Washington, D.C. The Senate Finance Subcommittee hearing of June 30, 2020, highlighted the need for American policymakers to review their approach toward Chinas censorship, as well as the self-censorship practiced by American entities trading with China.

International Campaign for Tibet Chairman Richard Gere was one of the panelists who testified.

The hearing focused on Censorship as a Non-Tariff Barrier to Trade and made a direct connection between the oppressive policies the Chinese government imposes on its citizens and the negative impact those policies have on foreign companies that are prohibited to censor freedom of expression in democratic countries but banned from the Chinese market for that very reason.

As noted during the hearing, Chinese companies, including state-owned enterprises, are not subject to censorship while operating in the United States, in clear violation of the principle of reciprocity.

Bipartisan concerns

As subcommittee Chairman Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in his opening remarks, the hearing was an opportunity for Congress to see if such censorship by China constitutes a trade barrier in violation of [World Trade Organization], multilateral and bilateral agreements and practices.

The focus on censorship was bipartisan, with subcommittee Ranking Member Sen. Robert P. Casey, Jr., D-Pa., making this case in his opening remarks. The actions undertaken by the Chinese government include direct barriers, such as blocking movies from entering their market or restricting content, Casey said, to blocking internet firms, to dictating content related to Chinas territorial and economic claims, to demanding action or inaction by businesses related to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, and the ongoing human rights abuses in Xinjian[g].

Chinese interference in Hollywood

Among areas touched upon at the hearing was the influence China has over Hollywood and how that affects American creative freedom. Gere recalled his experience on the issue and what it means. He said: His speaking out for human rights in China and Tibet hasnt directly affected his career, but, Im probably an unusual case.

Self-censorship has become an issue in Hollywood. Theres no doubt that the combination of Chinese censorship, coupled with American film studios desire to access Chinas market, can lead to self-censorship and to avoiding social issues that great American films once addressed, he said.

The atmosphere in Hollywood has changed since the 1990s when major studios released several films showing the brutality of the Chinese Communist Party. Imagine Marty Scorseses Kundun, about the life of the Dalai Lama, or my own film Red Corner, which is highly critical of the Chinese legal system, he said. Imagine them being made today. It wouldnt happen.

Chinese actresses and directors have told him they cant work with him because it would end their careers. One Chinese director was in tears with me having to call me up and say that he couldnt work with me, Gere said. That his career would be over, and his family could not travel.

The way China pressures American studios to do such things as remove the Taiwanese flag from movies doesnt merely show the power of the Chinese government. Its also very illustrative of their weakness, Gere said. Its the way that theyre hypersensitive about the Dalai Lama, the kindest, most generous man on the planet, whos consumed and saturated with love and compassion and forgiveness. The mere mention of his name makes them crazy.

Other panelists

Beth Baltzan from the Open Markets Institute, which uses journalism to promote greater awareness of the political and economic dangers of monopolization, had this analysis of Chinese censorship in her testimony at the hearing: The CCPs leverage over the speech of American citizens comes in large part from its economic leverage over the United States. Abating the Chinese governments economic leverage over us, in turn, abates its leverage over the exercise of our constitutional rights. There are different approaches that can be adopted to diminish that leverage.

Nigel Cory, associate director, trade policy, at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, in his testimony, highlighted the impact of Chinas censorship on American business interests. He said, US firms have lost significant revenue by being blocked or inhibited from accessing and operating in the Chinese market.

The impact has been especially damaging given that for many companies, their market access has been denied during a critical, formative period of economic growth in China. This has not only reduced US company global market share but provided Chinese competitors with a protected market from which to launch competitive challenges in other regions, such as South America, the rest of Asia, and Africa.

Self-censorship

Cory also focused on the self-censorship aspect of the issue when he said, Censorship in China is a broad, complicated, and opaque system involving a range of actors, laws, and regulations, and social, economic, and political interests. At the individual level, these come together and result in considerable self-censorship given people realize the potential negative consequences of crossing the many unclear lines on what may or may not be allowed. In this way, Chinas pursuit of censorship has resulted in significant societal changes.

His perspective about self-censorship in China also applies to the American society where corporations and even educational institutions have taken recourse to self-censorship as a way of protecting their economic ties with China.

When asked about recommendations to address this challenge posed by China, the issue of using reciprocity was foremost among the panelists suggestions. Gere talked about it by referring to the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act and its smart approach to responding to Chinas unfair practices.

This is a good, very rational, and systematic response, and we hope the State Department will implement it soon, as required by law now, Gere said.

Need for new tools

Overall, the discussion that followed the panelists opening statements focused on the need to identify new tools for the US government to use to push back against Chinas censorship, reduce reliance on Chinas manufacturingincluding in the pharmaceutical industryand, at the same time, protect the economic interest of US companies that are shut down or severely restricted from accessing the Chinese market in critical industries like the internet and the media.

Questions and comments from Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., highlighted the challenges posed by the interconnectedness of the US and Chinese economies, but also the need for the US to start thinking outside the box to craft policies and remedies that effectively protect both its interests and values.

Continued here:

US Senate Finance Subcommittee hearing highlights need to review on China's censorship - Tibet Post International

TikTok, the wildly popular Chinese video-sharing app has long been accused of having a race problem.

While the company is also under fire for privacy problems, with countries such as India banning it already and the US being concerned about user privacy, there have also been accusations of racial bias against the company.

Marc Faddoul, an artificial intelligence researcher, first brought more solid evidence to this idea at the start of the year and stated that there may be a potential glitch in TikTok that may end up fostering racial bias in its algorithm that causes it to censor black people. Faddoul, in a series of tweets, further revealed his findings.

Follow a random profile and TikTok will only recommend people who look almost the same, read a part of Faddouls announcement.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

While what he said may sound pretty normal, going deeper would certainly reveal that users hitting follow on a white persons profile are now more likely to see more white people on the platform over and again and that the appearance of those who users were seeing would determine who theyre shown next.

This would inevitably lead them to follow another random white individual from the recommendations, which not only eliminates the scope for black people and other minorities from gaining traction on the platform, but also ends up creating a ripple effect with individuals of a certain race or other physical attribute being recommended more to a certain user. And it works both ways black people would see more black people and white people would see more white people but those in the majority would have a bigger advantage on the platform and access to a larger audience.

The algorithm censorship accusations were wild but also seemed to be backed up with anecdotal stories.

Cat Zhang from Pitchfork commented on this in a recent podcast, saying that it was hard to prove but, but there definitely have been a lot of black creators, LGBTQ creators who have talked about their posts getting taken down, or censored or something to that effect. They feel like its been ongoing to the point where its not just arbitrary. Like they actually feel like theyre being targeted.

Zhang continues, I interviewed Iman, shes a big activist whos been disseminating a lot of protest info. She says that basically, every black creator she knows has another TikTok account just in case their primary one gets banned or deactivated.

And so black creators have long suspected that they have been primarily targeted for shadow banning, especially for posting about activist-related causes.

In China, TikTok is known as Douyin and implements untold levels of censorship for all different reasons even as far as banning people for speaking Cantonese instead of Mandarin.

In the West, TikTok says that it doesnt censor. But its been caught doing that numerous times, mostly commonly censoring content that would irritate Beijing, such as references to Tiananmen Square, Tibet, and Hong Kong.

And there has also been studies into how it shadowbans and suppresses content using various ranking factors.

Basically, TikTok doesnt tell you that anything is happening, but they just dont promote your video, or maybe your followers dont see it, Zhang says. So the view count is really low and its almost like the content really didnt exist in the first place. Like youre just kind of being siloed into your own world.

And while TikTok has been found censoring anti-China content, its also been accused of censoring content based on the user. For example, it was this year that TikTok faced backlash for censoring content from transgender users and a same-sex couple in India found that TikTok deleted a video of them dancing with no explanation.

The stories are numerous and add weight to the idea that TikToks algorithms do censor based on the user, especially after a report found that TikTok moderators were told to suppress content from obese and disabled people and was weirdly based on the idea that if no one could see their content then they couldnt be bullied.

In other words, it was supposed to be censorship for their own good.

The aforementioned phenomenon is known as collaborative filtering. With visibility being the number one factor that determines a creators success on any social media platform, the so-called collaborative filtering can end up becoming a huge hurdle to a number of creators on the platform, if they arent similar to the majority.

Although, that being said, recent rumors suggest that TikTok isnt long for the US market anyway, and could soon be kicked out of the country for privacy and national security concerns before it even has a chance to add more transparency to its algorithms and correct accusations of censorship.

Read more:

Black TikTok creators have long accused the platform of censorship - Reclaim The Net

Joe Lonsdale, The Washington Post

Our country has reached a boiling point. In just a few weeks, national narratives have escalated from seeking racial equality to defunding the police, toppling statues of men who abolished slavery and demands that social media companies censor speech on their platforms.

The recent corporate boycott of Facebook must be recognized for what it is: A craven capitulation to a mob that, left unopposed, would destroy free speech. More than 700 companies, including Unilever, Coca-Cola and Starbucks, have joined the #StopHateForProfit movement, led by a group of nonprofits that aims to curtail speech on social media platforms, especially Facebook.

The movement calls for suppressing harmful content or hateful activity such as vaccine misinformation, climate denialism, "dehumanizing language" and arguments for voter IDs.

Already, Facebook employs thousands of unaccountable flaggers who make subjective, ad hoc decisions on what constitutes acceptable speech. Facebook's chief operating officer noted this week that the company strives "constantly to get better and faster at enforcing" its policies against hate, and Mark Zuckerberg announced last month that Facebook would expand prohibitions against certain content in ads and label posts that violate policies. Yet if Facebook caves to this movement's demands, the company would have to install an Orwellian corporate bureaucracy of censors monitoring many types of speech.

Speech is often ugly. But a crown virtue of U.S. society is our commitment to free speech, including what some call hate speech. Social media platforms that aim to encourage speech have a duty to protect it as well.

I have plenty of concerns about Facebook, but I firmly support Zuckerberg's efforts to defend freedom of expression on the platform. Facebook, Twitter and other forums aspire to be, and are, public squares. The cowardice of corporate CEOs who have sacrificed our country's founding principles to appease an illiberal mob demanding to censor our 21st-century public squares is appalling.

Intellectual freedom is part of John Milton's "known rules of ancient liberty," which form the basic habitat of Western culture. This principle was beloved by Cicero, John Locke and the American founders. Tolerance of others' expression - no matter how offensive - is a precondition for democracy.

Globally, free speech is in retreat. And censorship - whether by foreign governments or social media platforms - is always political. This is the moment American CEOs should defend the noble institution of free speech with their reputations and treasure. Instead, many business leaders are selling out a sacred American liberty in an effort to signal virtue. The advertisers boycotting Facebook this month, and possibly longer, are no better than the illiberal mob they cower before.

Those who believe that speech should be moderated have fundamentally given up on the idea that people can come to the right decisions on their own, or that free speech works anywhere. The fact that people can say whatever they want in public squares and media outlets has, over the long run, helped make our country more open and tolerant, even when partisans used those "platforms" to make arguments as vile as the basest forms of discourse.

I'm all for a boycott that fights for justice. But corporations that have temporarily or otherwise recently stopped advertising on Facebook are boycotting because they think the company isn't censoring its users enough. Their statements imply that Americans are not to be trusted with intellectual freedom. This abandons the principle that a marketplace of ideas gradually tends toward truth and progress.

This country has traditionally stood with dissenters and devil's advocates. CEOs should stand with the rational majority who believe in First Amendment rights to offend others and vehemently disagree. Americans should not trade freedom for the supposed comfort of safe spaces. All who believe in First Amendment protections must stand firm and defend our liberal inheritance.

Only with courage can we cultivate the other classical virtues of justice, temperance and wisdom. Facing a radical mob takes courage. So does facing an HR department or other corporate officials who have carried the self-sure illiberalism of higher education into the private sector. It also takes courage to acknowledge the positive, hopeful and just aspects of the recent protests, and to ally in their fight for justice. But this boycott is wrong because censorship will never lead our society to justice.

John Stuart Mill wrote that "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." Americans of all stripes are looking for leaders who can demonstrate courage. At a time when authoritarian countries are using technology to corral speech instead of liberate it, our leaders ought to blaze a different path. Do courageous business leaders remain? Who will speak for the American heritage of free and open debate? Our country's future hangs in the balance.

- - -

Joe Lonsdale is founder and partner at 8VC, a venture capital firm. Technology companies he has started include Palantir, Addepar and OpenGov.

Link:

The Facebook boycott is illiberal. Who has the courage to oppose it? - Thehour.com

To the editor: I support Black Lives Matter and acknowledge the need to go from non-racist to anti-racist. No doubt I have a lot of personal growth potential in that regard (I dont like Gone With the Wind, but I hate to see Hattie McDaniel canceled, Opinion, June 12).

But with all due respect to critics of Gone With the Wind, I believe that censorship is the wrong approach.

Films, plays, books and other works of historical significance should be readily available and studied, for all their brilliance and failings, not shut away and censored. Dont we yet understand the slippery slope of censorship?

Should Margaret Mitchells book also be banned? Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn? Shakespeares Merchant of Venice because of its depiction of Jews? The film Breakfast at Tiffanys because of Mickey Rooneys character? All of these works have serious racist elements.

Plants grow in the sunlight so do we.

Ward Bukofsky, Encino

..

To the editor: As a Black American, I can tell you that Gone With the Wind is so very painful to watch. Its just as bigoted as The Birth of A Nation. I will never allow my grandchildren to watch that blasphemous movie.

I still cant understand how those in power in Hollywood could ever produce something so offensive to minorities.

Paulette Mashaka, Carson

..

To the editor: As someone who has seen Gone With the Wind not merely once, but at least 30 times, I take issue with some of the opinions expressed by Pamela K. Johnson in her piece on the film and actress Hattie McDaniel.

Although it is certainly true that the films depiction of slaves was most certainly offensive most blatantly the portrayal of Prissy by the actress Butterfly McQueen, who later deeply regretted playing the role I believe that Mammy as portrayed by McDaniel was the most fully developed character in the film.

It is to its credit that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences realized as much in 1939 and voted her best supporting actress. McDaniels Oscar, a historic achievement, was well deserved.

Kristine Kazie Keenan, Pasadena

..

To the editor: Worrying about McDaniels acting legacy however brilliant in the wake of Gone With the Wind being dropped from the HBO Max streaming service is like bemoaning the demise of the Marlboro Mans career when cigarette ads were banned on television.

The greater good takes precedence.

Eileen Flaxman, Claremont

Go here to see the original:

'Gone With the Wind' censorship is a slippery slope - Los Angeles Times

Fox News host Tucker Carlson has blasted several big social media sites, saying their warning labels and other tactics amount to censorship of conservative voices. He warned of a slippery slope that could lead to erasing points of view from the landscape.

In his monologue Friday night on Tucker Carlson Tonight, the commentator issued a sarcastic apology about his airing of a parody travelogue video on the Seattle Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ)

I want to apologize if you found what you just saw, hateful, disgusting, [or] if you were traumatized by watching it, Carlson said. Twitters very concerned you might be. We posted that fake ad on Twitter. Twitter flagged it as potentially sensitive content and then they hid it from view.

What were they saying? They were saying, Beware, keep your kids from watching this. Whats the justification for warning people of that? We have no idea, Carlson said. Probably that its edited video. Of course, they never flag a clip from The Onion or The Daily Show. Obviously, you know why.

Carlson also talked about prior YouTube notes on his June 1 show, which discussed the widespread protests across America in the wake of George Floyds death.

It says this, The following content has been identified by the YouTube community, whatever that is, as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences, Carlson said. By offensive, they mean that the left doesnt like it. And that is the new standard. And theres only one response under that standard: Silence the person who disagrees with you. Thats why censorship is now everywhere. Its why the tech companies started censoring the president. Its why theyre getting more and more aggressive in silencing you.

Carlson then warned about the progression of such censorship.

Today, its offensive content labels, soon you know whats going to happen? Itll be erased. Its digital, its not hard to erase it, Carlson said. Well never give in, obviously. The lefts goal is to make dissent invisible and therefore irrelevant. Meanwhile, these same tech companies make it very easy for 12-year-olds to watch hardcore pornography. They have no problem with that at all.

But political views they disagree with?No, Carlson added. Gone with the Wind? Too scary. Tells you everything about what they care about and who they are.

Watch the video for the complete monologue.

Here is the original post:

Fox News Host Tucker Carlson Blasts Alleged Big Tech Censorship: By Offensive, They Mean The Left Doesnt Like It - Deadline

In a flash, Gone with the Wind, the 1939 American film classic, was gone. So, too, was Cops, the pro-cop reality show about to start its 33rd season until Paramount Network banished it. Days later, A&E pulled from its schedule Live P.D., which follows cops on the job. All three have fallen victim to the prevailing politically correct winds that have already engulfed journalism, causing senior staff shifts at the New York Times, ABC News, Variety, Bon Appetit, and Refinery 29, among other less well-known outlets.

Now film and television have caught the censorship, or self-censorship bug, as self-appointed cultural commissars and Maoist online mobs demand that, in the wake of the killing of George Floyd and the eruption of protests, violence, and looting in more than 100 American cities, what we see on our movie and TV screens, in addition to what we read, must be devoid of what they deem to be racism, sexism, and proto-fascism.

But slowly, cautiously, some blowback has begun. Over the weekend, Jacqueline Stewart, a host on Turner Classic Movies and a professor at the University of Chicagos Department of Cinema and Media Studies, announced that she would be narrating a discussion of the films historical context when HBO Max returns it to its streaming servicestill at an unspecified date.

When HBO Max announced last week that it was withdrawing the film pending the addition of a disclaimer denouncing the films racist missteps and historical context, Bob Greenblatt, WarnerMedias chief, called the move a no-brainer. That it was, but not in the way he meant.

Gone with the Wind, as Stewart reminded us in an editorial announcing her new role as contextualizer-in-chief, remains not only the highest-grossing film of all time when adjusted for inflation, but the winner of eight Oscarsincluding a supporting- actress win for Hattie McDaniel, the first black actor to take home the coveted statuette. Though widely criticized for its romanticized depiction of the antebellum South and its softening of the horror of slavery, the film is a work of genius. A sprawling Civil War epic chronicling the love affair of Scarlett OHara, the daughter of a southern plantation owner, and Rhett Butler, an irresistible womanizer and gambler, it placed sixth, the New York Times reported, on the American Film Institutes 1998 list of greatest films of all time.

Among its many black defenders is Whoopi Goldberg, the actor and co-host of The View. Noting that the film was made at a different time, Goldberg warned that banning films like Gone with the Wind and shows like Cops was perilous. Censoring such films, she said, would mean that many popular blaxploitation films would also have to be banned.

Spike Lee, who used a celebrated sequence from Gone with the Wind in his own film, Black KKKlansman, told The View that students and other film buffs should be able to see such films, even those that are more openly racist. I think that one of the most racist films ever, D.W. Griffiths Birth of a Nation, should be seen, he said, adding that he showed the film in his class at New York University.

Film censorship in America is almost as old as the industry itself. In 1897, the state of Maine banned the showing of a film of a heavyweight championship fight. In 1907, Chicago became the first U.S. city to enact a censorship law authorizing its police chief to screen all films to determine whether they were fit to be seen by the public. Some 100 cities and states soon created local censorship boards. In the 1930s, self-censorship gradually replaced state bans and restrictions. Fearful of federal regulation, the motion picture industry adopted morality codes that persisted until the breakdown of the studio system and the rise of independent filmmakers, in another culturally revolutionary moment in Americathe late 1960s.

Now, the self-censorship impulse has returned in force. The push to ban unwoke work, films considered openly or subliminally racist, moreover, has been embraced by media and cultural critics whose mission should be to expand the limits of expression. For if Gone with the Wind cannot be seen without a warning label, less highly acclaimed work stands little chance. Dont expect to see Cops on TV anytime soon, no matter how many streaming services ostensibly compete for viewers.

Why stop there? Lets ban screenings of Al Jolsons performances in black face, and reruns of Norman Lears brilliant All in the Family, the 1970s sitcom whose racist, sexist, homophobic, working class antihero, Archie Bunker, was must-see viewing. Lets throw Shirley Temple movies under the bus. We cant have doorman Bill Bojangles Robinson, one of Americas greatest tap dancers, teach little Shirley how to do a time step to the strains of My Old Kentucky Home in The Little Colonel. Forget about seeing the 1937 classic The Good Earth, whose apparently racist producers chose white actress Luise Rainer rather than Anna May Wong to play the sold slave and prostitute in her Oscar-winning performance. Should The Wizard of Oz be seen by impressionable Americans, given its portrait of dwarfs? PETA would surely object to Alfred Hitchcocks The Birds for portraying our feathered friends as mass killers. And dont The Godfather films suggest that Italian-Americans are in thrall to the mafia?

The impulse to self-censor, however powerful in such politically polarized times, is deadly to any vibrant culture, no matter how seemingly compelling its justification. It must be resisted.

Judith Miller is a City Journal contributing editor and author of The Story: A Reporters Journey and Germs: Biological Weapons and Americas Secret War.

Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Link:

Resist The Self-censorship Bug - City Journal

There's something very disturbing about what's going on, Attorney General William Barr told Maria Bartiromo in an exclusive interview responding to recent incidents where technology companies, including Google and Twitter, tried to censor content.

Barr made the statement during the interview, which aired on Sunday Morning Futures, reacting to NBCs apparent influence over Google in punishing two conservative news sitesover what was deemed offensive coverage of the protests following the death ofGeorge Floyd, the Minneapolis man who died in police custody on May 25.

In a report published Tuesday afternoon, NBC News claimed Google "banned" The Federalist and ZeroHedge from Google Ads for "pushing unsubstantiated claims" about the Black Lives Matter movement. Google later pushed back, claiming that The Federalist "was never demonetized," and adding, "We worked with them to address issues on their site related to the comments section."

Bartiromo also brought up the fact thatSen.Tom Cotton, R-Ark.,said last week that Twitter tried to permanently lock down his account if he refused to censor his tweets "on the topic of riots andlooting," referencing the violent demonstrations sparked by Floyd's death.

To some extent there was a bait-and-switch over the past couple of decades, Barr explained.

He went on to say the tech companies got their strong market position by marketing themselves as open to all comers.

SEN. TOM COTTON: TWITTER TRIED TO CENSOR ME -- AND THEY LOST

Barr noted that when the companies first surfaced they built up all their membership and their networks [by] saying, We have a wide variety of views. People can come in and post their views and their positions and their statements.

Then they've switched, Barr added. Now they're being more selective and they're starting to censor different viewpoints.

He noted that there is a concentration of these very large companies that have that kind of influence on the sharing of information and viewpoints on our society.

Barr explained that that is a fundamental problem because our republic was founded on the idea, and the whole rationale was that there'd be a lot of diversity of voices and it would be hard for someone to be able to galvanize, big faction in the United States that could dominate politically and oppress a minority, and yet now we have with the Internet and with these big concentrations of power, the ability to do just that,to quickly galvanize people's views because they're only presenting one viewpoint and they can push the public in a particular direction very quickly.

Barr went on to explain that our whole Constitution insists the system was based on not having that and having a wide diversity of voices.

He then said that one way this can be addressed is through the antitrust laws and challenging companies that engage in monopolistic practices.

TheDepartment of Justice is pushing Congress to pass new legislation that would hold Facebook, Twitter and other tech behemothsaccountable for what is posted on their platforms a move that if passed would roll back protections Silicon Valley has had for decades.

The Justice Departments proposals, unveiled Wednesday, want online platforms to better police their sites for illicit and harmful material, and to take a more objective approach in deciding what content they deem objectionable and decide to take down.

The DOJ, in a news release, said it was calling for lawmakers to"update the outdated immunity for online platforms" under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Bartiromo noted that the DOJ plans to roll back the monopoly, legal protections that technology companies enjoy and asked, What prompted this?

In response, Barr said problems with Section 230 were arising so we've proposed a change to address that.

During the early days of the Internet, we wanted to encourage platforms to take off obscene material or harassing material or other kinds of offensive material like that and so what we said was in the law, Section 230, if you take that down, that doesn't make you a publisher, if you take down objectionable material like that, Barr explained.

Unfortunately, they [tech companies] started taking down viewpoints and started really being selective and based on whether they agreed with a viewpoint or not taking it down and that should make them a publisher, but they said under Section 230, they weren't.

Barr noted that what the DOJ is stressing is that tech companies can take down content that is unlawful or that does not accord with their terms of service, but the companies must make their terms of service clear.

You have to have a reasonably based reason for taking down the particular content and show that it violated your terms of service and you need to give someone notice and a process whereby they can dispute that, Barr said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced legislation on Wednesdaythat would give Americans the ability to sue major tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter if they engage inselective censorship of political speech.

Fox News Andrew OReilly, Joseph Wulfsohn and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.

Read the original here:

AG Barr on tech companies censoring viewpoints: 'There's something very disturbing about what's going on' - Fox News

As debate around what should and should not be allowed on social media platforms ramps up ahead of the 2020 US Presidential Election, a new report has provided some insight into how Americans, in general, feel about free speech online, and who, ultimately, should be in charge of policing such.

The report, conducted by Gallupand The Knight Foundation, incorporates responses from over 3,000 survey participants - though it is worth noting that the surveys were conducted inDecember 2019, before the latest back and forth between US President Donald Trump and social platforms over Section 230 protections.

That may actually prove more indicative, as it would reduce the heightened emotional response around the same. Here's what the responses indicate, based on various key elements.

First off, most Americans support free-speech on social platforms, even if they don't agree with those viewpoints.

As per the report:

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) favor allowing people to express their views on social media, including views that are offensive, over restricting what people can say on social media based on societal norms or standards of what is fair or appropriate (35%)."

So most believe that people should be free to say what they want. Though even within that, there are limits.

Almost all respondents indicated that child pornography should never be allowed on social media, while 85% said that misleading health information also should be prohibited.

So while the majority believe in freedom of speech as a principle, in practice, most also understand the dangers and harms of such, and agree that there needs to be parameters around what's allowed.

But who decides on that? Who do people believe should be making the call on what's acceptable and what crosses the line?

This is the key question at the core of the current Section 230 debate - and on 230 specifically, respondents were split.

As you can see here,54% of respondents say that Section 230 laws have done more harm than good, because they have not made social platforms accountable for illegal content on their sites and apps.

Though as recently noted by legal expert Jeff Kossef, there is still a level of confusion as to how Section 230 laws operate, and what they do and do not cover in terms of social platform liability:

"There is a huge misconception that Section 230 protections disappear if a platform moderates content.Congress passed 230 to prevent platforms from increasing their liability due to editing user content. Yet this misconception has persisted for years, and has shaped some websites' hands-off moderation practices. If they start to "edit" user content, they fear, they will lose Section 230 protections. Again, this is absolutely false."

That noted, the principle that most people are responding to in this survey is whether social platforms should or should not be protected by law in regards to the content they host, even if it's posted by users. A slim majority, as indicated, think that platforms are too protected, which lessens the impetus on them to properly police dangerous content.

But it's quite a conflict, isn't it? As noted in the top response, the majority of people believe that social media users should be free to say what they like, yet the vast majority also agree that some content is off-limits, even within that consideration.

The responses underline the ongoing challenge faced by social platforms, which has lead to some adding warning labels and other measures, while others take a more hands-off approach.

Which is the right one? Based on these responses, the public don't seem to be able to come to any clear consensus.

But they do know that they don't trust the platforms themselves to make rulings:

So where does that leave us?

Interestingly, the researchers also asked respondents how they feel about Facebook's new approach, which will see the implementation of an independent Content Oversight Board to rule on difficult content decisions. The Content Oversight Board will include experts from a range of fields and backgrounds, ensuring that various perspectives are taken into account.

And while respondents, initially, didn't seem overly convinced by this approach, after learning more about how the board is intended to function, the majority were in support.

As you can see here, the initial response, without learning about how the system will work, was negative, but having been given more information, that changed significantly.

"More than 8 in 10 Americans say they think a content oversight board is a good idea (54%) or very good idea (27%), while 12% say it is a bad idea, and 7% say its a very bad idea.

Maybe, then, that is the key, and Facebook is leading the way with its Content Oversight Board approach - which, unfortunately,won't be in a position to implement any significant change ahead of the 2020 Election.

But it could be the way forward. Amid confusion around Section 230, and attempts to reform such laws, maybe the key is to take the decision-making out of the hands of the platforms themselves, and ensure that trusted, independent groups are consulted on any policy changes.

We won't know how this works, of course, until Facebook's Content Oversight board begins, but of all the various scenarios represented in this dataset, it's the only one that seems to have any real support.

You can read the full "Free Expression, Harmful Speech and Censorship in a Digital World" report here.

Go here to read the rest:

New Report Looks at How People Feel About Online Censorship, and Who Should be Making the Calls on Such - Social Media Today

Censorship is a controversial and debatable issue in the film industry, with no solution in sight. Censorship in simple terms is the suppression of certain parts of a film that has the potential of being politically unacceptable, offensive, or a societal threat. Different countries have different laws for films when it comes to portraying themselves. However, in the presence of disobedience, the censorship board honors the importance of censorship by removing or suppressing that content which might be harmful to children or vulnerable people.

One research paper on censorship stated a controversial concept that said that the government uses the process of censorship to hide information and only show people what the government wants to show. The government agrees that expressing some sides of a particular country can be difficult for a lot of its citizens and claims that this is exactly why censorship is necessary.

However, using censorship generally tends to create a problem with the freedom of speech that should be protected by law. Keeping this in mind, it is hard to choose a side on the debate of whether censorship is good or bad. Since it largely relates to the rights of a person, it is one of the reasons why today as students, we are expected to work on censorship topics for research papers from a young age.

Films are made in different genres, including comedy, societal, mystery, dark humor, and many more. A lot of these movies have scenes that may either be unfit to young children or to vulnerable groups. Sometimes, parts of these films may also leak out information that is highly sensitive.

However, considering this, not all films are censored in the same way. The types of censorship certificates as per the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) which is the regulatory authority in India, are:

There are many guidelines that any censorship board needs to follow in order to legally censor the film or parts of a film. Some of the possible topics of concern include anti- social and violent activities, scenes that glorify offense, vulgarity, oppressing and shaming women, and scenes that depict racial discrimination including towards religious groups. There has been a fine line between the expression and abuse of the right to freedom of speech.

Films have a profound way of impacting the lives of people. One can research more information on the rights of freedom of speech and many other aspects of censorship through some paper topics and censorship essay ideas. As responsible viewers, it is necessary for us to properly dive into understanding the ways by which censorship methods are applied.

Despite saying this, the question remains, Is censorship really necessary? There are people who have written on many censorship essay topics discussing on whether or not it must be applied. There are times when the censor board has been able to make the right decision of banning certain things from the viewers to protect them. This fairly supports the concern of why censorship is necessary. However, there is a lack of attention to alternatives from the board.

Banning and censoring scenes is not the only option that can be applied to protect their citizens. There are early measures that can be taken during the making of the film. The film industry is a big business industry with a lot of private interests of the directors, actors, producers, and many more. This is where the importance of censorship can get a little shaky.

Although the boards responsibility is to take care of the public interest, it is equally important to protect the interests of the crew that works to bring forth such films. There is a lot of investment that goes behind making a film worth watching, and many lives depend on the results of that film.

Banning or censoring a part of the film or in the worst-case scenario the entire film can have big negative effects on the economic aspect of everyone involved. However, if the board does ban a film there are still ways to lift it by seeking an appeal from the High courts. But this option is time-consuming and a loss of additional money.

In this way, despite the fact that censorship is an important way to protect the people and vulnerable citizens, it is equally necessary to understand that this should be a final and ultimate response to such inconvenience.

There are other mitigating measures that the board and the government can take before imposing intense bans on the films. Adopting alternative policies before imposing harsh censorship will not just ensure a proper balance between freedom of speech and censorship but will also give authority and proper justice to the industry that is involved in making films.

See the article here:

The main types of censorship in films: Are they even necessary? - Film Daily

By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Jun 18, 2020

A Kindle, or any comparable e-reader, can be a great convenience. If youre packing for a vacation trip (which you probably arent doing this year, but thats another story), its nice to know that you can bring along all of Shakespeare, all of Trollope, a few dozen mysteries, and the Summa, without making your suitcase any heavier.

But theres a disadvantage to Kindle. And I dont mean only the pleasure of handling a physical book, or the ability to flip back and forth easily through the pages. I mean the fact that you can buy a Kindle book, but you still dont own that book. You cant lend the book to a neighbor, or pass it along to a child. You dont have physical possession. Amazon does.

That distinction becomes more important when you hear suggestions that the works of Flannery OConnor should be censored because of her politically incorrect attitudes. And Mark Twain. And T.S. Eliot. And Kingsley Amis. And David Mamet. And maybe even Ray Bradbury, since censors are not sensitive to irony. Suppose, at some future date, the panjandrums of public opinion decide that these books should no longer be available. With a few keystrokes, Amazon (or its competitors) can make that happen. The next time you log on, you notice that those books the books you paid for no longer exist.

If there is anything about the recent behavior of large tech companies that gives you confidence this could never happen, please let me know.

Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Follow this link:

Censorship and the future of e-readers - Catholic Culture

Adolph Ochs, former publisher of The New York Times, back in 1896 adopted the slogan All the News Thats Fit to Print, and insisted on reportage that lived up to that promise. That phrase appears in the upper left corner of the papers front page every day.

He might be appalled today to find that The Times, among other media, sometimes operates on the motto All the News That Fits, as some news media move steadily toward advocacy over objectivity.

We now find two major newspapers censoring conservative opinion on their opinion pages, where traditionally newspapers published a variety of editorial opinion in order to give their readers a diverse mixture. Its the one place in a newspaper where opinion is appropriate.

The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer both had editors resign their positions recently because of staff objections to editorial decisions they made.

Several days ago, The New York Times editorial page editor, James Bennet, resigned following a revolt among employees over an op-ed the paper had requested from Senator Tom Cotton, R-Ark., on George Floyds death at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer.

Some of the staff called in sick one day in protest, and the paper said later that a review found the piece did not meet its standards.

Just a week later, however, the Times published an op-ed from a person who is a fellow at George Soros Open Society Foundation, and who is a far-left activist. No editors resigned and no standards were violated.

The Floyd matter was at the center of another newspaper editors sudden departure. The Inquirers top editor resigned after his choice for a headline on an article addressing the mob violence which evolved from protests over Floyds death produced a revolt among employees.

Lamenting the senseless destruction and damage from the riots, Stan Wischnowski titled the article Buildings Matter, Too. The totally accurate headline was too much for the staff to swallow, so Wischnowski decided to step down.

The one place where opinions are proper in a newspaper pages containing editorials and commentary in those two papers now presents only that narrow set of politically biased ideas that have the approval of the newspaper staff. Ladies and gentlemen, this is precisely the opposite of what press freedom is all about.

An older tendency among news providers is for them to be politically guided in what they report and what they dont. This tendency towards advocacy-over-objectivity is much more widespread than many realize. The reaction of the news staffs of the Times and Inquirer support that this journalistic breakdown exists.

However, such shenanigans are not limited to newspapers. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., appearing on CNNs State of the Union with Jake Tapper, said about President Donald Trump, First, we were hearing that its [the coronavirus] a hoax... referring to Trumps describing the way the Democrats used the coronavirus. Tapper later admitted he knew it was a lie, but chose not to say anything. I thought about it, because the president did not call the virus a hoax, he said.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which the press is quick to throw out to defend against challenges to its work, guarantees the press the necessary freedom to do its job of telling the people what is going on. That is a very valuable thing, and a rare thing in our world.

But the freedom the press enjoys is accompanied by the essential obligation to do that job honestly, without fear or favor, accurately and objectively. When those things are missing from what the news media is doing, it has abandoned its press freedom protections.

The press is a very different animal today than in the days of the Bill of Rights, and now includes broadcast media and Internet media in addition to print media.

While online social media sites are not the same as news providers, they are extremely popular communication instruments. Ostensibly an open forum for participants to post and comment whatever they choose, some have begun to monitor and over-ride participants posts and comments. Sometimes that action is used for improper language. Sometimes it is used to censor undesirable political content.

MSNBC producer Kyle Griffin took a quote from Trumps Fox News interview with Harris Faulkner out of context to make it look like Trump was approving of chokeholds. Trump on Fox: I think the concept of chokehold sounds so innocent, so perfect, he tweeted, making it appear that Trump condones chokeholds. He doesnt.

Contrary to its policies that catch so many conservative tweeters, Twitter did not flag this lie.

There are many instances of such malpractice. Either you have an open forum that leaves people alone to express themselves as they choose, or you dont.

If you do, no problem. If you dont, you become a different animal, one which purports to be open, but which covertly censors only some users, and may thus be subject to legal action.

Why does the left cheat like this? Because its much easier to gain support for your ideas when there is only one set of ideas to choose from. Why confuse people with extraneous stuff?

James H. Smokey Shott, a resident of Bluefield, Va., is a columnist for the Daily Telegraph. Contact him at james.shott@yahoo.com

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read this article:

Censorship is a growing problem in our news and other media - Bluefield Daily Telegraph

By U.S. Sen. Tom CottonR-Arkansashttps://www.cotton.senate.gov/

A Jacobin mob of left-wing thought police has risen up across our country.

No statue, no movie, no cartoon is immune. Nor any op-ed.

The New York Times, after publishing my op-ed about the Insurrection Act, capitulated to a woke mob of its employees.

But its not just the Times. I reveal here for the first time that the Twitter thought police also targeted me for expressing an opinion shared at that time by a majority of Americans.

Heres the behind-the-scenes story.

On June 1, Americans awoke to news of rioting and looting in our streets. In Washington alone, rioters burned an historic church, looted many businesses and defaced memorials to Abraham Lincoln and the veterans of World War II.

First on television, then on Twitter, I noted that the National Guard and active-duty troops could be called out to support local police if necessary, as happened during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters and looters, I wrote.

This was apparently too much for the professional umbrage-takers on Twitter. In high dudgeon, they exclaimed that no quarter once meant that a military force would take no prisoners, but instead shoot them.

Never mind that the phrase today is a common metaphor for a tough or merely unkind approach to a situation. For instance, former Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg and The New York Times have used the phrase in this way.

Or that politics often employs the language of combat as metaphors: campaigns, battleground states, target races, air war and ground war, and so forth. And, of course, the exaggerated foolishness that I was literally calling for the arrest and summary execution of American citizens.

But a sense of proportion is not Twitters long suit. Within a few hours, a low-level employee in Twitters Washington office contacted some of my aides at random, claiming that my tweet violated the companys policies. She also issued an ultimatum: delete the tweet or Twitter would permanently lock my account. She gave me only 30 minutes to comply.

My aide tried to reason with the employee. We offered to post a new tweet clarifying my meaning which I did anyway but the employee refused, insisting I had to delete the original tweet because some snowflakes had retweeted it.

We asked why my tweet wouldnt simply be flagged, as Twitter recently did to a tweet by the president. She contended that Twitter only did so for heads of state, not elected legislators, though its policy plainly states otherwise. The only option, she reiterated, was deleting the tweet or losing my account.

Finally, we provided them some dictionary definitions of no quarter. She said that she would take that back to our teams.

It was clear, I should add, that this low-level employee was acting as a front for more senior officials at Twitter, whom one might expect would contact directly a sitting senator to discuss such a serious matter. It was equally clear that she avoided putting as much in writing as possible.

Accountability is not Twitters long suit, either.

I called Twitters bluff, and 30 minutes came and went. I retained control of my account. Finally, almost two hours after the initial contact, the employee called to say Twitter would take no action against my account, but she was not authorized to say more.

Twitters arbitrary approach to political speech was only highlighted later that day, when the company flagged a tweet by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., for violating its policies. My aide subsequently asked why Gaetzs tweet was flagged since hes also a legislator, not a head of state. She clarified that their policy covers all elected officials, but only if the account has 100,000 followers.

Not only had we received a false account of the companys own policy, but my account had grown to over 100,000 followers that day, reflecting how arbitrary the policy is to begin with.

Twitter began as an open platform committed to the free exchange of ideas; over time, it increasingly has taken upon itself the role of politically correct censor of thought-crime by elected officials and ordinary citizens alike. Not surprisingly, the censorship falls overwhelmingly on conservatives.

Though Twitter purports to police only threats of violence, the company wont even cooperate with law enforcement investigating death threats against me and other legislators. And the orthodoxy starts at the top: CEO Jack Dorsey reportedly unfollowed the Twitter account of The New York Times Opinion section after it published my op-ed.

The censorship, the hypocrisy and the arbitrary action are reasons why Twitter and other social-media platforms face so much scrutiny today. Many legislators want to limit or eliminate their liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The companies also face potential antitrust actions by the Department of Justice and state attorneys general.

These social-media companies have improved the lives of Americans in many ways. But they should not be surprised public opinion is turning against them when they act as censors and moral scolds to millions of Americans. Nor should they expect to find many people rushing to their defense. In fact, to coin a phrase, those of us in their crosshairs might say: No quarter for Big Tech censorship.

Sen. Tom Cotton is a United States senator from Arkansas. His committees include the Banking Committee, where he chairs the Economic Policy Subcommittee, the Intelligence Committee, and the Armed Services Committee, where he chairs the Air Land Power Subcommittee. He graduated from Dardanelle High School, Harvard and Harvard Law School. After a clerkship with the U.S. Court of Appeals and private law practice, Sen. Cotton left the law because of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He served nearly five years on active duty in the United States Army as aninfantry officer. He served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne and in Afghanistan with a Provincial Reconstruction Team.

View original post here:

U.S. senator: Twitter tried to censor me and lost - The Highland County Press

There is nothing racist about rugby fans singing Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.

Woke censorship has now come for rugby. The Rugby Football Union (RFU) is reviewing the use of the song Swing Low, Sweet Chariot by fans in an apparent concession to the Black Lives Matter movement.

Many fans, the RFU says, are unaware of the origins of the song, which was written by former slave Wallace Willis in the post-Civil War United States. Some believe the lyrics make reference to the Underground Railroad, a system of escape routes for slaves to flee captivity into the free states of the north.

It is true that the song has become a major part of black culture. The song has been sung at many black funerals and at civil-rights marches, and has been honoured by the US congress.

What a bizarre world we live in when banning a song steeped in black culture is deemed to be an act of anti-racism. Indeed, as Trevor Phillips points out, the last attempt to ban the song was in Nazi Germany in 1939. The censorship of Swing Low, Sweet Chariot is the kind of move the anti-black segregationists of yesteryear would have called for.

The RFUs review smacks of woke elitist disgust at the unwashed masses of rugby fans. This is another attempt by middle-class intellectuals to sterilise sport for the ordinary people that love it, all under the guise of fighting prejudice.

Anyone who thought the current campaign of woke censorship would be limited to the statues of slave traders must have been incredibly naive. Nothing is safe from the ever-growing woke blob.

Picture by: Getty.

Help spiked prick the Covid consensus

So here we are 12 weeks into Britains three-week lockdown. We hope you are all staying sane out there, and that spiked has been of some assistance in that. We have ramped up our output of late, to provide a challenge to the Covid consensus. But we couldnt have done that without your support. spiked unlike so many things these days is completely free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you enjoy our work, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even 5 per month can be a huge help. You can donate here.Thank you! And stay well.

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Continue reading here:

Is this the maddest target of woke censorship yet? - Spiked

Gail Asper, the woman who led the campaign to bring her father's vision for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights to fruition, says she is "very troubled" by allegations of racism and homophobia raised by current and former employees in recent weeks.

Her comments come the same day the museum issued an apology on behalf of its executive team for the practice of hiding gay content on tours at the request of certain tour groups.

Asper took over the museum project when her father,Izzy Asper,died in 2003,and now sits on its board of trustees. Shesaid she is watching the developments closely.

"They are committed to a complete and fully transparent accounting of systemic racism and discrimination at the museum," she said in a statement to CBC.

"I'm happy they are undertaking this process."

Earlier this week, CBC News reported that current and former employees said management would sometimes ask staff not to show any gay content on tours at the request of certain guests, including religious school groups.

The museum confirmed that from January 2015 until the middle of 2017, schools and classes could make a request for content to be excluded. That included stories about diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.

"This practice was wrong and was ended. This practice is contrary to the museum's mandate, and contrary to everything we stand for as a museum for human rights," the museum's apology letter, issued Friday afternoon, says.

The letter goes on to say that the executive team acknowledges that hiding these stories and experiences is a "profound betrayal" to the LGBT community, to students, and to the museum's staff, volunteers and donors.

"And it is a betrayal of the museum's central conviction that all human beings are born equal in dignity and rights," the letter says.

A thorough review of the practice will be done as part of the external investigation the museum has initiated into complaints about systemic racism and discrimination at the museum, the letter says.

The letter comes after John Young, the CEO of the museum, announced Thursday in a staff-wide email that he won't be seeking reappointment when his term ends this August. He had previously said he intended to continue his role.

Last week, the museum said it has hired a lawyer to investigate complaints of racism and other forms of discrimination including homophobia at the museum in Winnipeg.

Former Winnipeg mayor Glen Murray, who was the first openly gay mayor of a major North American city, also announced Thursday he was stepping down from the board of the Friends of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights over the allegations, saying this type of behaviour totally goes against what the museum was set up to do.

"When you see this culture of people who are experiencing racism, who are seeing the erasing and denial of the other journeys that are the whole reason for the museum, it's devastating," he told CBC Information Radio host Marcy Markusa in an interview Friday.

"It's totally institutionalized discrimination."

The original vision for the museum which wasfirst announced in 2003, during Murray's time as mayor was asa "transformative" institution for Winnipeg and for the world, he said, where people could not only learn about the history of human rights, but a place where current human rights issues would be discussed and advanced.

Murray who iscurrentlyrunning for the leadership of the federal Green Partysaid he thinks it's time for the federal government to look into why that's not happening.

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault said in an emailed statement that an institution like the CMHR "should not be perceived as condoning homophobia or engaging in self-censorship."

"Its role is to expose the realities of those whose voices have been silenced, not to silence them even more."

He said his office takes this matter very seriously and is in contact with the museum's senior management to ensure it is addressed.

In an email, Barry Karlenzig, the president of Pride Winnipeg, said his organization was very disappointed by the recent news that the CMHR has been censoring its exhibits for certain guests. He said Pride Winnipeg will be looking at different venues to host its welcome gala for the Fiert Canada Pride conference, set to take place in Winnipeg in 2022.

"We hope the CMHR will take this opportunity to do better, to accurately and fully reflect the history and culture of 2SLGBTQIA* Canadians in their permanent exhibitions without censorship,"Karlenzigsaid.

Read this article:

Gail Asper 'very troubled' by allegations of discrimination at Canadian Museum for Human Rights - CBC.ca

TV: I read on your website that all your main staff are young Black women. Why did you feel like it was important for young people to be at the forefront of the magazine, and particularly young Black women?

AT: Its funny, we recently made the decision not to put for Black women in the bio of our site. We thought about it, and we realized that so many spaces for white people exist just by default they dont have to name the space for it to be for white people. So we decided we wanted to create a space that prioritized Black womens needs, but put it out there as if its a given.

Of course, I wanted to uplift specific voices, and thats why my team is made up of Black women, but the people on my team are also some of the most brilliant people Ive ever met. Everyone is so good at their role and so passionate about the mission. Were all students and were all so committed to learning and seeing this through, and I think that really shines through on the site.

TV: What do you think Unplug Collective is adding to the discussion of Black womens bodies that maybe other magazines arent talking about as much?

AT: I feel like were taught that story telling has to be a very specific arc: It has to have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and the end needs to have some sort of resolution. But I think for Black women specifically, and especially when were talking about our journeys with our own bodies, there might not be a resolution to the story yet. For example if someone is writing about fatphobia and medical discrimination, and theyre writing about a time when they were misdiagnosed for an illness because of their weight, they are still going through this, and there is not a typical resolution to their story yet. Our number one priority is to allow people to be transparent about their feelings, rather than have a tidy story thats going to get views.

Whats often so difficult about writing is that a lot of language related to trauma is inaccessible. For example words like gaslighting or fatphobia are things that many Black women have faced, but may not have the language to talk about. I think that if we can show people that our lived experiences are just as valuable to learn from as a typical textbook, we can make a huge shift in the way that people view Black womens trauma and trauma in general.

TV: What has the response been to the Unplug Collective since you launched?

AT: The response has been overwhelmingly positive. I would say I get a least two responses a day saying I just started therapy after reading your website or I didnt know I had an eating disorder until I read a conversation in the comments section.

We see the comments section of the website as a bit of a community healing circle. Our publication doesnt remove the writing process from the reaction process: Our titles are very to the point, we encourage writers to submit a photo along with their work, and every article has a comments section so people can respond to someones story immediately. Its essentially online group therapy in a way thats very accessible.

Our whole mission revolves around the idea that everyone is a story teller, everyone is a writer, and everyone has influence. That means that anyone can submit as well. The only pitching process is sharing your Google doc, and if your story is accepted, the editor will call you, talk to you about what youre going through, and see if you need any support in your writing. So by the time the story has been published, the writer will have gone through a bit of a healing process already, and then when people begin to comment, it continues that process.

Read the rest here:

The Unplug Collective Allows Black Women to Express Themselves Without Censorship - Teen Vogue

On June 20, 2020 U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth denied the Trump administrations request to block the release of former national security advisor John BoltonJohn BoltonSunday shows preview: Bolton delivers bombshell while US tackles COVID-19, police brutality White House says it plans to ensure Bolton gets 'no profits' from book Trump touts ruling on Bolton book: 'Now he will have bombs dropped on him!' MOREs tell all book. The narrow holding denying the governments request to stop the distribution of the book was correct. But the courts reasoning was flawed, and could be used to silence future whistleblowers and embolden government censors.

The decision to permit the release of the book was based on pragmatic grounds. The court reasoned that because 200,000 copies of the book were already in distribution worldwide, an order blocking the books release would be futile. As Judge Lamberth put it: the horse is already out of the barn.

However, the Court found that the government was correct on the merits. The court agreed with the Trump administration that Bolton violated prepublication review requirements. These requirements apply federal employees who have access to classified information. Current or former government employees must submit publications to a censor for review and approval prior to publishing a book or an article. The scope of the review is limited to ensuring that state secrets are not spilled.

Judge Lamberths decision indicated that if the horse was not already out of the barn, he would have issued the injunction and suppressed the publication of the book. The court gave the Trump administration the leeway to use prepublication procedures to suppress criticisms in the future. Moreover, the vast majority of persons who are subject to the prepublication rules are not in a position to have 200,000 copies of their publication ready for release prior to the completion of the review process.

Had Bolton not obtained a publisher willing to print 200,000 copies of his book, and commence distribution worldwide, the American people could have been denied access to Boltons information until after the 2020 presidential (and congressional) elections.

Although the Court did not block the publication of the book, it left open the possibility that Bolton could be criminally prosecuted. It also indicated that the government could seize all of his book royalties or subject him to other penalties. This part of the courts decision will have a chilling effect on whistleblowers who try to use the prepublication process to inform the American people about misconduct, but are stymied by long delays.

Yesterdays news wraps fish. In terms of the impact a whistleblower disclosure may have on congressional action, public opinion, or a voters decision, timing is everything. Delaying the exposure of government misconduct can have the same effect as stopping the disclosure altogether.

In the Bolton book case, Bolton submitted his book to government censors on Dec. 30, 2019. However, the clearance process was long delayed, in violation of law. For example, the nondisclosure agreement Bolton was required to sign that covered a review of sensitive compartmented information (the most highly secret information for which Bolton had access), set a strict time limit for the government to conduct its review. The agreement only permitted the government a reasonable opportunity to determine if a book contained classified information, that under the rules cannot exceed 30 working days from date of receipt.

Thus, if the government followed the law the book should have been reviewed and cleared well before the Senate was asked to vote on subpoenaing Bolton to testify at presidents impeachment trial. Instead, the review of the book was delayed until long after the impeachment proceedings ended.

On April 27, 2020, the government official with responsibility to clear Boltons manuscript finally completed her review. She concluded that Boltons book did not contain classified information. This should have ended to story, and the book should have been cleared for publication forthwith. But that letter did not come to pass. Instead the review process went radically awry.

The Trump administration ignored the reviewers findings and appointed a new censor to start the review process again. This censor was a proven Trump loyalist, who formally worked for one of Trumps staunched defenders in Congress, Rep. Devin NunesDevin Gerald NunesSunday shows preview: Bolton delivers bombshell while US tackles COVID-19, police brutality We cannot take our eye off China Nunes's hunt for Twitter cow's identity at 'dead end,' attorney says MORE (R-Calif.). This time the Bolton team apparently had enough, and decided to go forward with publication.

Judge Lamberth ignored the delays Bolton faced and the importance of the first reviewers determination that the book had no classified information. Instead he compared the delay Bolton faced in having his manuscript cleared to the amount of time it takes to get a passport: Many Americans are unable to renew their passports within four months, but Bolton complains that reviewing hundreds of pages of a National Security Advisors tell-all deserves a swifter timetable.

This reasoning is a green light for the government to run out the clock on freedom of the press. It ignores the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that government-induced delays in exercising free speech rights constitutes unlawful censorship. The Court was unequivocal in establishing the rule: "it is vital to the operation of democratic government that the citizens have facts and ideas on important issues before them. A delay of even a day or two may be of crucial importance in some instances.

Delay is tantamount to denial. In a landmark decision ruling on the legality of the prepublication procedures, decided almost 50-years ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit directly tackled the potential that government officials would use a delaying tactic to undermine the legitimate goals of the prepublication process. In U.S. v. Marchetti the court explained that the government must act promptly to approve or disapprove any material. Thus, under the Marchetti precedent the governments maximum period of time for reviewing a manuscript for release should not exceed thirty days.

Every government official reviewing Mr. Boltons book was (or should have been) aware of these deadlines. The Trump administration decided not to put the resources in place to complete the review of the book in a lawful and timely manner. It was in President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump mocked for low attendance at rally Trump suggests legislation that would jail people who burn the flag for a year Trump makes defiant return to campaign stage amid controversies MOREs interest that the books official release be delayed until after the impeachment proceedings ended, and ultimately until after the 2020 elections. If the book really contained dangerous information threatening the national security, the administration should have done its job in a timely manner, consistent with constitutional requirements.

Suppressing the speech of current or former government officials is inconsistent with the core mandates of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The words of the First Amendment are clear. There can be no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press of the American people. Although the district court reached the right judgment in refusing to block the publication of the book, it erred in giving the government the green light to file civil or criminal charges against Bolton.

Stephen M. Kohn is a whistleblower lawyer and a founding partner at the qui tam law firm of Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto. He serves as chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Whistleblower Center. He has successfully represented numerous whistleblowers under national security prepublication review regulations.

Here is the original post:

Bolton book decision: Right answer, wrong reasoning | TheHill - The Hill

Censorship by country collects information on censorship, Internet censorship, Freedom of the Press, 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.

2015 Freedom of the Press Classifications[6]

NotFree

PartlyFree

Free

NoData

2014 Press Freedom Index[7]

Very serious situation

Difficult situation

Noticeable problems

Satisfactory situation

Good situation

Not classified / No data

Internet censorship and surveillance by country (2018)[8][3][4]

Pervasive

Substantial

Selective

Little or none

Not classified / No data

This article incorporatespublic domain material from the United States Department of State document: the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices".CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) This article incorporates licensed material from the Country Profiles, Regional Overviews, and Filtering Maps sections of the OpenNet Initiative web site. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, see the lower right corner of pages at the OpenNet Initiative web site

See the article here:

Censorship by country - Wikipedia

By Barry Jason MauerUCF Forum columnist

Censorship is not all bad! Free-speech idealists argue that the solution to bad speech (misinformation, lies, abusive language, etc.) is not censorship but more speech. But bad speech can, and often does, drown out the good.

A classic form of bad speech is hate speech. Jeremy Waldron, a law professor at the New York University School of Law, describes it this way:

"Its aim is to compromise the dignity of those at whom it is targeted, both in their own eyes and in the eyes of other members of society. And it sets out to make the establishment and upholding of their dignity... much more difficult. It aims to besmirch the basics of their reputation, by associating ascriptive characteristics like ethnicity, or race, or religion with conduct or attributes that should disqualify someone from being treated as a member of society in good standing."

Thus, hate speech is really anti-speech because it aims to shut down the speech of others. And in the United States, hate speech has shut down the speech of minorities and women for hundreds of years. Defenders of hate speech often disguise it as "pride," "state's rights" or "religious freedom." But we are mistaken to treat anti-speech as if it were normal speech, deserving of protection. We can and should be intolerant of intolerance.

Although the United States has a First Amendment protecting free speech, it does not extend to the workplace, the classroom, or the dinner table. It is limited to the press, to religion, to assemblies, and to petitions. And as every journalist, parishioner or public assembly participant knows, there are powerful limits in these arenas, too. We don't have absolutely free speech because we live within the confines of powerful and interlocking institutions: family, education, entertainment, commerce, career, the law, the military, religion and others.

These institutions offer benefits to their members but also constraints and a narrow range of choices of expression. If these institutions were to offer too much freedom, they would be unable to perpetuate the social relations that keep them functioning. So speech inside an institutional context is limited, but speech outside of an institutional context typically has less power. Speech is limited either way.

The question, therefore, is not whether we ought to have constraints on speech but what kinds of constraints?

Censorship is an institutional constraint. When we hear the word censorship, we often imagine a banned book (i.e. schools and libraries removing the book). This is censorship at the point of reception. Protests erupt. Demand for the banned book goes up.

Censorship happens more frequently at the point of distribution than it does at the point of reception, such as an institution refusing to distribute a speech or a text through its channels. This type of censorship rarely leads to protests because outsiders rarely hear about it.

The most common form of censorship is self-censorship, or censorship at the point of production, which means you have internalized the censor's rules and decided to abide by them of your own volition. Perhaps you learned that the benefits of compliance outweigh the costs of resistance, or you rationalized that you can't win anyway.

We may self-censor for good reasons, such as politeness, but sometimes we self-censor because we see someone else made into a negative example and we fear it could happen to us.

For instance, some journalists who otherwise might have criticized the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq silenced themselves rather than risk reprisal--from the government, their corporate owners, or those in the public who were for the war. The result was that journalism inflicted a major blow to its own integrity for behaving as an administration mouthpiece, and Americans became among the least-informed people in the world about the war.

Beyond self-censorship, there are other limitations: ideologies--such as racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia--that prevent us from even thinking certain thoughts, such as thinking of others as human beings with dignity and rights.

We have too much censorship in some areas of our society and too little censorship in others.

There is too much censorship from some plutocrats who suppress the truth about their misrule. They silence whistle-blowers while their propagandists hog the microphone. They maintain these beliefs either through outright censorship or through a pretense of balance in which the media referee fails to penalize those who lie consistently and brazenly. Might we have learned about the lead poisoning in Flint, Mich.'s, water earlier if we could have heard more of whistle-blowers and less of the politicians' denials?

If we hold to ethical principles, such as truth and justice, we can encourage or demand censorship as needed. For example, we should encourage ordinary citizens to participate in democracy, but ban unlimited political contributions by corporations. We should encourage the release of classified information that reveals government abuses, but ban lawmakers from becoming lobbyists once they leave office.

If you want to change the levels of censorship in our society--in other words, to benefit society by loosening or tightening censorship--the best approach is to appeal to the stated values of our institutions. Thus, to loosen censorship by expanding press freedoms, appeal to journalistic institutions as watchdogs of the powerful. To expand academic freedom, appeal to the university's stated aims to seek truth and benefit humanity.

And to appeal for greater censorship, apply the same appeals to our higher values.

Barry Jason Mauer is an associate professor in the UCF Department of English. He can be reached at barry.mauer@ucf.edu.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Visit link:

Censorship Is Not All Bad | HuffPost

The debate about censorship offers many explanations for why censoring a person's words is a bad thing that negatively affects the society as a whole. The American Civil Liberties Union defines censorship as "the suppression of words, images or ideas that are 'offensive'," and censorship occurs whenever one group or individual is successful in promoting its ideologies while suppressing another.

Censorship is considered a bad thing because many people believe that it tries to keep others from learning the truth. Individuals who offer this critique of censorship fear that the government censors information that comes in from other countries to keep Americans ignorant about world affairs that might make the United States look bad. The ACLU notes that censorship is bad because it violates the First Amendment, which is the right to freedom of speech. Censorship may change the meaning of what a person is trying to communicate, thus infringing on his rights. According to Target GD/PI, some people believe that censorship is necessary in certain circumstances. For example, television programs are censored for nudity and foul language to protect children and other vulnerable groups. Many of these people also believe that violent content should be censored because it desensitizes the viewer to violence.

Go here to read the rest:

Why Is Censorship Bad? | Reference.com

Drew Brees, New Orleans Saints quarterback, who has a charity that feeds the needy and helps sick kids, was berated until he apologized for his own personal views about kneeling during the National Anthem:

I will never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag of the United States of America or our country. Let me just tell what I see or what I feel when the National Anthem is played and when I look at the flag of the United States. I envision my two grandfathers, who fought for this country during World War II, one in the Army and one in the Marine Corps. Both risking their lives to protect our country and to try to make our country and this world a better place. So every time I stand with my hand over my heart looking at that flag and singing the National Anthem, thats what I think about. And in many cases, that brings me to tears, thinking about all that has been sacrificed. Not just those in the military, but for that matter, those throughout the civil rights movements of the 60s, and all that has been endured by so many people up until this point. And is everything right with our country right now? No, it is not. We still have a long way to go. But I think what you do by standing there and showing respect to the flag with your hand over your heart, is it shows unity. It shows that we are all in this together, we can all do better and that we are all part of the solution.

J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, activist, attacked online and by GLAAD because she objected to the phrase people who menstruate rather than woman:

If sex isnt real, theres no same-sex attraction. If sex isnt real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isnt hate to speak the truth.

The idea that women like me, whove been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because theyre vulnerable in the same way as women i.e., to male violence hate trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences isnonsense.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), in a column that the New York Times published, then apologized for after a staff backlash:

But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyds death for their own anarchic purposes.

These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives. Many poor communities that still bear scars from past upheavals will be set back still further.

One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers. But local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup, while delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do whats necessary to uphold the rule of law.

Andrew Sullivan, iconoclastic columnist, not appearing this week in New York magazine. His thoughts (on Twitter) about the Times apology:

Not just a capitulation. A total surrender. The groveling for running a provocative op-ed by a sitting senator expressing an opinion I do not share but is widely supported is instructive. But groveling wont appease the social justice mob.

Each time they notch a victory, they move the goalposts. The NYT editors have effectively ceded their authority permanently. A woke committee already vets everything. Now it will be super-charged. And readers now know this is no longer a paper dedicated to the truth.

Its a newspaper run by those who believe truth is a mask for power, that dissent is oppression, that liberalism is a mask for white supremacy, that words are violence, and that open debate is a racist fiction. We all live on campus now.

Polls show these opinions are ones with which most Americans agree. Liberals dont want to change minds, to have a debate; they want to banish the argument. The things that youre not allowed to say. And then theyll bemoan that we live in a fragmented society, where people retreat to their bubbles, and theyll be shocked when the next election doesnt go the way they think.

The Post Editorial Board

Excerpt from:

Things you're not allowed to say: lowlights of the new censorship - New York Post