the media.

Just drop the names. Maybe just the family name.

And you will be blurred out. - Okay, I see.

- If you make a story on a sensitive topic,

what will happen when you deliver it to your editors?

It's the same for all the main media.

First you need a permission.

Then it will go through several layers of censorship.

There are too many sensitive topics.

Traditionally there are 3 main forbidden topics:

Ethnic issues, religion, and military.

The topic we are talking about here is very important,

but things like this are very secret.

It's only the editors who really know about these things.

Not people like us.

Oh, hello.

- Hello, I'm Havard.

- Oh! - Hey, yes.

- Nice to meet you.

- I don't want to send these guys to labour camps,

so I have to hide their identity.

But with one of the highest

ranking political editors in China,

it's a bit different.

He said that trying to really hide

his identity was meaningless.

The secret police probably

already knew we were at his place.

But I should blur his face a bit,

so that what he's about to say,

won't seem like an open provocation

to the Communist Party.

Have you censored yourself in your work?

Self-censorship, yes, for sure. I do it every day.

First of all, the top informs us

about all the forbidden subjects,

and we will not write about those.

Secondly, if a reporter suggests to me

that we go somewhere to make a story that I think is risky

and touches on a sensitive topic,

I will not let him do the story.

No matter what news media outlet

we are talking about,

there will always be a small office inside the building,

monitoring the content.

These people are connected, and report directly to,

the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China.

Let me show you the four main websites.

We'll open Sohu first.

President Xi Jiping, Xi Jinping, Xi Jinping.

Then we open Tencent, and you see

Xi Jinping, Xi Jinping, Xi Jinping.

Let's try NetEase.

Xi Jinping, Xi Jinping, Xi Jinping.

And then Sina: Xi Jinping, Xi Jinping, Xi Jinping.

So the top news on the front pages of the main websites

are all dictated by the Central Committee.

- Can you show us if you for example

now try to search for New York Times?

Now it will search.

- Okay. - What does it say?

"Not able to open the website."

Now, let's try with a VPN.

But this software is very unstable.

For instance, I can only use it for 4 to 5 minutes.

This is a clip about the Tiananmen incident.

In 1989, on the night of June 3rd,

People's Liberation Army tanks drove into Beijing,

ending the peaceful protest that had gone on for 50 days.

This moment, on the morning of June 5th,

will be an everlasting historical symbol.

There have been many other revolts against the government.

But people won't know. It's like they never happened.

- Perhaps I've added to the German part unfairly.

What if there's a bigger point with the German law?

To put some pressure on Facebook, Twitter, Google.

Make them take some responsibility,

for the disgusting shit that is spread on their platforms.

Here hardly a word of hate,

no fake news slips through the net,

the firewall and the shitloads of censors

their tech giants are forced to employ.

Unless of course,

the state itself wants to spread some fake news.

The Chinese Communist Party and the government

became very focused on brain-washing,

or "educating", the new generations.

All students receive the full package

of the "Red Education".

And combined with the Chinese economy developing rapidly

and becoming

very powerful,

patriotism grew strong in their hearts.

- It seems strange that you can live with a state

deciding what your opinions should be

without freaking the hell out.

Anyway, apparently,

no one had managed to get the 50 cent army on camera,

the so called internet commentators

hired by the Chinese government.

And said to be paid 50 cents,

for every nice little post,

helping President Xi seemed like Jesus.

We rigged the hidden camera,

made up a completely fake story,

and had the translator interview them,

so they wouldn't be scared off

by meeting a Westerner like me.

Sorry to keep you waiting.

We had to finish a study assignment.

Yesterday you mentioned "Internal reference reports" -

what are they?

They provide information to the leaders,

like on the Daxin fire incident, sensitive topics like that.

We have to send the leaders

a comprehensive summary of public opinions on the issues.

Crises like the Daxin fire disaster,

that affect the public opinion.

Or when the state ordered the skyline billboards demolished.

Or the RYB kindergarden sexual crimes.

Big stories that threaten the stablity of the whole society.

With these kinds of incidents, the government has to step in.

How do you analyse the data? From the trending searches?

Not really. We look at a lot of different info.

What overseas media writes.

Overseas media opinions and domestic media opinions.

And information about Internet users.

Internet users' comments and opinions?

Yes.

Did you have any specific training

before you started this work?

Not really.

Master students don't need any specific training,

just guidance.

- So just brief training? - Yes.

Just a little guidance from Wangxinban

(Cyberspace Administration of China).

You can do Internet comments and analysis

because it's part of what you study?

Since your master is news and media, you have the knowledge?

Are there any other master programs

that contribute to this work?

As Internet commenters?

For instance, science and technology, or psychology?

I think as long as the topic is related to your field,

you can comment and give your professional view.

Do you get paid for doing this?

Yes.

Is the compensation similar to a formal job?

It is similar to working for the newspaper publishers.

It is paid per article.

After your reseach and analysis,

do you need to make a report?

And hand it to the government? - Yes.

Is it one person or a team working on these reports?

The Internal Reference Report is like a journal.

It will summarize the public opinions, and also provide some

correct advice and opinions from experts and media.

- So it is not just the data. - Not only the data, no.

You must explain the whole context to the leader.

Who is the leader? University leader?

- Beijing city leaders. - Oh, city leaders.

Do you need to be at the Renmin university?

No, analysis is something you can do on your own.

But we go to topic selection meetings.

You can't focus on everything.

Like the meeting you went to yesterday?

No, that was about suggesting new members

for the Communist Party.

Suggesting members? I am not a member. What is this meeting?

After the first selection of candidates,

we have this meeting,

so the public can judge if

they're good enough to become members.

To judge how good a person is.

See if they qualify for being a member of the party.

Is this like the final selection round?

Yes, more or less.

- Are you party members? - No, not yet.

We are applicants for Party membership.

Over the last years,

the requirements have become very strict.

So it is getting more strict?

They are very strict on what your thoughts and views can be.

- This has led to the people in itself

just accepting the positive idea

of the Chinese state as a fact.

And there's less and less need of the government itself

to produce this type of propaganda,

the people will just reproduce it themselves.

I have to answer yes.

- I desperately wanted to have a chat

with the spokesman of state.

And then I got an odd opportunity to do just that.

For some reason,

one of the biggest state newspapers

had invited me to a meeting.

I think the idea was to convince me,

to make dreadfully happy stories from China.

But I wanted to get their

official opinions on touchy stuff.

I couldn't get hold of a small spy camera,

so I tried a more simple solution.

- We can speak English. - Okay.

- If you have any questions about.

- Interesting.

- The Guangming Newspaper Corporation.

- Oh yeah.

Thank you.

This paper is wholly owned by the Chinese state?

- Yes. - Okay.

So which department is under?

- Publicity.

- The ministry that you report to?

- Publicity, yes.

Publicity. - The Ministry of Publicity?

- Yes. - Okay.

So how does that work?

Is it that you have some guidelines from us?

Because we don't have state papers anymore.

Do you have guidelines from the ministry?

- No. - No, okay.

- It's just some technical guidelines.

- Okay.

- We don't receive direct orders

or something like this from them.

- So how do you deal with like Western media,

who would like to report on more sensitive issues

or issues that are critical to the Chinese state?

- The sensitivity is fine, but not biassed.

- Not biassed? - Yes.

- What does that mean?

- I have talked to some journalist,

from the Guardians, Reuters.

Because they don't know about,

the people living Tibet,

how their life was before,

because they're basically slaves.

And Dalai Lama is a slave owner.

They don't know this.

- So for you,

the Tiananmen Square student rebellion,

in the West it's looked upon as a massacre

done by the Chinese state mostly.

That is the general idea but how,

what would be the Chinese point of view?

Would it even be possible to do something on that?

- I believe you have watched the video about the tank man.

Have you watched that video?

- What video?

Tank man?

The one standing in front of the tank?

- Yes. - I've seen that.

- Yes.

So what do you think about that guy?

What happened next?

Has he died or not?

- I don't know.

- That's the trick.

- Ah.

- Because if you watch the whole video,

you will see the tank turn over those gap other way.

The guy's totally fine.

Someone bring him to the side of the street.

- Mmm.

- But in the West, the story is the tank crushed the man.

That's how, they have done.

- Altered the facts.

- Yes.

They never show you, the show the story,

but never tell you the whole story.

- Okay.

So from your journalistic point of view,

there's no evidence of students being killed

or massacred or these type of things?

- I'm only like four years ago?

- Three or four. - Three years ago, maybe.

But my uncle, he was a student in college,

and himself was one of them,

at Tiananmen Square.

- He was protesting on them?

- Yes.

And he told me that we are also soldiers, killed then.

We're always asked the same questions.

In 2008 we also had that same question.

So there are few who die, yes,

but if you can just say that's a massacre, no.

- No, it's not a balanced way of seeing it?

- Yes.

- Can't help being fucking impressed by this state.

The Chinese have censorship figured out.

One thing for a state to see and censor everything,

but simply rewrite history,

if it doesn't fit with the Party line.

That's some advanced shit.

But in return, on the surface at least,

folks have got economic growth,

Gucci bags and stability,

who's to blame them for taking the deal?

But then, what happens if the economy goes bad?

Will there still be bliss

when the government start doubling down

on those who complain?

And where does the control stop?

One of the things

that makes me feel strangely proud of the Americans

is the Bill of Rights.

Congress shall not abridge

the freedom of speech or of the press,

just has this solid sound to it.

This is the final station,

the country with the world's strongest constitutional

protection against government censorship.

I tried for a year to get meetings

to talk to the members of Congress

bound by that constitution.

I got zero.

That's why I decided to jump them in the hallways instead.

Sorry to bust in,

my name is Havard Fossum.

We're making a documentary

on the issues of controlling information

in the day and age.

Is the Congressman in today?

- He's here, but he just left. - He just left, for lunch?

You can shoot him an email.

- Okay, and then hope that he would have the time today,

you reckon?

I'm not sure, but Kevin would be the best person to ask.

- So-so. - Send him an email.

- Yeah, yeah.

Okay, good.

All that constitutional freedom and protection of speech.

Yet a new U.S. record for censoring

and withholding government files has been set.

It doesn't seem to add up.

That's why I wanted to meet them.

The people in power.

Who, according to critics,

have tried to silence climate scientists

and imprison whistle-blowers.

I wanted to hear their arguments.

What's at stake, if the state doesn't censor?

I just tried to explain to them,

we're making a documentary around the world

on the consequences of over-regulation,

basically, of the state.

Is he in today, or?

- Send me an email and we'll go from there.

- Okay, thanks a lot.

- Yeah. - Will do.

Hello, no one is available to take your call.

Please leave a message after the.

- You have reached 7-0-3-3-5-7.

Gentlemen, you can't video-tape right here.

This area, this whole area right here--

- Sorry, sorry.

Your call has been forwarded

to an automated voice messaging system.

- We got no from ODNI as well...

Mr. King.

Hello, I've been waiting for you for quite some time,

I've been in contact with your office.

- Right. - My name is Havard Fossum.

I'm making a documentary on national security

and the challenges of state.

- I have to run off that way, will you?

- Yeah.

Are you going to the House hearing later on cybersecurity?

- No, I won't be, I'll be over 1100.

- Okay.

Have you got like three minutes for some comments?

- Not now, I'm booked right now.

- Right, right. - Come back later.

- Could we wait for you around here or?

- I will be there a few hours. - A few hours, really?

Okay.

I had countless mind-numbing talks with PR chiefs.

I even tried making pals with powerful Washington lobbyists,

but I simply couldn't get

any of those state representatives to meet me.

I thought that going to the U.S.

was such a clever way to end,

an excellent little climax

to this whole censorship field trip.

Here, I'm thinking I've fucked up,

to be able to meet the censors everywhere,

only to end in the one country where I can't.

- This is the main entrance of the CIA,

you can't really see anything.

This is the side entrance to the CIA right here.

- Mmm.

- But it is also off limits.

And you can't see the building.

But there's a legal definition of whistleblowing,

that is bringing to light any evidence of waste,

fraud, abuse, illegality or threats

to the public health or public safety.

Uh-oh, here come the police.

They're right behind you. - Yeah, okay.

- So anyway, the Freedom of Information Act.

They know that you're gonna give up after a while.

- What's going on?

- We're just filming a documentary.

- What's that?

- We're just doing a documentary film,

around the world, basically,

showing how state regulate the expression

and things like that.

Okay, you guys do you have ID by any chance?

- Yeah. - So.

- There you go, officer. - Thank you.

- They're just looking right now.

If he goes back to the car, they're serious.

- Okay.

- Yep, he's getting in the car.

- Okay.

- Yeah, they're calling it in.

- So they're calling it into the CIA?

- Yeah, to the CIA, they're CIA Police.

- They're CIA Police? - Uh-huh.

- Okay, they came out of the gate?

- Yes.

Here he comes.

- Okay guys, here you go. - Thank you.

- So yeah we're just stopping by,

'cause you know it's dangerous to stop

on the side of the road like this.

- Okay.

- People were worried about you guys.

And just so you know,

if you stop by some other government buildings like this,

you may get cited for trespassing.

You're not technically trespassing here

but it could be an issue here.

- Yeah, we tried to stay as far away as we could.

- Yeah. - Okay, well thank you guys.

- Thank you, have a good day.

- Yeah, bye.

- Charged with trespassing. - Okay, what does that mean?

- Illegal entry on government property.

- Yeah but was that a warning? - We're not on

government property, yeah, that was a warning.

Stay away, don't do this again.

- Obviously we sent the official request to the to the CIA,

but it was just turned down flat.

- Things have really changed.

- Why did it change?

- Barack Obama changed it.

It was Obama who decided to use the Espionage Act

to plug leaks, leaks to the media.

Only three times in American history

before Obama became president

was the Espionage Act used to prosecute Americans

who had spoken to the press.

Under Obama, eight people were charged with espionage.

I was one of those eight.

- What was your job at the CIA?

- I was a counter-terrorism operations officer at the CIA

and after the September 11th attacks,

I was the Chief of CIA Counter-Terrorism Operations

in Pakistan.

And one of my supervisors asked me

if I wanted to be trained in the torture techniques.

- Was that what they actually said?

- No.

He said enhanced interrogation techniques.

And I said I had never heard that term before.

So I said, "What's that?"

And he said, "We're gonna start

"to get rough with these guys."

He was very excited like that.

We killed people with that technique.

And nobody was authorised

to murder people during interrogations.

So I said,

"No, no, this, this sounds like a torture programme."

I said, "I have a moral, ethical problem with this,

"I'm not interested."

Espionage, it's the gravest crime

with which an American can be charged.

And it's frequently a death penalty charge,

death penalty for talking to the press.

This is the final entrance to the CIA.

It's this exit right here.

So the CIA is right here through these trees.

- Yeah.

- But you can't see it.

That's probably the best view.

You can see it in the winter just barely through the trees

when the leaves are down

but any other time of the year it's impossible.

Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

- Stop the violence, stop the hate.

Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Stop the violence, stop the hate.

- Looks like he's thinking.

- I think he did a lot of thinking.

I think so too.

- In all the different countries

I've been to, to Iran, to China, to Germany,

we spent quite some time with the Department of Justice.

They've all let us in.

They've all been eager to explain

what they're doing, what they're,

to give us their arguments.

And as such have a sense of transparency

about what's going on, how are decisions made,

how are policy formed,

and how this is put out into action?

But in the U.S., you know,

we requested interviews,

we've been trying for a long time, months,

just to get someone inside the EPA to talk to us.

And they won't.

I guess we...yeah.

- So if they see you and the cameras, they will stay away.

- Okay, yeah.

- Or they may wave from a distance.

- Yeah.

- Or if they don't I'll might...

- Yeah.

- Particularly with the cameras

that would be difficult for them.

- Sure.

It's quite, yeah, chilling in lack of another word,

to hear that people are so scared to talk.

Scientists, people.

Is that the president? - Yes.

Morning, gentlemen?

All right?

- All right.

Gentlemen.

Put your camera down, sir,

- You've got to put the camera down.

- Okay.

- All the way down. - Okay.

- Good, put your car in park. - It is.

Go to the back window

and open up the trunk for me.

- Thank you, sir.

You have a good day.

- I read this Guardian report a couple of years back,

it showed the emails that one of the,

I guess the transition heads of the EPA

was sending to everyone basically saying that

climate change is a word that we don't use anymore?

- It's been taken off our website.

- It should be replaced with, what, extreme weather?

- Yeah, I mean, I think it's part of the bigger narrative.

I mean, for me, it was, you're now telling sciences,

we don't wanna hear what you say.

- In case we have forgotten because we keep hearing

that 2014 has been the warmest year on record,

I asked the chair you know what this is?

It's a snowball.

And that just from outside here,

so it's very, very cold out.

Very unseasonal.

- I knew there was a good story to be told here

in the Land of the Free.

The chilling effect on free speech

and political control over what state employees can say.

But you see, their administration

has developed this intelligent way to keep folks

from peeking into their little businesses.

They exhaust journalists

and Norwegian documentary filmmakers,

refusing them access, handing out tweets

and other fun distractions,

until the real information is old news.

I could either turn apathetic

or try to get hold of a whistleblower.

Good morning?

We were a bit early.

- Okay. - How are you?

- Good, how are you? - Hey, I'm Havard.

Nice to meet you.

How many years did you work here?

- Seven years, I was here. - Seven years?

- Yeah, yeah.

So, you know and it was,

it was a great seven years.

It exceeded all my expectations.

I loved working in federal service.

- Yeah.

- Because just the opportunity to impact policy directly,

it was really great. - Yeah.

- So we've got to go in this one over here.

Yeah.

Is the craft-store open today?

- The craft-store is open.

Sir, can you not record me, please?

Thank you. - Right.

We just wanted to have some internal shots

of the building.

- You need to have permission.

It's not allowed to be filming in the building right now.

- Okay, it's not allowed? - Yes, that's how it is.

- Thank you, good day

- What happened to you?

- Well, so, you know, one night in June,

so six months into the new administration.

- Yeah. - I get an email,

a friend actually called

and said you might wanna check your email

'cause a few people've have been reassigned.

I got an email saying,

you have been reassigned,

you're now gonna work in the office that collects

royalty checks from the oil and gas and mining companies.

And I felt like I couldn't speak out anymore

about climate change.

I wouldn't be able to, you know,

attend events and engage in my field.

So I'd already lost the job that I came to do.

So in order to keep my voice I quit a few months later.

- Yeah, would you call what you experienced

and what your colleagues have experienced

what's going on inside the Department of Interior,

would you call that censorship?

- Well, I do.

I have a very loose definition of censorship these days

because a lot of what's happening

is just creating the atmosphere of censor,

the climate of censorship.

- Right.

- So that no one feels like

they can need they can either express

nor work on things that may attract attention,

undue and unwanted attention to their work.

So the self-censorship

and this climate of censorship in the building

and in the offices, is rife.

- What's at stake then for the American people

when we start making policies on beliefs?

- Yeah, you know, I mean, that's, at this point,

it's health and safety,

it's the protection of our natural resources

that are such a big part of the American character.

- Yeah.

- You know, the public lands, species, wildlife,

all the things that we have laws in place to protect.

If the implementation of those laws

starts to get politicised in these ways,

we're not doing, we're not following through.

Those laws are promised to the American people.

We'll protect you from this,

we will provide as needed to protect these lands

that we all share and care about,

and those promises are being broken now.

That's just a nice picture

You know, this country has allowed,

rather than publicly-funded elections.

They're almost entirely privately-funded

and you have these Super-PAC's

we call them Political Action Committees.

You don't even have to disclose

who's putting money in these things.

And, so you've got a you know,

a company can't resist the opportunity

to pour money into the re-election of a candidate

who has been absolutely doing as they asked.

So you could run, once you're in Congress

and if you want to say whatever they want you to say.

They will make sure you get re-elected.

I mean, it's come to that at this point in this country.

So, it is very much a money-driven endeavour.

Call it what you will, right, censorship or suppression,

but keeping information from people

whose lives are threatened,

is, I believe, criminal and we need to act on that.

The establishment protected itself.

- So, can state censorship be good?

I haven't seen anything else

that looks authoritative enough

to solve hate speech and fake news.

The question is,

what happens after they start calling the shots?

I don't want to ask the state to make the shit disappear

if that's the slippery slope,

ending with a bloody Thought Police.

So is it up to me and you, then,

to do the shit-shoveling ourselves?

Fight hatred every single day

on the internet in the alleys, wherever the madness goes.

And with what exactly?

Dialogue?

Fine arguments?

Love?

Feels bloody overwhelming, doesn't it?

Naive.

Does it even make sense

to cling on to the liberal democratic play rules?

Those the Nazis and other fanatics

not only gave a flying fuck about,

but actually want to destroy.

So, what then?

Perhaps a first step is to accept

that dealing with freedom of speech

is a constantly evolving process,

just like democracy.

Maybe there is no quick fix.

Throw out the scum! Throw out the scum!