Censorship in Memphis: The Real Effects of Withholding Information – YR Media

Nashville In a world of rampant censorship, we must ask ourselves: How far do we have to go to protect our children? And after what point is overly sheltering hurting our kids?

This is a question being asked in Memphis, Tennessee at this very moment. Following the reverberating pain of the shooting of George Floyd, Pulitzer Prize-winning authors Robert Samuels and Toluse Olorunnipa wrote the book, His Name is George Floyd. It discusses Floyds life and legacy and is essential reading for anti-racists. When Samuels and Olorunnipa arrived at the Whitehaven High School in Memphis last October to speak on their book, they were told to not share any excerpts or delve too deeply into the topic. Students were also not given a copy.

This was a condition required by a Tennessean law, which requires school books to be age-appropriate (which is, of course, a completely subjective and arbitrary requirement, but so is censorship). It is no coincidence that books called out for being not age-appropriate are ones discussing racism. Tennessee, which was one of the first states to restrict classroom conversations on racism, is clearly intent on asserting itself as a state lacking free speech.

Another interesting development is that Whitehaven is a majority Black school, with even the youngest students certainly old enough to fully remember the massive waves of protests in 2020. Why is the state and Memphis-Shelby County so intent on covering up issues of racism and claiming that racism is age-inappropriate for students who have grown up in a system built on racist ideals? The answer lies within the question itself. The state seems to believe that a lack of school education will produce students who do not know racism. This is untrue in two ways.

A system without civics education produces students who grow to be either ill-informed (sometimes, in Tennessee, in damaging ways) or are angry at the politicians. In the age of widespread information on the internet, the number of young people who dont know whats going on is much lower than it used to be. Its no easy feat to be an uninformed, socially active teen these days, especially in a place like Memphis. Unfortunately, disinformation is rampant and is the real enemy of the truth in communities with censorship.

When we think about censorship in the age of the internet, we sometimes believe that people will know nothing without these books and resources. But when we dont provide truthful resources and difficult conversations in the classroom, we fundamentally fail our children. We make it obscenely difficult for them to be able to pick out truth from lies, and accurate graphics from misleading statistics. And, though we have yet to see the consequences truly, we know that when children are incapable of picking out right from wrong on the internet, they go on to propagate misinformation unknowingly. According to TIME Magazine, fewer than 45% of teens say they can tell the difference between real and fake news. Still, a survey done by Common Sense Media said that a whopping 54% of teens get their news from social platforms like Instagram or TikTok.

By continuing the fight for censorship, we have doomed our children to an uphill battle for information.

The next time we ask ourselves how far is too far? We must carefully consider the effects of censorship on young people. These effects lie in a lack of media literacy, one of the cruelest things we can do to our children in the 21st century.

Emmie Wolf-Dubin (she/her) is a high school student in Nashville who covers anything from entertainment to politics. Follow her on Instagram: @redheadwd07.

Edited by Nykeya Woods.

Follow this link:

Censorship in Memphis: The Real Effects of Withholding Information - YR Media

Censorship and safety: How the Israel Hamas war is affecting schools – Euronews

Euronews was told that pro-Palestinian views were being suppressed inside schools, with some Jewish pupils in a "dark zone of depression".

Amy* is a teacher at a school in London.

Like many other schools in Britain, a majority of the pupils come from Muslim or Arab backgrounds.

Sympathies for Palestine run high in her classroom, amid the devastating war between Israel and Hamas.

Since the violence erupted on 7 October, younger students have often drawn the Palestinian flag on their hands, doodled it on their books or displayed Palestinian flag pins on their uniform in what she called child-like expressions of solidarity.

Theyre really deeply upset and worried about Palestine, she told Euronews.

Initially, Amy said the school let the pupils express their support for those in Gaza and the West Bank.

But it has since begun cracking down on these acts under the guise of violations against uniform policy, threatening to punish the kids if they refuse. Staff have also been told not to wear the Palestine pin.

There is a double standard, she claimed, pointing out that students were encouraged to support Ukraine when Russia invaded in February 2022 and that staff are still allowed to display symbols and signs of other political causes, like LGBT+ rights or the Black Lives Matter movement.

It's presented as impartially, but in reality is deeply ideological.

Under government rules, schools in the UK are legally bound to prohibit the promotion of partisan political views and should take steps to ensure the balanced presentation of opposing views on political issues when they are brought to the attention of pupils.

In advice issued to schools in October, Education Secretary Gillian Keegan wrote: "We know that young people may have a strong personal interest in these issues, which could lead to political activity.

"Schools and colleges should ensure that any political expression is conducted sensitively, meaning that it is not disruptive and does not create an atmosphere of intimidation or fear for their peers and staff."

Alongside alienating" pupils from the teachers, who often feel insulted when they are told to wash the flag off their hands, Amy claimed impartiality rules were "being used to silence the Palestinian crisis and prevent students from having an opinion about a genocide happening in Gaza.

Hamas deadly assault on southern Israel sparked the current conflict, killing 1,400 people and taking hundreds hostage.

While 2022 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians, according to the UN, 2023 was already set to overtake that record even before Israel began relentlessly bombing Gaza.

Israeli retaliation has killed at least 11,500 people so far, mostly women and children, according to Gaza's Hamas-controlled health ministry.

Teacher Amy placed the school's policy towards the Israel-Hamas war against a broader depoliticisation of teachers and a shift towards focusing on behaviour, rather than provoking critical thinking.

We should be having different conservations about topics related to the conflict, like how criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic, the existence of Jewish peace activists in Israel and understanding war crimes. Theres not much space for the kids to think and be curious," she told Euronews.

Amy added that she felt "nervous about how much more repression the school community may face as the situation [in Israel and Gaza] develops."

Still, the teacher said many students were pushing back against the school's policies which were becoming a point of rebellion.

Things could get a bit lively. Kids are getting told off about things they weren't getting told off about before. They feel it's an injustice."

The bloodshed has sparked a number of issues for Britain's Jewish schools and pupils, too.

David Meyer, CEO of the Partnership for Jewish Schools, told Euronews that a significant challenge was nervousness and discomfort amongst Jewish pupils, especially those in non-Jewish schools.

"The enormity of the attack that took place in Israel, the shock of what happened there, immediately made anybody who's Jewish around the world feel insecure," he said. "That has then been coupled with a tsunami of antisemitism."

Hate crimes against Jewish people in London have risen by 1,350%, the Metropolitan police said in October. Islamophobic offences in the UK capital increased by 140%.

Both Jewish and Muslim communities have previously complained of feeling unprotected by the authorities.

Student wellbeing was also an issue said Meyer, with children exposed to absolutely horrendous footage of the Hamas "terrorist attack".

We are very worried about the impact on childrens mental health. Some are constantly thinking about the hostages, worrying about them. We are trying to help the children understand how to compartmentalise things in their lives so that they are not constantly in this dark zone of depression."

Some 240 people were taken hostage by Hamas and brought to Gaza when it attacked southern Israel in early October, according to Israeli authorities. A few have been freed, while the Palestinian militant group claims several others have been killed in Israeli airstrikes.The fate of the rest is unknown.

Amid a surge of what he called ignorance and misinformation around the conflict, Meyer said it was vital to educate students, especially on the dangers of social media.

For him, it was "vital to ensure children are given a proper informed and balanced education so that they understand actually what is going on."

He said the "history of Israel" and the "different narratives" and "perspectives" within that were "very, very complex".

"Being able to educate children around this and for them to understand the difference between having open and honest conversations, disagreements and a disparity of views, and a recognition of that is healthy.

One obstacle he cited is that schools in England are blocking lessons on the Middle East, such as the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In November, the Observer newspaperreported that fewer than 2% of GCSE history students in England studied a module on the Middle East in 2020, and experts estimate that only 27 schools in England currently teach it.

It claimed schools were concerned about "bad publicity" or afraid of being accused of bias.

"It's absolutely true that the students have [to be] taught different narratives to really try and interrogate those to find sensible solutions," Meyer added.

*The teacher's name has been changed as she was not authorised to talk directly to the media and was concerned about repercussions from her employer.

Read the rest here:

Censorship and safety: How the Israel Hamas war is affecting schools - Euronews

LeVar Burton Slams Book Censorship, Moms For Liberty At The National Book Awards: Writers And Others Who Champion Books Are Under Attack – Yahoo News

LeVar Burtoncontinues to speak out againstbook censorship. On Wednesday, Burton delivered his opening remarks at the 74th National Book Awards & Benefit Dinner in New York City. Burton specifically called out Moms for Liberty, the conservative organization thats attempting to censor books in schools.

Before we get going, are there any Moms for Liberty in the house? Moms for Liberty? No? Good. Then hands will not need to be thrown tonight, Burton told the audience,Peoplereported.

Moms for Liberty has been leading an effort to block schools from providing books about sexuality and gender in their libraries, according toPeople. The organization is also aiming to ban LGBTQ+ and race discussions from being included in school curriculums.

Burton hosted the event, recognizing outstanding people and works in the literature industry. Drew Barrymore was initially chosen as host of this years event. However, the actress was replaced when she faced public backlash after deciding to keep her talk show going during the SAG-AFTRA strike.

Burton has received numerous accolades for his contribution to literature. Among his many honors, the formerReading Rainbowhost was named the 2023 honorary chair of Banned Books Week. As he spoke out against the effort to ban certain books from schools, Burton said freedom feels especially fraught in this global political moment.

On the home front, we are fighting for control of truth and how we interpret truth in this country, Burton said. Books are being banned, words are being silenced, and writers and others who champion books are under attack.

Burton also paid tribute to his mother, an English teacher. The beloved TV personality said his mother taught him that if you can read in at least one language, you are, by her definition, free.

Giving credit to his sister Letitia as well, Burton said she was the one who taught him how to read. The Roots actor urged the audience to remember that books are under attack because theyre so powerful.

Stories are the tool that enable us to better understand ourselves and, yes, our history, he said. To live over the course of a few pages in the experiences of another and to create a world where we can all be free.

The 2023 National Book Awards ceremony also featured Oprah Winfrey, who appeared as a special guest and spoke out to support literacy. The event included virtual appearances from Julie Andrews, Matthew McConaughey, Samin Nosrat, Trevor Noah and Dua Lipa. The celebrities introduced the various literature categories that were recognized on the evening.

Read the original post:

LeVar Burton Slams Book Censorship, Moms For Liberty At The National Book Awards: Writers And Others Who Champion Books Are Under Attack - Yahoo News

Rightwing Philadelphia censorship fan who is also a registered sex … – Universal Hub

A man who now does "faith" outreach for the homophobic, book-banning Moms for Liberty in Philadelphia was once a familiar sight in Copley Square, where he'd try to convince passersby that Barack Obama was as evil as Hitler and Dick Cheney.

Phillip Fisher Jr. made the news this week when the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that he is not just an organizer for a group that wants to ban books from school shelves, he's also a registered sex offender - following his 2012 conviction involving a 14-year-old in Chicago.

Sonya Dunne recalls:

Oh my God, when Obama was in office this nut was all over Boston with Lyndon LaRouche. Pretty much a constant fixture outside CVS in Copley and the Charles River Plaza.

Fisher didn't stay long into the Obama administration doing street outreach in Boston for the LaRouche movement, though: In 2009, he was photographed in Chicago, outside a meeting about health care called by US Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., holding a poster with a large photo of Obama with a Hitler mustache drawn in.

After seeing that photo, Dunne added:

Yep thats him. He was always accompanied by that poster of Obama as Hitler.

At some point, though, Fisher and the LaRouchies grew disenchanted with each other.

In fact, he claims the LaRouchies concocted "a railroad job" that got him to plead guilty to aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a minor between the ages of 13 and 17 - in exchange for which 11 other charges were dropped - while he was trying to "break free" of the group, the Inquirer reports.

Read the original post:

Rightwing Philadelphia censorship fan who is also a registered sex ... - Universal Hub

Gawenda’s call for censorship of activists is alarming, incoherent … – Crikey

In Michael Gawendas attack last week on activist journalists and media employees for signing an open letter expressing solidarity with Palestine, its hard to know what offends him more the content of the letter, or the fact that the signatories refer to themselves as media workers rather than journalists. In the end, however, the much-awarded journalist, editor and founding director of the Centre for Advanced Journalism suggests theyre social-justice warriors, anti-racism warriors, anti-colonialist warriors rather than journalists. He wants them banned by their outlets from covering Middle Eastern issues, and he wants media outlets to ban staff from signing letters and petitions, or from being promoters of any cause.

Gawenda, however, has only been moved to this position by an open letter critical of Israel he also cites a similar 2021 open letter critical of coverage of Israel and Palestine, signed by journalists, including myself and otherCrikey staff members.

No other open letters seem to have drawn any comment from him. Not the open letter signed by some of Australias most prominent journalists a couple of months ago condemning the governments treatment of whistleblowers. Nor the one two years ago calling for the Chinese regime to release Australian journalist Cheng Lei. Nor one in 2019 in the wake of police raids on Annika Smethurst and the ABC. Nor one signed by an array of journalists against the Turnbull governments consideration of privatising the ASIC company database. Nor, for that matter, one that I and Lizzie OShea coordinated about Julian Assange in 2011, which was signed by several prominent broadcasters and journalists.

Are some open letters by journalists OK, then? Are open letters about the conduct of journalism itself OK? Or is any promotion of any cause, to use Gawendas words, unacceptable? What about the section of the offending MEAA Members for Palestine letter that deplores the killing of dozens of journalists in IDF attacks in Gaza? Is that bit OK, but the rest not?

For Gawenda, being a journalist implies an adherence to certain values and ethical principles. Like fairness, like factual accuracy, like making sure you are not and could not be seen to be pushing an agenda, being an activist for a cause. In contrast, he derides the 2021 open letter, which called for the media to no-longer prioritise the same discredited spokespeople and tired narratives and Gawendas phrasing now instead make space for the Palestinians who are the victims in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I assume that included making space for Hamas?

Its a strange, snide comment from the man The Age asked to review its Indigenous coverage over the decades and who rightly concluded: the absence of Indigenous voices skewed the telling of the stories about the lives of Aboriginal people, of what happened to them and their communities. That sounds a lot like something youd read in an open letter, from an activist. Should we make space for Indigenous voices, but not for Palestinian voices?

And what about the fact that Australian commercial media has almost completely ignored the dramatic escalation in Israeli colonists attacks on West Bank Palestinians this year, and especially since October 7? On Saturday reflecting the reality that Israeli terrorism intended to drive Palestinians out of their homeland has emerged as a major point of difference between the Biden administration and Israel President Biden said the US would impose sanctions on settlers involved in violence. Yet anyone reading the publications Gawenda used to write for and edit would be virtually clueless that there was even any increase in violence in the West Bank, let alone the US reaction.

Once you start touting fairness and accuracy as what separates you from the social-justice warriors, anti-racism warriors, anti-colonialist warriors, youre on dangerous ground. Is News Corp fair and accurate? Do the people who write for News Corp qualify as journalists when they follow the editorial line to propagandise against Labor, pursue vendettas against progressives, and generally punch downward? Thats not pushing an agenda or promoting a cause?

Or what about the publication Gawenda chose for his op-ed, theFinancial Review? That outlet is a vehicle for unashamed attacks on Australian workers and trade unions, and a propaganda outlet for Australian business to peddle the same snake-oil economic reform its been pushing for generations. Still, better a shill for big business than social-justice warriors, it seems.

The mainstream medias biases are never stated in an open letter or declared at the bottom of an article. They masquerade as fair and accurate, misleading their readers and audiences. At least those who put their name to an open letter have indicated, permanently, what their views are to audiences.

The issue that Gawenda doesnt grapple with is that, as surely he knows, journalism is about power, both in the way it is performed and in what it covers. Journalists in Australia are likely to work for either a public broadcaster or a handful of large media companies in our highly concentrated media market. Those companies wield significant power and are unafraid to use it in their own interests, including via their journalism. Journalism itself is a position of relative power journalists have access, they have influence, and their voices are amplified by the media.

What journalism covers is, or should be, all about power. If it is anything beyond flat reportage, it must interrogate power, it must seek to expose it, and it must be relentlessly sceptical of the claims of those with power. Journalistsmustbe activists in holding power to account, otherwise they are simply props for the status quo, in constant danger of misleading their audiences by failing to expose the agendas of those in power.

Its thus curious that Gawenda rails at anti-racism warriors, anti-colonialist warriors, and what he terms the crude jargon of anti-colonialism (why didnt you just say woke, Michael?). Is the fair and accurate stance of the journalist to be neutral about racism and colonialism? What about misogyny or homophobia? Climate denialism? Does the true journalist purport to float above them all with a position of perfect neutrality?

Thats impossible, of course. Individuals, the companies they work for and the institutions within which they operate are shaped by social, cultural and political systems. There were no more neutral journalists in some golden age of pre-internet 20th-century media than there are now. The Australian media and its journalist class were infested with misogyny, racism and homophobia, yet its members would have insisted they were adherents of a code of ethics and commitment to fairness.

Its easy to mock the often risible descent into identity politics and self-obsession that mark some progressive journalism now. But in a country like Australia of all places how can journalists not seriously scrutinise power in the context of racism and colonialism? Just months after the defeat of the Voice to Parliament referendum, are we to not question the extent and nature of racism and the legacy of colonialism? Or is that promoting a cause?

For one of Australias most esteemed journalists and editors, as well as a former leader of a high-profile journalism institution, Michael Gawenda appears curiously unreflective about his profession and craft. The result is a piece equal parts get off my lawn and demand for censorship, along with the advocacy of a style of journalism more likely to prop up power than challenge it.

See the rest here:

Gawenda's call for censorship of activists is alarming, incoherent ... - Crikey

Where Are The Book Sanctuaries?: Book Censorship News … – Book Riot

Kelly is a former librarian and a long-time blogger at STACKED. She's the editor/author of (DON'T) CALL ME CRAZY: 33 VOICES START THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH and the editor/author of HERE WE ARE: FEMINISM FOR THE REAL WORLD. Her next book, BODY TALK, will publish in Fall 2020. Follow her on Instagram @heykellyjensen.

View All posts by Kelly Jensen

Kelly is a former librarian and a long-time blogger at STACKED. She's the editor/author of (DON'T) CALL ME CRAZY: 33 VOICES START THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH and the editor/author of HERE WE ARE: FEMINISM FOR THE REAL WORLD. Her next book, BODY TALK, will publish in Fall 2020. Follow her on Instagram @heykellyjensen.

View All posts by Kelly Jensen

Kelly is a former librarian and a long-time blogger at STACKED. She's the editor/author of (DON'T) CALL ME CRAZY: 33 VOICES START THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH and the editor/author of HERE WE ARE: FEMINISM FOR THE REAL WORLD. Her next book, BODY TALK, will publish in Fall 2020. Follow her on Instagram @heykellyjensen.

View All posts by Kelly Jensen

Kelly is a former librarian and a long-time blogger at STACKED. She's the editor/author of (DON'T) CALL ME CRAZY: 33 VOICES START THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH and the editor/author of HERE WE ARE: FEMINISM FOR THE REAL WORLD. Her next book, BODY TALK, will publish in Fall 2020. Follow her on Instagram @heykellyjensen.

View All posts by Kelly Jensen

Kelly is a former librarian and a long-time blogger at STACKED. She's the editor/author of (DON'T) CALL ME CRAZY: 33 VOICES START THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH and the editor/author of HERE WE ARE: FEMINISM FOR THE REAL WORLD. Her next book, BODY TALK, will publish in Fall 2020. Follow her on Instagram @heykellyjensen.

View All posts by Kelly Jensen

Kelly is a former librarian and a long-time blogger at STACKED. She's the editor/author of (DON'T) CALL ME CRAZY: 33 VOICES START THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH and the editor/author of HERE WE ARE: FEMINISM FOR THE REAL WORLD. Her next book, BODY TALK, will publish in Fall 2020. Follow her on Instagram @heykellyjensen.

View All posts by Kelly Jensen

Last October, I highlighted the movement happening in several communities and public libraries to declare themselves book sanctuaries. Book sanctuaries are institutions committed to upholding the First Amendment Rights of all citizens, wherein book bans and challenges must follow a specific procedure to be considered. They are places where books and the right to read them remain at the forefront of what an institution does, and well-funded, well-connected political groups do not get to wield their power in changing what is available.

The movement for book sanctuaries has only continued to grow since. States like Connecticut have developed grants for community libraries wishing to become such designees, and several libraries in the region have hopped on board.

Thanks to the work of Christina Perucci, a Reading Specialist and librarian who just completed her MLIS at San Jose State University, there is now a way to know what libraries or communities have worked toward the status of book sanctuary. Shes developed a database of all the book sanctuaries across the United States and Canada, which you can access here. It turns out that it is not only libraries or towns that are declaring their communities free from book bans and censorship. So, too, are other organizations and institutions, including a nonprofit, an acupuncture studio, and a cafe, among others.

As a librarian and a book nerd from way back, I am terrified at the increasing success of book banners and the anemic response from ALA. The idea that the way to improve our schools or our society is by limiting access to information is so appalling to me, explains Perucci, who began tracking book sanctuaries this summer. I appreciate the bravery of libraries and librarians who are formally declaring themselves book sanctuaries, especially those who are coming up with creative workarounds, like Brooklyn Public Library and the Digital Public Library of America, for those who may not have physical access to a sanctuary.

While book sanctuaries will not stop book bans only policy changes, adherence to current policy, and legislation will do that on any significant scale at this point they are a reminder of how vital access to information and to stories is for so many.

Note: this weeks news does not include stories that happened Wednesday evening or Thursday due to some personal time out of the office this week. Those will be included next week.

Read this article:

Where Are The Book Sanctuaries?: Book Censorship News ... - Book Riot

Fortnite players baffled by censorship of Eminem songs in-game – Dexerto

Brianna Reeves

Published: 2023-11-22T20:52:18 Updated: 2023-11-22T20:52:28

Fortnite players call out censorship of Eminem songs on the in-game radio, specifically for butchering the rappers lyrics.

Eminem will officially make his Fortnite debut on Wednesday, November 29, with a skin that sports three of the hip-hop artists iconic looks.

The rappers also set to head up Fortnite Big Bang, a live event marking the end of Season OG on Tuesday, December 2. In celebrating the upcoming crossover, it seems Epic has reinstated some Eminem tracks to the in-game Icon Radio catalog.

Article continues after ad

To the chagrin of players, though, Ems bars are heavily censored, some to a hilarious degree.

Article continues after ad

Fortnite-centric Twitter/X account iFireMonkey pointed out that Ems return to the in-game radio involves lots of censorship. The users shared a short clip wherein Eminems Godzilla song featuring Juice WRLD plays in the background.

Of course, some of the rappers more colorful language had to be nixed. Thus, a lyric like Motherf*****n finger comes out as finger, finger.

Fewer Ads|Dark Mode|Deals in Gaming, TV and Movies, and Tech

Article continues after ad

But the real problem arises with the prostate exam lyric that follows the aforementioned line. Apparently, the word prostate isnt allowed on Fortnite radio stations. So this bit of Godzilla in Fortnite sounds like, finger, finger exam (exam).

Article continues after ad

Suffice it to say, Fortnite players are getting a kick out of Fortnites need to censor Eminem songs. Yet, many mention in response to the above post that itd be nice if Epic gave players an option.

Article continues after ad

They gotta make censorship optional, reads one comment. NAH THEY BUTCHERED THE SONG (I understand its necessary for lil Timmy but please make censoring optional), someone else wrote.

Another person argued that only accounts for underage users should be restricted in this manner. Just like the cosmetics, music censoring should only be for underage accounts.

While the latter suggestion sounds promising, things could get tricky with respect to previously established game rating parameters. Fortnite players looking to get their Slim Shady fix in-game may want to look up the actual tracks on their own time.

Article continues after ad

Article continues after ad

Follow this link:

Fortnite players baffled by censorship of Eminem songs in-game - Dexerto

Qatar fails to deliver on World Cup promises – Index on Censorship

Its an opportunity to maybe shine a light on the issues and use our platforms to make change for the better.

These were the words of England midfielder Jordan Henderson during a press conference in the months preceding the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. His comments were in response to questions about the host nations appalling human rights record, particularly in regard to LGBTQ+ people, women and labour migrants, and whether teams should be boycotting the competition in protest.

England manager Gareth Southgate echoed Hendersons suggestion. There would be more change if we go and these things are highlighted, he argued. Theres an opportunity to use our voices and our platform in a positive way.

This sentiment was commonly expressed in the build-up to the tournament, as teams justified their participation in what was widely regarded to be an ill-disguised sportswashing attempt. However, a year has gone by and such changes have yet to materialise, with those inside the state continuing to be denied basic rights and freedoms.

Qatari physician and activist Dr Nasser Mohamed tells Index on Censorship that for LGBTQ+ people inside the state the situation has not improved.

As we were approaching the lead up to the Qatar World Cup, I noticed that the coverage and the public message was so disconnected from the lived reality that I had, he revealed.

Mohamed publicly came out as gay in 2022, after his anonymous attempts to publicise the struggles of LGBTQ+ people in his home country received little traction, seeking asylum in the United States as a result. He described his initial reaction to Qatar being awarded the World Cup as one of anger and defeat. He accused the state of using the tournament to try and launder their international reputation, and attempting to gaslight the world into believing they arent abusers, despite taking everything from him.

As for the suggestions that the pressure of a global audience would force the state to improve their stance on LGBTQ+ rights, Nasser assured us that this has not been the case. In terms of things on the ground, I think they have not changed, if anything they are worse, he said. Arrests, torture, everything, its still happening.

The activist also condemned his home states use of celebrity endorsements to launder their image. You get people like David Beckham coming in and selling their influence to the authoritative regime, saying things like football has the power to change the world. Amazing! Do you think it will happen by your magical presence? he laughed. You cant just show up and magically infuse goodness into the world, there needs to be action.

Mohamed also criticised the role of the media when it came to reporting on such human rights violations, arguing that much of the coverage afforded to LGBTQ+ rights in the region framed the issue as a cultural argument between the Middle East and the West, which he said came at the detriment of actual LGBTQ+ people in the country.

You get all the thousands of spins on the same factual story. Muslim Dad beats his son or Homophobic Qatari is violently attacking his LGBT child. Then on the Arabic side, white Europeans and Americans are intruding to come and tell Middle Eastern parents how to raise their children, he explained.

Then people get really afraid because now they are worried about Islamophobia, racism, discrimination. In comparison, sometimes it feels like being in the closet and occasionally facing homophobia is a lesser evil.

The absence of change in Qatar is not down to a lack of effort on the part of persecuted groups. In the autumn 2022 issue of Index, when we looked at the free speech implications of hosting the tournament in Qatar, Qatari activist Abdullah Al-Malikioutlinedthe many ways the regime punishes and thereby silences human rights defenders. He wrote:

Tamim [bin Hamad Khalifa al-Thani]has planted fear and terror in the hearts and minds of the Qatari people. No one in our country can criticise the actions and words of the corrupt dictator, or those of his terrorist gang.

Mohamed spoke about his own recent experience. He suggested that external pressure has been placed on platforms and organisations to stifle any allegations of human rights violations in the state, a situation he is no stranger to. He described being ghosted by Meta, shadowbanned by X (formerly Twitter) and speaking to high-profile politicians at length only for those conversations to go nowhere.

Theres censorship definitely, he said. Its really hard because Qatars money is everywhere. Whenever my voice reached a certain level, I was dropped by the people I was talking to.

It seems that simply spreading the word is not helping to bring about changes in the region. I naively thought nothing was happening through lack of knowledge, Mohamed said, before pausing. Its not a lack of knowledge.

There are similar concerns over the continuing exploitation of migrant workers in Qatar. Despite promises from the state that conditions would improve following global outrage in the build-up to the World Cup,a report published last week by Amnesty Internationalstated that progress towards improving these rights has largely stalled since the tournament ended, while hundreds of thousands of workers who suffered abuses linked to the tournament have still not received justice.

Prior to the tournament, there was hope that the global pressure had successfully pushed Qatar into improving conditions for migrant labourers. Reforms were passed in 2021 in an attempt to reduce the power of sponsors over workers mobility and to raise the minimum wage, motions which were largely influenced by the criticisms levelled at the country following their successful World Cup bid. However, Amnesty Internationals Head of Economic Social Justice, Steve Cockburn, said on publication of the new report that Qatar had shown a continued failure to properly enforce or strengthen these pre-World Cup labour reforms, putting the legacy of the tournament in serious peril.

He said in a statement: From illegal recruitment fees to unpaid wages, hundreds of thousands of migrant workers lost their money, health and even their lives while FIFA and Qatar tried to deflect and deny responsibility. Today, a year on from the tournament too little has been done to right all these wrongs, but the workers who made the 2022 World Cup possible must not be forgotten.

Human Rights Watch stated earlier this year that the 2021 legislation was not in itself adequate to solve the issues faced by migrant workers, calling claims by Qatari authorities and FIFA that their labour protection systems were adequate to prevent abuse grossly inaccurate and misleading. An investigation by the organisation found that some issues being faced by migrant workers in the country in the aftermath of the World Cup include wage theft, being prohibited from transferring jobs, not receiving their entitled compensations and being unable to join a union.

Mohamed believes that the fight for human rights in Qatar should encompass all such groups who find themselves exploited, abused or persecuted, but that more targeted action is required: Workers rights, womens rights, you can support all of these causes and I think it can be powerful, and it can be a very helpful thing to do, but it needs intention.

Read more:

Qatar fails to deliver on World Cup promises - Index on Censorship

What Is Censorship? | American Civil Liberties Union

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.

American society has always been deeply ambivalent about these questions. On the one hand, our history is filled with examples of overt government censorship, from the 1873 Comstock Law to the 1996 Communications Decency Act. On the other hand, the commitment to freedom of imagination and expression is deeply embedded in our national psyche, buttressed by the First Amendment, and supported by a long line of Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's protection of artistic expression very broadly. It extends not only to books, theatrical works and paintings, but also to posters, television, music videos and comic books -- whatever the human creative impulse produces.

Two fundamental principles come into play whenever a court must decide a case involving freedom of expression. The first is "content neutrality"-- the government cannot limit expression just because any listener, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its content. In the context of art and entertainment, this means tolerating some works that we might find offensive, insulting, outrageous -- or just plain bad.

The second principle is that expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest. The classic example is falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede. Even then, the speech may be silenced or punished only if there is no other way to avert the harm.

SEXSEXUAL SPEECHSex in art and entertainment is the most frequent target of censorship crusades. Many examples come to mind. A painting of the classical statue of Venus de Milo was removed from a store because the managers of the shopping mall found its semi-nudity "too shocking." Hundreds of works of literature, from Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings to John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, have been banned from public schools based on their sexual content.

A museum director was charged with a crime for including sexually explicit photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe in an art exhibit.

American law is, on the whole, the most speech-protective in the world -- but sexual expression is treated as a second-class citizen. No causal link between exposure to sexually explicit material and anti-social or violent behavior has ever been scientifically established, in spite of many efforts to do so. Rather, the Supreme Court has allowed censorship of sexual speech on moral grounds -- a remnant of our nation's Puritan heritage.

This does not mean that all sexual expression can be censored, however. Only a narrow range of "obscene" material can be suppressed; a term like "pornography" has no legal meaning . Nevertheless, even the relatively narrow obscenity exception serves as a vehicle for abuse by government authorities as well as pressure groups who want to impose their personal moral views on other people.

PORNOGRAPHIC! INDECENT! OBSCENE!Justice John Marshall Harlan's line, "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric," sums up the impossibility of developing a definition of obscenity that isn't hopelessly vague and subjective. And Justice Potter Stewart's famous assurance, "I know it when I see it," is of small comfort to artists, writers, movie directors and lyricists who must navigate the murky waters of obscenity law trying to figure out what police, prosecutors, judges and juries will think.

The Supreme Court's current definition of constitutionally unprotected Obscenity, first announced in a 1973 case called Miller v. California, has three requirements. The work must 1) appeal to the average person's prurient (shameful, morbid) interest in sex; 2) depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and 3) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The Supreme Court has held that Indecent expression -- in contrast with "obscenity" -- is entitled to some constitutional protection, but that indecency in some media (broadcasting, cable, and telephone) may be regulated. In its 1978 decision in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica, the Court ruled that the government could require radio and television stations to air "indecent" material only during those hours when children would be unlikely listeners or viewers. Broadcast indecency was defined as: "language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs." This vague concept continues to baffle both the public and the courts.

PORNOGRAPHY is not a legal term at all. Its dictionary definition is "writing or pictures intended to arouse sexual desire." Pornography comes in as many varieties as the human sexual impulse and is protected by the First Amendment unless it meets the definition for illegal obscenity.

VIOLENCEIS MEDIA VIOLENCE A THREAT TO SOCIETY?Today's calls for censorship are not motivated solely by morality and taste, but also by the widespread belief that exposure to images of violence causes people to act in destructive ways. Pro-censorship forces, including many politicians, often cite a multitude of "scientific studies" that allegedly prove fictional violence leads to real-life violence.

There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that fictional violence causes otherwise stable people to become violent. And if we suppressed material based on the actions of unstable people, no work of fiction or art would be safe from censorship. Serial killer Theodore Bundy collected cheerleading magazines. And the work most often cited by psychopaths as justification for their acts of violence is the Bible.

But what about the rest of us? Does exposure to media violence actually lead to criminal or anti-social conduct by otherwise stable people, including children, who spend an average of 28 hours watching television each week? These are important questions. If there really were a clear cause-and-effect relationship between what normal children see on TV and harmful actions, then limits on such expression might arguably be warranted.

WHAT THE STUDIES SHOWStudies on the relationship between media violence and real violence are the subject of considerable debate. Children have been shown TV programs with violent episodes in a laboratory setting and then tested for "aggressive" behavior. Some of these studies suggest that watching TV violence may temporarily induce "object aggression" in some children (such as popping balloons or hitting dolls or playing sports more aggressively) but not actual criminal violence against another person.

CORRELATIONAL STUDIES that seek to explain why some aggressive people have a history of watching a lot of violent TV suffer from the chicken-and-egg dilemma: does violent TV cause such people to behave aggressively, or do aggressive people simply prefer more violent entertainment? There is no definitive answer. But all scientists agree that statistical correlations between two phenomena do not mean that one causes the other.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS are no more helpful. Japanese TV and movies are famous for their extreme, graphic violence, but Japan has a very low crime rate -- much lower than many societies in which television watching is relatively rare. What the sudies reveal on the issue of fictional violence and real world aggression is -- not much.

The only clear assertion that can be made is that the relationship between art and human behavior is a very complex one. Violent and sexually explicit art and entertainment have been a staple of human cultures from time immemorial. Many human behavioralists believe that these themes have a useful and constructive societal role, serving as a vicarious outlet for individual aggression.

WHERE DO THE EXPERTS AGREE?Whatever influence fictional violence has on behavior, most expert believe its effects are marginal compared to other factors. Even small children know the difference between fiction and reality, and their attitudes and behavior are shaped more by their life circumstances than by the books they read or the TV they watch. In 1972, the U.S. Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior released a 200-page report, "Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence," which concluded, "The effect [of television] is small compared with many other possible causes, such as parental attitudes or knowledge of and experience with the real violence of our society." Twenty-one years later, the American Psychological Association published its 1993 report, "Violence & Youth," and concluded, "The greatest predictor of future violent behavior is a previous history of violence." In 1995, the Center for Communication Policy at UCLA, which monitors TV violence, came to a similar conclusion in its yearly report: "It is known that television does not have a simple, direct stimulus-response effect on its audiences."

Blaming the media does not get us very far, and, to the extent that diverts the public's attention from the real causes of violence in society, it may do more harm than good.

WHICH MEDIA VIOLENCE WOULD YOU BAN?A pro-censorship member of Congress once attacked the following shows for being too violent: The Miracle Worker, Civil War Journal, Star Trek 9, The Untouchables, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. What would be left if all these kinds of programs were purged from the airwaves? Is there good violence and bad violence? If so, who decides? Sports and the news are at least as violent as fiction, from the fights that erupt during every televised hockey game, to the videotaped beating of Rodney King by the LA Police Department, shown over and over gain on prime time TV. If we accept censorship of violence in the media, we will have to censor sports and news programs.

Read the original:

What Is Censorship? | American Civil Liberties Union

Censorship – Wikipedia

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies.

Governments[5] and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship.[6] When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of his or her own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. General censorship occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.

In 399 BC, Greek philosopher, Socrates, while defying attempts by the Athenian state to censor his philosophical teachings, was accused of collateral charges related to the corruption of Athenian youth and sentenced to death by drinking a poison, hemlock.

The details of Socrates's conviction are recorded by Plato as follows. In 399BC, Socrates went on trial[8] and was subsequently found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety (asebeia,[9] "not believing in the gods of the state"),[10] and as a punishment sentenced to death, caused by the drinking of a mixture containing hemlock.[11][12][13]

Socrates' student, Plato, is said to have advocated censorship in his essay on The Republic, which opposed the existence of democracy. In contrast to Plato, Greek playwright Euripides (480406BC) defended the true liberty of freeborn men, including the right to speak freely. In 1766, Sweden became the first country to abolish censorship by law.[14]

Censorship has been criticized throughout history for being unfair and hindering progress. In a 1997 essay on Internet censorship, social commentator Michael Landier claims that censorship is counterproductive as it prevents the censored topic from being discussed. Landier expands his argument by claiming that those who impose censorship must consider what they censor to be true, as individuals believing themselves to be correct would welcome the opportunity to disprove those with opposing views.[15]

Censorship is often used to impose moral values on society, as in the censorship of material considered obscene. English novelist E. M. Forster was a staunch opponent of censoring material on the grounds that it was obscene or immoral, raising the issue of moral subjectivity and the constant changing of moral values. When the 1928 novel Lady Chatterley's Lover was put on trial in 1960, Forster wrote:[16]

Lady Chatterley's Lover is a literary work of importance...I do not think that it could be held obscene, but am in a difficulty here, for the reason that I have never been able to follow the legal definition of obscenity. The law tells me that obscenity may deprave and corrupt, but as far as I know, it offers no definition of depravity or corruption.

Proponents have sought to justify it using different rationales for various types of information censored:

In wartime, explicit censorship is carried out with the intent of preventing the release of information that might be useful to an enemy. Typically it involves keeping times or locations secret, or delaying the release of information (e.g., an operational objective) until it is of no possible use to enemy forces. The moral issues here are often seen as somewhat different, as the proponents of this form of censorship argues that release of tactical information usually presents a greater risk of casualties among one's own forces and could possibly lead to loss of the overall conflict.

During World War I letters written by British soldiers would have to go through censorship. This consisted of officers going through letters with a black marker and crossing out anything which might compromise operational secrecy before the letter was sent.[22] The World War II catchphrase "Loose lips sink ships" was used as a common justification to exercise official wartime censorship and encourage individual restraint when sharing potentially sensitive information.[23]

An example of "sanitization" policies comes from the USSR under Joseph Stalin, where publicly used photographs were often altered to remove people whom Stalin had condemned to execution. Though past photographs may have been remembered or kept, this deliberate and systematic alteration to all of history in the public mind is seen as one of the central themes of Stalinism and totalitarianism.

Censorship is occasionally carried out to aid authorities or to protect an individual, as with some kidnappings when attention and media coverage of the victim can sometimes be seen as unhelpful.[24]

Censorship by religion is a form of censorship where freedom of expression is controlled or limited using religious authority or on the basis of the teachings of the religion.[25] This form of censorship has a long history and is practiced in many societies and by many religions. Examples include the Galileo affair, Edict of Compigne, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (list of prohibited books) and the condemnation of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Images of the Islamic figure Muhammad are also regularly censored. In some secular countries, this is sometimes done to prevent hurting religious sentiments.[26]

The content of school textbooks is often an issue of debate, since their target audiences are young people. The term whitewashing is commonly used to refer to revisionism aimed at glossing over difficult or questionable historical events, or a biased presentation thereof. The reporting of military atrocities in history is extremely controversial, as in the case of The Holocaust (or Holocaust denial), Bombing of Dresden, the Nanking Massacre as found with Japanese history textbook controversies, the Armenian genocide, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, and the Winter Soldier Investigation of the Vietnam War.

In the context of secondary school education, the way facts and history are presented greatly influences the interpretation of contemporary thought, opinion and socialization. One argument for censoring the type of information disseminated is based on the inappropriate quality of such material for the younger public. The use of the "inappropriate" distinction is in itself controversial, as it changed heavily. A Ballantine Books version of the book Fahrenheit 451 which is the version used by most school classes[27] contained approximately 75 separate edits, omissions, and changes from the original Bradbury manuscript.

In February 2006, a National Geographic cover was censored by the Nashravaran Journalistic Institute. The offending cover was about the subject of love and a picture of an embracing couple was hidden beneath a white sticker.[28]

Economic induced censorship is a type of censorship enacted by economic markets to favor, and disregard, types of information. Economic induced censorship, is also caused, by market forces which privatize and establish commodification of certain information that is not accessible by the general public, primarily because of the cost associated with commodified information such as academic journals, industry reports and pay to use repositories.[29]

The concept was illustrated as a censorship pyramid[30] that was conceptualized by primarily Julian Assange, along with Andy Mller-Maguhn, Jacob Appelbaum and Jrmie Zimmermann, in the Cypherpunks (book).

Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own discourse. This is done out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities or preferences (actual or perceived) of others and without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority. Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers, news anchors, journalists, musicians, and other kinds of authors including individuals who use social media.[32]

According to a Pew Research Center and the Columbia Journalism Review survey, "About one-quarter of the local and national journalists say they have purposely avoided newsworthy stories, while nearly as many acknowledge they have softened the tone of stories to benefit the interests of their news organizations. Fully four-in-ten (41%) admit they have engaged in either or both of these practices."[33]

Threats to media freedom have shown a significant increase in Europe in recent years, according to a study published in April 2017 by the Council of Europe.This results in a fear of physical or psychological violence, and the ultimate result is self-censorship by journalists.[34]

Copy approval is the right to read and amend an article, usually an interview, before publication. Many publications refuse to give copy approval but it is increasingly becoming common practice when dealing with publicity anxious celebrities.[35] Picture approval is the right given to an individual to choose which photos will be published and which will not. Robert Redford is well known for insisting upon picture approval.[36] Writer approval is when writers are chosen based on whether they will write flattering articles or not. Hollywood publicist Pat Kingsley is known for banning certain writers who wrote undesirably about one of her clients from interviewing any of her other clients.[citation needed]

Flooding the public, often through online social networks, with false or misleading information is sometimes called "reverse censorship". American legal scholar Tim Wu has explained that this type of information control, sometimes by state actors, can "distort or drown out disfavored speech through the creation and dissemination of fake news, the payment of fake commentators, and the deployment of propaganda robots."[37]

Book censorship can be enacted at the national or sub-national level, and can carry legal penalties for their infraction. Books may also be challenged at a local, community level. As a result, books can be removed from schools or libraries, although these bans do not typically extend outside of that area.

Aside from the usual justifications of pornography and obscenity, some films are censored due to changing racial attitudes or political correctness in order to avoid ethnic stereotyping and/or ethnic offense despite its historical or artistic value. One example is the still withdrawn "Censored Eleven" series of animated cartoons, which may have been innocent then, but are "incorrect" now.[citation needed]

Film censorship is carried out by various countries. Film censorship is achieved by censoring the producer or restricting a state citizen. For example, in China the film industry censors LGBT related films. Filmmakers must resort in finding funds within international investors such as the Ford Foundations and or produce through an independent film company.[38]

Music censorship has been implemented by states, religions, educational systems, families, retailers and lobbying groups and in most cases they violate international conventions of human rights.[39]

Censorship of maps is often employed for military purposes. For example, the technique was used in former East Germany, especially for the areas near the border to West Germany in order to make attempts of defection more difficult. Censorship of maps is also applied by Google Maps, where certain areas are grayed out or blacked or areas are purposely left outdated with old imagery.[40]

Art is loved and feared because of its evocative power. Destroying or oppressing art can potentially justify its meaning even more.[41]

British photographer and visual artist Graham Ovenden's photos and paintings were ordered to be destroyed by a London's magistrate court in 2015 for being "indecent"[42] and their copies had been removed from the online Tate gallery.[43]

A 1980 Israeli law forbade banned artwork composed of the four colours of the Palestinian flag,[44] and Palestinians were arrested for displaying such artwork or even for carrying sliced melons with the same pattern.[45][46][47]

Moath al-Alwi is a Guantanamo Bay prisoner who creates model ships as an expression of art. Alwi does so with the few tools he has at his disposal such as dental floss and shampoo bottles, and he is also allowed to use a small pair of scissors with rounded edges.[48] A few of Alwi's pieces are on display at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. There are also other artworks on display at the College that were created by other inmates. The artwork that is being displayed might be the only way for some of the inmates to communicate with the outside. Recently things have changed though. The military has come up with a new policy that won't allow the artwork at Guantanamo Bay Military Prison to leave the prison. The art work created by Alwi and other prisoners is now government property and can be destroyed or disposed of in whatever way the government choose, making it no longer the artist's property.[49]

Around 300 artists in Cuba are fighting for their artistic freedom due to new censorship rules Cuba's government has in place for artists. In December 2018, following the introduction of new rules that would ban music performances and artwork not authorized by the state, performance artist Tania Bruguera was detained upon arriving to Havana and released after four days.[50]

An example of extreme state censorship was the Nazis requirements of using art as propaganda. Art was only allowed to be used as a political instrument to control people and failure to act in accordance with the censors was punishable by law, even fatal. The Degenerate Art Exhibition is a historical instance that's goal was to advertise Nazi values and slander others.[51]

Internet censorship is control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations either at the behest of government or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship on their own or due to intimidation and fear.

The issues associated with Internet censorship are similar to those for offline censorship of more traditional media. One difference is that national borders are more permeable online: residents of a country that bans certain information can find it on websites hosted outside the country. Thus censors must work to prevent access to information even though they lack physical or legal control over the websites themselves. This in turn requires the use of technical censorship methods that are unique to the Internet, such as site blocking and content filtering.[57]

Furthermore, the Domain Name System (DNS) a critical component of the Internet is dominated by centralized and few entities. The most widely used DNS root is administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).[58][59] As an administrator they have rights to shut down and seize domain names when they deem necessary to do so and at most times the direction is from governments. This has been the case with Wikileaks shutdowns[60] and name seizure events such as the ones executed by the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center) managed by the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).[61] This makes it easy for internet censorship by authorities as they have control over what should or should not be on the Internet. Some activists and researchers have started opting for alternative DNS roots, though the Internet Architecture Board[62] (IAB) does not support these DNS root providers.

Unless the censor has total control over all Internet-connected computers, such as in North Korea or Cuba, total censorship of information is very difficult or impossible to achieve due to the underlying distributed technology of the Internet. Pseudonymity and data havens (such as Freenet) protect free speech using technologies that guarantee material cannot be removed and prevents the identification of authors. Technologically savvy users can often find ways to access blocked content. Nevertheless, blocking remains an effective means of limiting access to sensitive information for most users when censors, such as those in China, are able to devote significant resources to building and maintaining a comprehensive censorship system.[57]

Views about the feasibility and effectiveness of Internet censorship have evolved in parallel with the development of the Internet and censorship technologies:

A BBC World Service poll of 27,973 adults in 26 countries, including 14,306 Internet users,[66] was conducted between 30 November 2009 and 7 February 2010. The head of the polling organization felt, overall, that the poll showed that:

The poll found that nearly four in five (78%) Internet users felt that the Internet had brought them greater freedom, that most Internet users (53%) felt that "the internet should never be regulated by any level of government anywhere", and almost four in five Internet users and non-users around the world felt that access to the Internet was a fundamental right (50% strongly agreed, 29% somewhat agreed, 9% somewhat disagreed, 6% strongly disagreed, and 6% gave no opinion).[68]

The rising usages of social media in many nations has led to the emergence of citizens organizing protests through social media, sometimes called "Twitter Revolutions". The most notable of these social media led protests were parts Arab Spring uprisings, starting in 2010. In response to the use of social media in these protests, the Tunisian government began a hack of Tunisian citizens' Facebook accounts, and reports arose of accounts being deleted.[69]

Automated systems can be used to censor social media posts, and therefore limit what citizens can say online. This most notably occurs in China, where social media posts are automatically censored depending on content. In 2013, Harvard political science professor Gary King led a study to determine what caused social media posts to be censored and found that posts mentioning the government were not more or less likely to be deleted if they were supportive or critical of the government. Posts mentioning collective action were more likely to be deleted than those that had not mentioned collective action.[70] Currently, social media censorship appears primarily as a way to restrict Internet users' ability to organize protests. For the Chinese government, seeing citizens unhappy with local governance is beneficial as state and national leaders can replace unpopular officials. King and his researchers were able to predict when certain officials would be removed based on the number of unfavorable social media posts.[71]

Research has proved that criticism is tolerable on social media sites, therefore it is not censored unless it has a higher chance of collective action. It isn't important whether the criticism is supportive or unsupportive of the states' leaders, the main priority of censoring certain social media posts is to make sure that no big actions are being made due to something that was said on the internet. Posts that challenge the Party's political leading role in the Chinese government are more likely to be censored due to the challenges it poses to the Chinese Communist Party.[72]

In December 2022 Elon Musk, owner and CEO of Twitter released internal documents from the social media microblogging site to journalists Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger and Bari Weiss. The analysis of these files on Twitter, collectively called, the Twitter Files, explored the content moderation and visibility filtering carried out in collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the Hunter Biden laptop controversy.

On the platform TikTok, certain hashtags have been categorized by the platform's code and determines how viewers can or cannot interact with the content or hashtag specifically. Some shadowbanned tags include: #acab, #GayArab, #gej due to their referencing of certain social movements and LGBTQ identity. As TikTok guidelines are becoming more localized around the world, some experts believe that this could result in more censorship than before.[73]

Since the early 1980s, advocates of video games have emphasized their use as an expressive medium, arguing for their protection under the laws governing freedom of speech and also as an educational tool. Detractors argue that video games are harmful and therefore should be subject to legislative oversight and restrictions. Many video games have certain elements removed or edited due to regional rating standards.[74][75]For example, in the Japanese and PAL Versions of No More Heroes, blood splatter and gore is removed from the gameplay. Decapitation scenes are implied, but not shown. Scenes of missing body parts after having been cut off, are replaced with the same scene, but showing the body parts fully intact.[76]

Surveillance and censorship are different. Surveillance can be performed without censorship, but it is harder to engage in censorship without some form of surveillance.[77] Even when surveillance does not lead directly to censorship, the widespread knowledge or belief that a person, their computer, or their use of the Internet is under surveillance can have a "chilling effect" and lead to self-censorship.[78]

The former Soviet Union maintained a particularly extensive program of state-imposed censorship. The main organ for official censorship in the Soviet Union was the Chief Agency for Protection of Military and State Secrets generally known as the Glavlit, its Russian acronym. The Glavlit handled censorship matters arising from domestic writings of just about any kind even beer and vodka labels. Glavlit censorship personnel were present in every large Soviet publishing house or newspaper; the agency employed some 70,000 censors to review information before it was disseminated by publishing houses, editorial offices, and broadcasting studios. No mass medium escaped Glavlit's control. All press agencies and radio and television stations had Glavlit representatives on their editorial staffs.[79]

Sometimes, public knowledge of the existence of a specific document is subtly suppressed, a situation resembling censorship. The authorities taking such action will justify it by declaring the work to be "subversive" or "inconvenient". An example is Michel Foucault's 1978 text Sexual Morality and the Law (later republished as The Danger of Child Sexuality), originally published as La loi de la pudeur [literally, "the law of decency"]. This work defends the decriminalization of statutory rape and the abolition of age of consent laws.[citation needed]

When a publisher comes under pressure to suppress a book, but has already entered into a contract with the author, they will sometimes effectively censor the book by deliberately ordering a small print run and making minimal, if any, attempts to publicize it. This practice became known in the early 2000s as privishing (private publishing).[80]

Censorship by country collects information on censorship, internet censorship, press freedom, freedom of speech, and human rights by country and presents it in a sortable table, together with links to articles with more information. In addition to countries, the table includes information on former countries, disputed countries, political sub-units within countries, and regional organizations.

Very little is formally censored in Canada, aside from "obscenity" (as defined in the landmark criminal case of R v Butler) which is generally limited to pornography and child pornography depicting and/or advocating non-consensual sex, sexual violence, degradation, or dehumanization, in particular that which causes harm (as in R v Labaye). Most films are simply subject to classification by the British Columbia Film Classification Office under the non-profit Crown corporation by the name of Consumer Protection BC, whose classifications are officially used by the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Manitoba.[81]

Cuban media used to be operated under the supervision of the Communist Party's Department of Revolutionary Orientation, which "develops and coordinates propaganda strategies".[82] Connection to the Internet is restricted and censored.[83]

The People's Republic of China employs sophisticated censorship mechanisms, referred to as the Golden Shield Project, to monitor the internet. Popular search engines such as Baidu also remove politically sensitive search results.[84][85][86]

Strict censorship existed in the Eastern Bloc.[87] Throughout the bloc, the various ministries of culture held a tight rein on their writers.[88] Cultural products there reflected the propaganda needs of the state.[88] Party-approved censors exercised strict control in the early years.[89] In the Stalinist period, even the weather forecasts were changed if they suggested that the sun might not shine on May Day.[89] Under Nicolae Ceauescu in Romania, weather reports were doctored so that the temperatures were not seen to rise above or fall below the levels which dictated that work must stop.[89]

Possession and use of copying machines was tightly controlled in order to hinder production and distribution of samizdat, illegal self-published books and magazines. Possession of even a single samizdat manuscript such as a book by Andrei Sinyavsky was a serious crime which might involve a visit from the KGB. Another outlet for works which did not find favor with the authorities was publishing abroad.

Amid declining car sales in 2020, France banned a television ad by a Dutch bike company, saying the ad "unfairly discredited the automobile industry".[90]

The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of expression, but places certain restrictions on content, with a view towards maintaining communal and religious harmony, given the history of communal tension in the nation.[91] According to the Information Technology Rules 2011, objectionable content includes anything that "threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order".[92]

Iraq under Baathist Saddam Hussein had much the same techniques of press censorship as did Romania under Nicolae Ceauescu but with greater potential violence.[93]

During the GHQ occupation of Japan after WW2, any criticism of the Allies' pre-war policies, the SCAP, the Far East Military Tribunal, the inquiries against the United States and every direct and indirect references to the role played by the Allied High Command in drafting Japan's new constitution or to censorship of publications, movies, newspapers and magazines was subject to massive censorship, purges, media blackout.[94]

In the four years (September 1945-November 1949) since the CCD was active, 200 million mails, 136 million telegrams were opened, and telephones were tapped 800,000 times. Since no criticism of the occupying forces for crimes such as the dropping of the atomic bomb, rape and robbery by US soldiers was allowed, a strict check was carried out. Those who got caught were put on a blacklist called the watchlist, and the persons and the organizations to which they belonged were investigated in detail, which made it easier to dismiss or arrest the "disturbing molecule".[95]

Under subsection 48(3) and (4) of the Penang Islamic Religious Administration Enactment 2004, non-Muslims in Malaysia are penalized for using the following words, or to write or publish them, in any form, version or translation in any language or for use in any publicity material in any medium:"Allah", "Firman Allah", "Ulama", "Hadith", "Ibadah", "Kaabah", "Qadhi'", "Illahi", "Wahyu", "Mubaligh", "Syariah", "Qiblat", "Haji", "Mufti", "Rasul", "Iman", "Dakwah", "Wali", "Fatwa", "Imam", "Nabi", "Sheikh", "Khutbah", "Tabligh", "Akhirat", "Azan", "Al Quran", "As Sunnah", "Auliya'", "Karamah", "False Moon God", "Syahadah", "Baitullah", "Musolla", "Zakat Fitrah", "Hajjah", "Taqwa" and "Soleh".[96][97][98]

According to Christian Mihr, executive director of Reporters Without Borders, "censorship in Serbia is neither direct nor transparent, but is easy to prove."[99] According to Mihr there are numerous examples of censorship and self-censorship in Serbia [100] According to Mihr, Serbian prime minister Aleksandar Vui has proved "very sensitive to criticism, even on critical questions," as was the case with Natalija Miletic, correspondent for Deutsche Welle Radio, who questioned him in Berlin about the media situation in Serbia and about allegations that some ministers in the Serbian government had plagiarized their diplomas, and who later received threats and offensive articles on the Serbian press.[100]

Multiple news outlets have accused Vui of anti-democratic strongman tendencies.[101][102][103][104][105] In July 2014, journalists associations were concerned about the freedom of the media in Serbia, in which Vui came under criticism.[106][107]

In September 2015 five members of United States Congress (Edie Bernice Johnson, Carlos Curbelo, Scott Perry, Adam Kinzinger, and Zoe Lofgren) have informed Vice President of the United States Joseph Biden that Aleksandar's brother, Andrej Vui, is leading a group responsible for deteriorating media freedom in Serbia.[108]

In the Republic of Singapore, Section 33 of the Films Act originally banned the making, distribution and exhibition of "party political films", at pain of a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.[109] The Act further defines a "party political film" as any film or video

In 2001, the short documentary called A Vision of Persistence on opposition politician J. B. Jeyaretnam was also banned for being a "party political film". The makers of the documentary, all lecturers at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic, later submitted written apologies and withdrew the documentary from being screened at the 2001 Singapore International Film Festival in April, having been told they could be charged in court.[110] Another short documentary called Singapore Rebel by Martyn See, which documented Singapore Democratic Party leader Dr Chee Soon Juan's acts of civil disobedience, was banned from the 2005 Singapore International Film Festival on the same grounds and See is being investigated for possible violations of the Films Act.[111]

This law, however, is often disregarded when such political films are made supporting the ruling People's Action Party (PAP). Channel NewsAsia's five-part documentary series on Singapore's PAP ministers in 2005, for example, was not considered a party political film.[112]

Exceptions are also made when political films are made concerning political parties of other nations. Films such as Michael Moore's 2004 documentary Fahrenheit 911 are thus allowed to screen regardless of the law.[113]

Since March 2009, the Films Act has been amended to allow party political films as long as they were deemed factual and objective by a consultative committee. Some months later, this committee lifted the ban on Singapore Rebel.[114]

Independent journalism did not exist in the Soviet Union until Mikhail Gorbachev became its leader; all reporting was directed by the Communist Party or related organizations. Pravda, the predominant newspaper in the Soviet Union, had a monopoly. Foreign newspapers were available only if they were published by communist parties sympathetic to the Soviet Union.

Online access to all language versions of Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey on 29 April 2017 by Erdoan's government.[115]

In the United States, censorship occurs through books, film festivals, politics, and public schools.[116] See banned books for more information. Additionally, critics of campaign finance reform in the United States say this reform imposes widespread restrictions on political speech.[117][118]

In 1973, a military coup took power in Uruguay, and the State practiced censorship. For example, writer Eduardo Galeano was imprisoned and later was forced to flee. His book Open Veins of Latin America was banned by the right-wing military government, not only in Uruguay, but also in Chile and Argentina.[119]

Related articles

Freedoms

Visit link:

Censorship - Wikipedia

Censorship – History of censorship | Britannica

It should be instructive to consider how the problem of censorship has been dealt with in the ancient world, in premodern times, and in the modern world. Care must be taken here not to assume that the modern democratic regime, of a self-governing people, is the only legitimate regime. Rather, it is prudent to assume that most of those who have, in other times and places, thought about and acted upon such matters have been at least as humane and as sensible in their circumstances as modern democrats are apt to be in theirs.

It was taken for granted in the Greek communities of antiquity, as well as in Rome, that citizens would be formed in accordance with the character and needs of the regime. This did not preclude the emergence of strong-minded men and women, as may be seen in the stories of Homer, of Plutarch, of Tacitus, and of the Greek playwrights. But it was evident, for example, that a citizen of Sparta was much more apt to be tough and unreflective (and certainly uncommunicative) than a citizen of Corinth (with its notorious openness to pleasure and luxury).

The scope of a city-states concern was exhibited in the provisions it made for the establishment and promotion of religious worship. That the gods of the city were to be respected by every citizen was usually taken for granted. Presiding over religious observances was generally regarded as a privilege of citizenship: thus, in some cities it was an office in which the elderly in good standing could be expected to serve. A refusal to conform, at least outwardly, to the recognized worship of the community subjected one to hardships. And there could be difficulties, backed up by legal sanctions, for those who spoke improperly about such matters. The force of religious opinions could be seen not only in prosecutions for refusals to acknowledge the gods of the city but perhaps even more in the frequent unwillingness of a city (no matter what its obvious political or military interests) to conduct public business at a time when the religious calendar, auspices, or other such signs forbade civic activities. Indicative of respect for the proprieties was the secrecy with which the religious mysteries, such as those into which many Greek and Roman men were initiated, were evidently practicedso much so that there does not seem to be any record from antiquity of precisely what constituted the various mysteries. Respect for the proprieties may be seen as well in the outrage provoked in Sparta by a poem by Archilochus (7th century bce) in which he celebrated his lifesaving cowardice.

Athens, it can be said, was much more liberal than the typical Greek city. This is not to suggest that the rulers of the other cities did not, among themselves, freely discuss the public business. But in Athens the rulers included much more of the population than in most cities of antiquityand freedom of speech (for political purposes) spilled over there into the private lives of citizens. This may be seen, perhaps best of all, in the famous funeral address given by Pericles in 431 bce. Athenians, he pointed out, did not consider public discussion merely something to be put up with; rather, they believed that the best interests of the city could not be served without a full discussion of the issues before the assembly. There may be seen in the plays of an Aristophanes the kind of uninhibited discussions of politics that the Athenians were evidently accustomed to, discussions that could (in the license accorded to comedy) be couched in licentious terms not permitted in everyday discourse.

The limits of Athenian openness may be seen, of course, in the trial, conviction, and execution of Socrates in 399 bce on charges that he corrupted the youth and that he did not acknowledge the gods that the city did but acknowledged other new divinities of his own. One may see as well, in the Republic of Plato, an account of a system of censorship, particularly of the arts, that is comprehensive. Not only are various opinions (particularly misconceptions about the gods and about the supposed terrors of death) to be discouraged, but various salutary opinions are to be encouraged and protected without having to be demonstrated to be true. Much of what is said in the Republic and elsewhere reflects the belief that the vital opinions of the community could be shaped by law and that men could be penalized for saying things that offended public sensibilities, undermined common morality, or subverted the institutions of the community.

The circumstances justifying the system of comprehensive thought control described in Platos Republic are obviously rarely to be found. Thus, Socrates himself is recorded in the same dialogue (and in Platos Apology) as recognizing that cities with bad regimes do not permit their misconduct to be questioned and corrected. Such regimes should be compared with those in the age of the good Roman emperors, the period from Nerva (c. 3098 ce) to Marcus Aurelius (121180)the golden times, said Tacitus, when everyone could hold and defend whatever opinions he wished.

Much of what can be said about ancient Greece and Rome could be applied, with appropriate adaptations, to ancient Israel. The stories of the difficulties encountered by Jesus, and the offenses he came to be accused of, indicate the kinds of restrictions to which the Jews were subjected with respect to religious observances and with respect to what could and could not be said about divine matters. (The inhibitions so established were later reflected in the manner in which Moses Maimonides [11351204] proceeded in his publications, often relying upon hints rather than upon explicit discussion of sensitive topics.) The prevailing watchfulness, lest someone say or do what he should not, can be said to be anticipated by the commandment You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain (Exodus 20:7). It may be seen as well in the ancient opinion that there is a name for God that must not be uttered.

It should be evident that this way of lifedirecting both opinions and actions and extending down to minute daily routinescould not help but shape a people for centuries, if not for millennia, to come. But it should also be evident that those in the position to know, and with a duty to act, were expected to speak out and were, in effect, licensed to do so, however cautiously they were obliged to proceed on occasion. Thus, the prophet Nathan dared to challenge King David himself for what he had done to secure Bathsheba as his wife (II Samuel 12:124). On an earlier, perhaps even more striking, occasion, the patriarch Abraham dared to question God about the terms on which Sodom and Gomorrah might be saved from destruction (Genesis 18:1633). God made concessions to Abraham, and David crumbled before Nathans authority. But such presumptuousness on the part of mere mortals is possible, and likely to bear fruit, only in communities that have been trained to share and to respect certain moral principles grounded in thoughtfulness.

The thoughtfulness to which the Old Testament aspires is suggested by the following counsel by Moses to the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 4:56):

Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land which you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them; for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

This approach can be considered to provide the foundation for the assurance that has been so critical to modern arguments against censorship (John 8:32): And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. Further biblical authority against censorship may be found in such free speech dramas as that described in Acts 4:1321.

It should be remembered that to say everything one thought or believed was regarded by pre-Christian writers as potentially irresponsible or licentious: social consequences dictated a need for restraint. Christian writers, however, called for just such saying of everything as the indispensable witness of faith: transitory social considerations were not to impede, to the extent that they formerly had, the exercise of such a liberty, indeed of such a duty, so intimately related to the eternal welfare of the soul. Thus, we see an encouragement of the privateof an individuality that turned eventually against organized religion itself and legitimated a radical self-indulgence.

Perhaps no people has ever been so thoroughly trained, on such a large scale and for so long, as the Chinese. Critical to that training was a system of education that culminated in a rigorous selection, by examination, of candidates for administrative posts. Particularly influential was the thought of Confucius (551479 bce), with its considerable emphasis upon deference to authority and to family elders and upon respect for ritual observances and propriety. Cautiousness in speech was encouraged; licentious expressions were discouraged; and long-established teachings were relied upon for shaping character. All in all, it was contrary to Chinese good taste to speak openly of the faults of ones government or of ones rulers. And so it could be counseled by Confucius, He who is not in any particular office has nothing to do with plans for the administration of its duties (Analects [Lunyu], 7:14). It has been suggested that such sentiments have operated to prevent the spread in China of opinions supportive of political liberty.

Still, it could be recognized by Confucius that oppressive government is fiercer than a tiger. He could counsel that if a rulers words are not good, and if people are discouraged from opposing them, the ruin of the country can be expected (Analects, 13:5). Blatant oppressiveness, and an attempt to stamp out the influence of Confucius and of other sages, could be seen in the wholesale destruction of books in China in 231 bce. But the Confucian mode was revived thereafter, to become the dominant influence for almost two millennia. Its pervasiveness may well be judged oppressive by contemporary Western standards, since so much depended, it seems, on mastering the orthodox texts and discipline.

Whether or not the typical Chinese government was indeed oppressive, effective control of information was lodged in the authorities, since access to the evidently vital public archives of earlier administrations was limited to a relative few. In addition, decisive control of what was thought, and how, depended in large part on a determination of what the authoritative texts weresomething that has been critical in the West, as well, in the establishment of useful canons, both sacred and secular. Thus, Richard McKeon has suggested, Censorship may be the enforcement of judgments based on power, passion, corruption, or prejudicepolitical, popular, elite, or sectarian. It may also be based on scholarship and the use of critical methods in the interest of advancing a taste for literature, art, learning, and science.

Read the rest here:

Censorship - History of censorship | Britannica

What is Censorship? – National Coalition Against Censorship

What is censorship?

According to Websters Dictionary, to censor means to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. The word censor originated in ancient Rome, where the government appointed officials to take the census and to supervise public morals. Censorship happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their political or moral values on others by suppressing words, images, or ideas that they find offensive.

A censor, traditionally, is an official whose job it is to examine literature, movies, or other forms of creative expression and to remove or ban anything she considers unsuitable. In this definition, censorship is something the government does. But censorship can also be accomplished very effectively by private groups.

Not all forms of censorship are illegal. When private individuals agitate to eliminate TV programs they dislike, or threaten to boycott the companies that support those programs with advertising dollars, they are certainly trying to censor artistic expression and interfere with the free speech of others. But their actions are perfectly legal; in fact, their protests are protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Not even all government censorship is unlawful. For example, we still have laws against obscenity in art and entertainment. These laws allow the government to punish people for producing or disseminating material about sex, if a judge or jury thinks the material is sufficiently offensive and lacks any serious value.

What is the basis for free expression in the United States?The First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances) protects against government restrictions on or interference with the content of speech. The First Amendment applies to Government at the national, state, and local level.

Why should I care about censorship?Understanding of First Amendment freedoms is fragile and imperiled by increasingly effective and sophisticated attacks. In numerous communities, people are determined to impose their own narrow views on everyone else, and censor what they do not approve.The First Amendment exists to protect speech and activities that are unpopularif only those ideas which were popular were protected, it wouldnt be needed. Limiting free speech is unAmericanwithout it, all our rights and liberties quickly disintegrate.Censorship is an assault on the rights of all of us. We must continue to fight for the freedom to read, to see, to know, and to think for ourselves.

How can I fight back against censors in my community?Heres what you can do to organize locally.

Where can I get further information on censorship?For more information about censorship, here is a list of NCACs resources, or drop us an e-mail here.

See the rest here:

What is Censorship? - National Coalition Against Censorship

Censorship on social media? It’s not what you think – CBS News

Watch the newCBS Reportsdocumentary, "Speaking Frankly | Censorship," in the video player above.

Musician Joy Villa's red carpet dresses at the past three years' Grammy Awards were embellished with pro-Trump messages that cemented her as an outspoken darling of the conservative movement. With over 500,000 followers across Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, Villa refers to her social media community as her "Joy Tribe," and a few years ago she enlisted them to help wage a public battle against what she claimed was YouTube's attempt to censor her.

"I had released my 'Make America Great Again" music video on YouTube, and within a few hours it got taken down by YouTube," Villa told CBS Reports. "I took it to the rest of my social media. I told my fans: 'Hey listen, YouTube is censoring me. This is unfair censorship.'"

Villa saw it as part of a pattern of social media companies trying to shut down conservative voices an accusation that many other like-minded users, including President Trump himself, have leveled against Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter in recent years.

But those who study the tech industry's practices say that deciding what content stays up, and what comes down, has nothing to do with "censorship.""There is this problem in the United States that when we talk about free speech, we often misunderstand it," said Henry Fernandez, co-chair of Change the Terms, a coalition of organizations that work to reduce hate online.

"The First Amendment is very specific: It protects all of us as Americans from the government limiting our speech," he explained. "And so when people talk about, 'Well, if I get kicked off of Facebook, that's an attack on my free speech or on my First Amendment right' that's just not true. The companies have the ability to decide what speech they will allow. They're not the government."

A YouTube spokesperson said Villa's video wasn't flagged over something she said, but due to a privacy complaint. Villa disputed that, but once she blurred out the face of someone who didn't want to be seen in the video, YouTube put it back online, and her video remains visible on the platform today.

"At YouTube, we've always had policies that lay out what can and can't be posted. Our policies have no notion of political affiliation or party, and we enforce them consistently regardless of who the uploader is," said YouTube spokesperson Alex Joseph.

While Villa and others on the right have been vocal about their complaints, activists on the opposite side of the political spectrum say their online speech frequently ends up being quashed for reasons that have gotten far less attention.

Carolyn Wysinger, an activist who provided Facebook feedback and guidance about minority users' experience on the platform, told CBS Reports that implicit bias is a problem that permeates content moderation decisions at most social media platforms.

"In the community standards, white men are a protected class, the same as a black trans woman is. The community standards does not take into account the homophobia, and the violence, and how all those things intersect. It takes all of them as individual things that need to be protected," said Wysinger.

The artificial intelligence tools that automate the process of moderating and enforcing community standards on the sites don't recognize the intent or background of those doing the posting.

For instance, Wysinger said, "I have been flagged for using imagery of lynching. ... I have been flagged for violent content when showing images about racism and about transphobia."

According to the platforms' recent transparency reports, from April to June 2020, nearly 95% of comments flagged as hate speech on Facebook were detected by AI; and on YouTube 99.2% of comments removed for violating Community Standards were flagged by AI.

"That means you're putting these community standards in place and you have these bots who are just looking for certain specific things. It's automated. It doesn't have the ability for nuanced decision-making in regards to this," said Wysinger.

Biases can be built into the algorithms by the programmers who designed them, even if it's unintentional.

"Unfortunately tech is made up of a homogenous group, mostly White and Asian males, and so what happens is the opinions, the experiences that go into this decision-making are reflective of a majority group. And so people from different backgrounds Black, Latino, different religions, conservative, liberal don't have the accurate representation that they would if these companies were more diverse," said Mark Luckie, a digital strategist who previously worked at Twitter, Reddit and Facebook.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said he believes the platform "should enable as much expression as possible," and that social media companies "shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online."

Nonetheless, a recent Pew Research Center survey found that nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults believe social media sites intentionally censor political viewpoints. In the last two years, two congressional hearings have focused on the question of tech censorship.

"We hear that there is an anti-conservative bias on the part of Facebook or other platforms because conservatives keep saying that," said Susan Benesch, executive director of the Dangerous Speech Project, an organization based in Washington D.C. that has advised Facebook, Twitter, Google and other internet companies on how to diminish harmful content online while protecting freedom of speech.

But she adds, "I would be surprised if that were the case in part because on most days the most popular, most visited groups on Facebook and pages on Facebook are very conservative ones."

She said she also finds it interesting that "many conservatives or ultra-conservatives complain that the platforms have a bias against them at the same time as Black Lives Matter activists feel that the platforms are disproportionately taking down their content."

A 2019review of over 400 political pages on Facebook, conducted by the left-leaning media watchdog Media Matters, found conservative pages performed about equally as well as liberal ones.

But reliable data on the subject is scarce, and social media platforms are largely secretive about how they make decisions on content moderation.

Amid ongoing criticism, Facebook commissioned an independent review, headed by former Republican Senator Jon Kyl, to investigate accusations of anti-conservative bias. Kyl's 2019report detailed recommendations to improve transparency, and Facebook agreed to create an oversight board for content removal decisions. Facebook said it "would continue to examine, and where necessary adjust, our own policies and practices in the future."

According to Fernandez, the focus should be on requiring tech companies to publicly reveal their moderation rules and tactics.

Benesch points out, "We have virtually zero oversight regarding take-down, so in truth content moderation is more complicated than just take it down or leave it up," referring to the fact that, to date, there has been little publicly available data provided by tech companies to allow an evaluation of the process.

"Protecting free expression while keeping people safe is a challenge that requires constant refinement and improvement. We work with external experts and affected communities around the world to develop our policies and have a global team dedicated to enforcing them," Facebook said in a statement.

And a statement from Twitter said, "Twitter does not use political ideology to make any decisions whether related to ranking content on our service or how we enforce our rules. In fact, from a simple business perspective and to serve the public conversation, Twitter is incentivized to keep all voices on the service."

Meanwhile users like Wysinger struggle with mixed feelings about social media sites that promise connection but sometimes leave them out in the cold.

"Whether we like it or not, we are all on Facebook and Instagram and Twitter all day long, and when they take us off the banned list, I don't know anyone who doesn't post a status on Facebook right away, after the ban is lifted: 'I'm back y'all!'," said Wysinger.

"It's like an abusive relationship, you can't even leave the abusive relationship because you become so used to and dependent on it."

Read the original:

Censorship on social media? It's not what you think - CBS News

Musk’s ‘Twitter Files,’ revealing censorship of Hunter Biden laptop story, is a ‘distraction, White House says – Fox Business

  1. Musk's 'Twitter Files,' revealing censorship of Hunter Biden laptop story, is a 'distraction, White House says  Fox Business
  2. The Twitter Censorship Files - WSJ  The Wall Street Journal
  3. Censorship by surrogate: Why Musks document dump could be a game changer  The Hill
  4. Twitter was involved in political censorship of Hunter Biden laptop, report  NewsNation Now
  5. When Big Tech censors Trump, they censor all of us  Washington Times
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Excerpt from:

Musk's 'Twitter Files,' revealing censorship of Hunter Biden laptop story, is a 'distraction, White House says - Fox Business

Campus self-censorship is equal opportunity New York Daily News

A common refrain on campuses today is that students are likely to self-censor their views and ideas. Looking at the data, this is an experience shared by nearly all students and amongst almost all races.

In 2016, when students were asked about the security of their freedom of speech, almost three-quarters (73%) felt secure in their First Amendment right, according to a Knight Foundation study. In 2021, that number declined to 47%. During that time, nearly two-thirds (65%) of students felt their school stifles free expression, up from 54% in 2016.

Harvard University students Anwar Omeish, of Fairfax, Va., center, and Salma Abdelrahman, of Miami, right, chant slogans as they protest a scheduled speaking appearance of author Charles Murray on the campus of Harvard University, Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2017, in Cambridge, Mass. (Steven Senne/AP)

There is a rampant culture of self-censorship. As a professor, I see this all the time in class and during campus events; students anxiously want to ask questions or make particular points but opt to say nothing instead.

Data from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)s new study of almost 45,000 currently enrolled students at more than 200 colleges and universities around the nation provides a deeper look at how students think about self-censorship. Disturbingly, the desire to silence dissent is not only widespread, but also far too common across all racial and ethnic groups.

Some claim that speech codes and other restrictions on free expression on campus are necessary because free speech, as currently defined, effectively silences minority groups. They say as a corrective, its important to be far more sensitive to the harm that words can do creating safe spaces and, in some cases, silencing controversial speakers.

But data from FIRE shows that the racial differences between how young people perceive campus climates is minimal. Fifty-six percent of Black students report that they limit what they say out of concern for reactions a number far too high. Fifty percent of Hispanic students, 56% of Asian students, and 54% of white students report doing the exact same thing.

In a time and culture where peer approval is high, significant numbers of students, no matter their background, live in fear of damaging their reputations due to simple misunderstandings over words or actions. Sixty-two percent of Hispanic and 64% of white students are either slightly worried or very worried about harming their reputation over a misunderstanding. The figure is even higher for Asian students at 74% but notably lower at 53% for Black students. Black students are the least likely to live in fear of social consequences from speech. This powerfully runs against much of the diversity, equity and inclusion messaging.

Unsurprisingly, roughly half of Hispanic (49%), Black (48%), and Asian (53%) students note that they regularly feel some or more pressure to avoid discussing controversial topics in their classes. For white students, the numbers are almost identical at 51%.

Weekdays

Catch up on the days top five stories every weekday afternoon.

For a set of institutions which theoretically exists to promote curiosity and critical inquiry, the fact that intellectual controversy is now actively avoided by almost half of the student body represents a failure of the educational process itself and this should give presidents, trustees, faculty, students and all supporters of higher education pause.

Moreover, when it comes to self-imposed silence, there are barely any differences among students of different racial backgrounds. This fact calls into question the narrative that many minority groups are unable to speak freely or comfortably in academic settings. Regardless of race, most students are uncomfortable speaking up in class; narratives about some students being able to speak with others cannot are deeply divisive and irresponsible.

Finally, few racial differences exist among attitudes towards limiting the free expression of others. For instance, in terms of shouting down speakers to prevent them from speaking on campus and sharing their views, 63% of Black students believe that there are cases where doing so is acceptable. The data also shows that 62% of Hispanic students feel the same way, along with 67% of Asian students and 62% of white students. When asked if they would approve of blocking fellow students from attending an event, only 38% of Hispanic and 39% of Black students can think of cases where such physical engagement could be justified.

Again, racial differences are minor and often overstated.

Self-imposed silence on collegiate campuses today is a disturbing and almost universal experience for our nations undergraduates. Self-censorship rates are far too high across the board and the data demonstrate that students of all racial backgrounds live in fear of questioning the narrow, rigid ideologies espoused on their respective campuses. If universities truly believe in free expression and open inquiry, they should ask themselves why so many students do not feel the freedom to do so. Furthermore, they should stop their offices of diversity, equity, and inclusion from using supposed discrimination as justification for speech restrictions.

Higher education must work to bring students of all backgrounds together to promote viewpoint diversity and reverse this disturbing trend of censorship.

Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Abrams is currently on the board of directors of FIRE.

Read the original:

Campus self-censorship is equal opportunity New York Daily News

White House insists it’s not using Facebook censorship portal despite Jen Psaki’s ‘flagging’ admission – New York Post

  1. White House insists it's not using Facebook censorship portal despite Jen Psaki's 'flagging' admission  New York Post
  2. Probe Launched Into DHS' 'Taxpayer-Funded Censorship Campaign'  Daily Signal
  3. Probe launched into Homeland Securitys 'taxpayer-funded censorship campaign'  The Center Square
  4. Fact Checking as the New Censorship Surer Than the Old Type  Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence
  5. Report: U.S. DHS worked directly with Facebook, Twitter to censor "disinformation"  Niche Gamer
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read this article:

White House insists it's not using Facebook censorship portal despite Jen Psaki's 'flagging' admission - New York Post

Sorry, Texas: Supreme Court blocks law banning censorship on social …

Enlarge / US and Texas flags flying outside the Texas State Capitol building in Austin.

Getty Images | PA Thompson

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked the Texas law that prohibits social media companies from moderating content based on a user's "viewpoint." The Supreme Court order came about three weeks after the so-called "censorship" law was reinstated by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

"The application to vacate stay presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted," the ruling said. "The May 11, 2022 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit staying the district court's preliminary injunction is vacated."

It was a 5-4 decision with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts voting to block the Texas law. Alito wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. The ruling says separately that "Justice [Elena] Kagan would deny the application to vacate stay," but Kagan did not join Alito's dissent.

The Supreme Court ruling came in response to an emergency application from tech groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications & Industry Association (CCIA).With the preliminary injunction reinstated, litigation will continue, and Texas cannot enforce the law unless it wins the case. Advertisement

"This ruling means that private American companies will have an opportunity to be heard in court before they are forced to disseminate vile, abusive or extremist content under this Texas law. We appreciate the Supreme Court ensuring First Amendment protections, including the right not to be compelled to speak, will be upheld during the legal challenge to Texas's social media law," CCIA President Matt Schruers said.

"No online platform, website, or newspaper should be directed by government officials to carry certain speech. This has been a key tenet of our democracy for more than 200 years and the Supreme Court has upheld that," Schruers also said.

The Texas law is labeled as "an act relating to censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages." The law says a "social media platform may not censor a user" based on the user's "viewpoint" and defines "censor" as "block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression." The Texas attorney general or users can sue social media platforms that violate this ban and win injunctive relief and reimbursement of court costs, the law says.

In addition to being unconstitutional, the Texas law "would have been a disaster for social media users and for public discourse," said John Bergmayer, legal director for consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. "It would have ordered social media platforms to host and distribute horrific and distasteful content, and to turn a blind eye to hate, abuse, and coordinated misinformation campaigns. The main result of these policies would not be to enhance free speech, but to keep people from speaking by driving them away from toxic platforms."

View post:

Sorry, Texas: Supreme Court blocks law banning censorship on social ...

Draft Amendment to the IT Rules 2021 Smacks of Censorship – NewsClick

The proposed Grievance Appellate Committee will lead to bias and violation of the principles of natural justice.

On June 6, the Union Government proposedamendmentsto theInformation Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021(IT Rules). As per the press release by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, these amendments are proposed to steer through the challenges and gaps that exist in the IT Rules.

The IT Rules of 2021 were brought in to bring a slew of reforms by replacing theInformation Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. It imposed various compliance regulations on social media intermediaries, from appointing a Grievance Redressal Officer to tracing the first originator of information as and when required by a judicial authority or by any competent authority defined in Rule 2(d) of theInformation Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for interception, monitoring and decryption of information) Rules, 2009.

It drew various criticisms from experts and social media intermediaries. Theyreasonedthat the rules would break the end-to-end encryption system since it mandated finding the first originator of a text. Also, the Ethics Code establishes anOversight Committee, which consists of a majority of persons from the executive branch of the State. This is problematic since the Executive will now play the role of the Judiciary, which can lead to arbitrariness and favouritism in the decision-making process.

The IT Rules of 2021 drew various criticisms from experts and social media intermediaries. They reasoned that the rules would break the end-to-end encryption system, since it mandated finding the first originator of a text. Also, the Ethics Code establishes an Oversight Committee, which consists of a majority of persons from the executive branch of the State.

Also read:SC refuses to pass effective order in Centres petition to transfer to apex court challenges to IT rules in high courts

It requires the setting up of an additional committee (a Grievance Appellate Committee) which will review the appeal against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer. Rule 3(3) of the proposed amendment states that the chairperson and members of the committee shall be appointed by the Union Government. This aspect of the proposal is problematic on the ground that it would lead to arbitrariness in the decision-making process of the committee, and may also lead to favouritism. The committee will act as the final arbiter on the complaints made against any content that is present on Intermediaries and having a body that is filled with people appointed by the Executive branch can lead to bias in the order and violation of the principles of natural justice.

Rule 3(2) requires the intermediaries to respect the constitutional rights of the citizens. This is an unprecedented move by the Government since this is essentially akin to enforcing fundamental rights against private entities. This may lead to a flurry of petitions against intermediaries in the already overburdened courts of India.

The Rules establishing the Union Government as the final arbiter in complaints against content on social media and OTT platforms directly or indirectly goes against the ethos of our Constitution.

The establishment of the Grievance Appellate Committee by the government is on similar lines as the three-tierGrievance Redressal Mechanismwhich was proposed in the IT Rules of 2021, beforebeing stayedby the Bombay High Court last year. The third or the final tier in the above-mentioned mechanism was an inter-ministerial committee consisting of people majorly from the executive branch. There were alsoconcerns flaggedregarding the government being the final arbiter in deciding the validity of the content on social media or on over-the-top platforms.

The Draft proposals also reduce the time given to the Grievance Officer to act on the complaints made by users. In certain circumstances, it requires that the Grievance Officer must address the complaint within 72 hours of the receipt of the complaint. The stayed relevant provision of the IT Rules of 2021 currently provide 15 days to act on the complaints made to the Grievance Officer.

Also read:Social media, content moderation and free speech: A tussle

The IT Rules, 2021 are already underchallengebefore the Supreme Court in various petitions. These Rules invited flak from critics and observers on various grounds. As discussed above, some of their provisions were partially stayed by the Bombay High Court; theKeralaandMadrashigh courts, too, had stayed any coercive action by the Union Government under these Rules last year.

The Rules establishing the Union Government as the final arbiter in complaints against content on social media and OTT platforms directly or indirectly goes against the ethos of our Constitution. It goes directly against thefundamental right to free speech, since any opinion (or majority of them) which will be critical of the Government might be taken down by the committee appointed by the government. This will essentially make the government a judge in its own case. It is akin to the violation of one of the principles of natural justice:Nemo judex in causa sua.

Against this backdrop, bringing this amendment which is reminiscent of the stayed Rules, is an unfortunate step by the government. The proposed draft amendments could lead to censorship by the government. Content posted on social media platforms at times includes criticism of the establishment, which might not be very pleasing for the elected government. This amendment provides the government with the authority to adjudicate complaints made against the decision of the Grievance Officer, which is open to misuse. The Government has to make amendments to the present mechanism, where the independence in decision-making is in absentia.

Also read:Explained: Bombay High Court order partially stay new IT rules on plea by The Leaflet

In India, the Supreme Court acts as thesentinel qui viveby protecting our fundamental rights. It is imperative that the Supreme Court, which is entrusted with the quintessential duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, intervenes and protects the fundamental rights of the citizens.

Aarya Parihar is an undergraduate student of law at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.

Read the original here:

Draft Amendment to the IT Rules 2021 Smacks of Censorship - NewsClick

India Wants Twitter To Participate in Government Censorship – Reason

On Tuesday, Twitter announced that it had filed suit against the Indian government alleging that it interpreted a suite of 2021 laws too broadly when ordering the company to censor dissident users in the country. The lawsuit comes in response to increased pressure from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which in recent weeks has ordered Twitter to block the posts and accounts of dissidents. According to CNN, a source familiar with the suit said that the company will attempt to show that the government's orders "demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate."

The 2021 regulations Twitter is now fighting gave India's government the ability to demand that social media companies block certain posts or accounts in the country. Further, the Indian government has required social media companies to locate their compliance officers within the country so that they can be held criminally liable if the company fails to comply with government orders.

While Twitter has complied with orders, the suit marks a major act of resistance against the Indian government's calls to censor dissident content. In 2021, WhatsApp filed a similar suit, attempting to prevent the government from forcing the company to make all messages "traceable" upon request. That order, according to the company, would "severely undermine the privacy of billions of people who communicate digitally[.]" WhatApp's suit is still ongoing.

Twitter's suit highlights an important issue faced by social media platforms: What to do when local laws demand they participate in politically-motivated censorship? Increasingly, censorious governments are attempting to deputize tech companies to do their dirty work for themforcing companies to censor, block, or even track the whereabouts of government critics. While these companies may have values which marginally attempt to protect free speech, oppressive governments often coerce tech companies into collaborating.

Governments all around the world have enlisted tech companies to carry out local censorship missions. In 2024, the European Union's Digital Services Act will take effect, forcing tech companies to sharply regulate their platforms. The legislation requires companies to take down content deemed as hate speech, or disinformationtwo broad categorizations that can easily morph into broad state censorship. In Germany, hate-speech laws require companies like Twitter to report users to law enforcement. As one Twitter spokesperson said, the law "forces private companies into the role of prosecutors by reporting users to law enforcement even when there is no illegal behaviour."

While the threat of criminal liability for employees (India-based executives found guilty of violating censorship orders could face up to seven years in prison) might prevent companies from outright refusing to comply with censorious regulations, lawsuits like Twitter's are a clear step in the right direction.

However, the future increasingly appears to offer social media companies a choice between participating in government-mandated censorship and surveillance, or ceasing operations entirely in those countries. The first entails participating in considerable injustice, the other could involve reducing their customer base by billions.

View original post here:

India Wants Twitter To Participate in Government Censorship - Reason

Facebook swift to respond to Roe fallout with abortion censorship – Salon

Facebook and Instagram, both owned by Meta, have begun mass-deleting posts that provide information about accessing abortion pills in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established America's constitutional right to abortion.

Such content removals, first reported by Vice and the Associated Press, occurred immediately after the ruling was handed down. Much of the material in question reportedly contained information about how to obtain abortion pills by mail without breaking state laws.

"DM me if you want to order abortion pills, but want them sent to my address instead of yours," one of the since-deleted posts read, according to the Associated Press.

"I will mail abortion pills to any one of you. Just message me," another user wrote, reports Vice.

Both posts were immediately taken down by the site.

RELATED: Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade with Dobbs decision

The Associated Press tested how long it would take for one of its own reporters' posts to be scrubbed. "If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills," they wrote in a post that was taken down within a minute. Further, the account which published the post was reportedly put on a "warning" status for violating the platform's guidelines related to "guns, animals and other regulated goods."

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

When the reporter substituted the phrase "abortion pills" for "guns" and "weed," their post remained on the site, even though weed distribution is expressly prohibited by federal law and delivering the drug across state borders is likewise a federal crime. Abortion pills, meanwhile, can be legally distributed via mail by certified doctors, as the Associated Press noted.

Most abortion pills consist of two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. The first halts the production of a hormone, progesterone, that helps facilitate the early stages of pregnancy. The second drug induces the uterus to empty itself of pregnancy tissue.

Asked about their sudden abortion-related content removal, Meta told the Associated Press that it prohibits users from selling certain firearms, alcohol and pharmaceuticals.

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone affirmed this policy over Twitter, adding that the company has "discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these."

RELATED: Facebook bans Trump for two years, as social media giant changes controversial moderation rules

Just after the mass-deletions were flagged, the Intercept reported that Meta had secretly designated Jane's Revenge, an abortion rights group, as a terrorist organization. The classification reportedly stems from an act of vandalism the group led against an anti-abortion group in May, which "consisted of a small fire and graffiti denouncing the group's anti-abortion stance." According to The Intercept, Jane's Revenge has been put on "Tier 1" status speech restrictions, on par with drug cartels and mass murderers.

"This designation is difficult to square with Meta's placement of the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters in Tier 3, which is subject to far fewer restrictions, despite their role organizing and participating in the January 6 Capitol attack," Mary Pat Dwyer, academic program director of Georgetown Law School's Institute for Technology Law and Policy, told the Intercept. "And while it's possible Meta has moved those groups into Tier 1 more recently, that only highlights the lack of transparency into when and how these decisions, which have a huge impact on people's abilities to discuss current events and important political issues, are made."

Historically, the vast majority of abortion-related violence has been carried out by anti-abortion groups against pro-choice doctors and clinics, as the Intercept noted. This trend, according to Axios, has continued into the present day, with "assaults directed at abortion clinic staff and patients" having "increased 128% last year over 2020." Despite this, only two names associated with anti-abortion violence reportedly appear on Meta's list of Dangerous Individuals and Organizations, which was obtained by the Intercept last October.

RELATED: Facebook is killing democracy with its personality profiling data

Despite Facebook's apparent effort to crack down on abortion access and abortion rights advocacy, Meta has told its staff that it would cover travel expenses for employees who have to go out of state for an abortion, according to CNBC.

Originally posted here:

Facebook swift to respond to Roe fallout with abortion censorship - Salon