Censorship of LGBT issues

On 31 December 2015, the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) of the People's Republic of China announced a new rule that banned any television show and film depicting "unnormal sexual relationships", including homosexuality.[3][4] As a result of this new rule, many popular web television series at the time like Addicted and Go Princess Go were immediately pulled from broadcasting. Online streaming services including LETV and Tencent Video followed the new rule by deleting or censoring web series with LGBT characters.[5]

In 2017, an LGBT conference was scheduled to be held in Xi'an. Western reports, using the organisers blog as their source, claimed the police had detained the organisers and threatened them.[6][7][8]

In March 2018, Oscar-winning drama "Call Me By Your Name" has been pulled from the Beijing International Film Festival's lineup.[9] It was widely speculated that the organizer of this festival was under political pressure to not show the film.

On April 14, 2018, Sina Weibo, the equivalent of Twitter in China, announced a crackdown on LGBT content, as pursuant to the China Internet Security Law and other government regulations.[10]

In May 2018, the European Broadcasting Union blocked Mango TV, one of China's most watched channels, from airing the final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2018 after it edited out Irish singer Ryan O'Shaughnessy's performance, which depicted two male dancers, and blacked out rainbow flags during Switzerland's performance.[11]

Days before the International Day Against Homophobia in 2018, two women wearing rainbow badges were attacked and beaten by security guards in Beijing. The security company dismissed the three guards involved shortly thereafter.[12]

Mr. Gay China, a beauty pageant, was held in 2016 without incident.[13] In 2018, the event host passively cancelled their engagement by not responding to any communications. Mr Gay World 2019 announced the cancellation of the Hong Kong event after communication began to deteriorate in early August. No official censorship notice was issued but some articles blamed the Chinese Government for the cancellation.[14] That same year, a woman who wrote a gay-themed novel was sentenced to 10 years and 6 months in prison for "breaking obscenity laws".[15]

In Russia, the Law for the Purpose of Protecting Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family Values was unanimously approved by the State Duma on 11 June 2013 (with just one MP abstaining—Ilya Ponomarev),[16] and was signed into law by President Vladimir Putin on 30 June 2013.[17]

The Russian government's stated purpose for the law is to protect children from being exposed to homosexuality—content presenting homosexuality as being a norm in society—under the argument that it contradicts traditional family values. The statute amended the country's child protection law and the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, to make the distribution of "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships" among minors, an offence punishable by fines. This definition includes materials that "raises interest in" such relationships; cause minors to "form non-traditional sexual predispositions"; or "[present] distorted ideas about the equal social value of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships." Businesses and organisations can also be forced to temporarily cease operations if convicted under the law, and foreigners may be arrested and detained for up to 15 days then deported, or fined up to 5,000 rubles and deported.

The Kremlin's backing of the law appealed to the Russian nationalist far-right, but gained broad support among the Russian people and the Russian Orthodox Church, as 50% of Russians are Russian-Orthodox. The law was condemned by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe (of which Russia is a member), by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and by human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The statute was criticised for its broad and ambiguous wording (including the broadly worded "raises interest in" and "among minors"), which critics described as an effective ban on publicly promoting the rights and culture of the LGBT community. The law was also condemned for leading to an increase in, and justification of, homophobic violence,[18] while the implications of the law in relation to the then-upcoming Winter Olympics being hosted by Sochi were also cause for concern, as the Olympic Charter contains language explicitly barring various forms of discrimination.

Several U.S. states have "no promo homo laws", which prohibit or limit the mention or discussion of homosexuality and transgender identity in public schools. In theory, these laws mainly apply to sex education courses, but they can also be applied to other parts of the school curriculum as well as to extracurricular activities and groups such as gay-straight alliances.[19]

These explicit anti-LGBT curriculum laws can be found in 6 US states namely Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas.[20]

They are similar to the now-repealed section 28 of the British Local Government Act 1988, which prohibited local authorities from "intentionally promoting homosexuality, publishing material with the intention of promoting homosexuality, or promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship."[21]

States that have repealed their "no homo promo" laws include Arizona (since 1 July 2019),[22][23] North Carolina (since 2006)[24] and Utah (since 1 July 2017).[25]

In December 1989 in the state of Western Australia, the Parliament of Western Australia passed the Law Reform (Decriminalisation of Sodomy) Act 1989 which decriminalised private gay sex while making it a crime for a person to "...promote or encourage homosexual behaviour as part of the teaching in any primary or secondary educational institutions..." or make public policy with respect to the undefined promotion of homosexual behaviour.[26][27] It was repealed in 2002 via the Acts Amendment (Gay and Lesbian Law Reform) Act 2002, which also repealed the laws with respect to promotion of homosexual behaviour in public policy and in educational institutions.[28]

"Article 200" (Articolul 200 in Romanian) was a section of the Penal Code of Romania that criminalised homosexual relationships. It was introduced in 1968, under the communist regime, during the rule of Nicolae Ceauşescu, and remained in force until it was repealed by the Năstase government on 22 June 2001. Under pressure from the Council of Europe, it had been amended on 14 November 1996, when homosexual sex in private between two consenting adults was decriminalised. However, the amended Article 200 continued to criminalise same-sex relationships if they were displayed publicly or caused a "public scandal". It also continued to ban the promotion of homosexual activities, as well as the formation of gay-centred organisations (including LGBT rights organisations).

In 2001, South Korea's Ministry of Information and Communication's Information and Communications Ethics Committee began censoring online LGBT content, but it stopped the practice in 2003.[29]

"Section 28" or "Clause 28"[note 2] of the Local Government Act 1988 caused the addition of "Section 2A" to the Local Government Act 1986,[30] which affected England, Wales and Scotland. The amendment was enacted on 24 May 1988, and stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".[31] It was repealed on 21 June 2000 in Scotland by the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by the new Scottish Parliament, and on 18 November 2003 in the rest of the United Kingdom by section 122 of the Local Government Act 2003.[32] The law's existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed owing to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the act.[33]