After a half year of uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 crisis, Chinas beleaguered movie theaters reopened last week with films that ranged from local patriotic blockbuster Wolf Warrior 2" to Pixars Coco. For Hollywood, the return of the film industrys most important foreign market was cause for cautious optimism.

Where it leads, I dont think anyone knows, said Scott Einbinder, a Los Angeles producer and president of ANA Media, which consults for Chinese companies. But its a relief that theres been some light forming at the end of the tunnel after such a long period of darkness.

Still, any sense of reassurance is clouded by a growing chorus criticizing Hollywoods relationship with China. Trump administration officials and political allies have repeatedly hit the entertainment industry for its efforts to gain access to the lucrative Chinese market by appeasing the government in Beijing.

Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo swiped at Hollywood on Thursday at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, saying the industry self-censors even the most mildly unfavorable reference to China. This came a day after the State Department ordered the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston over spying accusations. The Pompeo statement echoed a July 16 speech by Atty. Gen. William Barr, calling out studios for backing social justice causes Stateside while censoring their movies for China despite its human rights violations.

This censorship infects not only versions of movies that are released in China but also many that are shown in American theaters to American audiences, Barr said.

The barrage has extended beyond movies. Earlier this month, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) criticized the National Basketball Assn. for kowtowing to Beijing while allowing athletes to wear social justice slogans on jerseys. In a letter to NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, Hawley asked whether players would also be allowed to don slogans supporting Hong Kong protesters, the U.S. military, or police. Adrian Wojnarowski, a journalist for Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN, was suspended after he sent a two-word email response, which included the f-bomb.

Additionally, White House trade advisor Peter Navarro called former Disney streaming chief Kevin Mayer an American puppet after the executive left the Burbank entertainment giant to run social media app TikTok, which is owned by Chinese company ByteDance. Navarro has accused TikTok and other apps of funneling user data to Beijing. We have never shared TikTok user data with the Chinese government and would not do so if asked, a TikTok spokeswoman said.

The wave of criticism comes at a time when the entertainment industry is already facing uncertainty in China, which has seen massive growth in its film business in the last decade. Since a landmark 2012 agreement that dramatically increased U.S. companies access to Chinas cinemas, studios have wanted to expand their business there.

Studios have long sought a greater box office share in China than the 25% of sales they receive now, compared with about 50% in other nations, as well as better release dates. Theyve also wanted to boost the number of foreign films allowed into the country annually under the revenue-sharing deal from the current quota, loosely set at 34.

Those efforts took a back seat amid the Trump administrations trade war with China. Relations between the U.S. and China have been further strained by the latter countrys provocative moves to expand its military influence in the South China Sea.

Some studio executives and analysts worry that escalating rhetoric could further limit prospects for American movies, particularly for independent studios that get their films into the country through a flat-fee system. Film companies are already struggling at home because of the effects of the coronavirus situation on productions and theaters.

The conversation needs to be focused on gaining legal access to the Chinese market rather than trying to tie producers hands in their efforts to surmount the trade barrier, said Jean Prewitt, president of the Independent Film & Television Alliance.

Censorship is a price of doing business in China, where foreign films endure a rigorous approval process before theyre released.

In 20th Century Foxs 2018 hit Bohemian Rhapsody, references to Queen front man Freddie Mercurys sexuality were cut from the version that screened in China. Last summer, a Twitter user noticed that Tom Cruises bomber jacket in a trailer for Top Gun: Maverick was altered to remove patches representing the flags of Japan and Taiwan, which was interpreted as a move to appease China. Barrs speech cited Marvels 2016 blockbuster Doctor Strange, which changed the origin of the character The Ancient One from a Tibetan monk to a Celtic mystic, played by Tilda Swinton.

Representatives for Disney, Warner Bros., Sony Pictures, Paramount, Universal Pictures and the Motion Picture Assn. declined to comment for this article or did not respond to requests for comment.

However, industry analysts and executives said the left-leaning entertainment industry is a convenient punching bag for politicians. That tendency has only increased during an election year when the administration is vulnerable because of its handling of the coronavirus crisis, which Trump has referred to as the China virus. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) this year introduced legislation that would prevent studios from receiving government assistance on productions if they censored films for China, a move that studio executives have shrugged off as political posturing.

It gets headlines and publicity and feeds into the narrative that all of our problems come from the outside or from left-wing radicals, said Stanley Rosen, a political science professor and China expert at the University of Southern California.

Kirk DAmico, president of Los Angeles-based distributor Myriad Pictures, said his business of licensing content to China had been steadily increasing before the trade disputes took hold. Now he says his China sales fell 70% to 80% since 2018. He blames trade tensions and rhetoric over COVID-19.

Its hurt us in our pocketbooks, and its hurt us in terms of actual sales, DAmico said.

Some film industry executives, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Washingtons concern over censorship is overblown, noting that studios trim movies for many countries, including conservative Middle Eastern nations, to avoid offending local sensibilities. Altering movies to appeal to audiences in the worlds most populous nation makes business sense.

Were not compromising values, said one film business insider, who was not authorized to comment.

But some critics argue that Chinas influence has become so great that its preferences affect what kinds of stories are told globally, not just in mainland China.

The Chinese government is not unique in terms of pushing Hollywood to censor or make movies that reflect their own narratives, but its the only one that is able to be this effective to a global extent, said James Tager, deputy director of free expression research and policy at PEN America, which is publishing a report on the subject.

Censorship has tightened in China since the regulatory body that traditionally oversaw its entertainment sector was eliminated in 2018, shifting control to the Communist Partys propaganda department. The move was part of a sweeping campaign under Party Chairman Xi Jinping to tighten control over speech and thought in China, particularly in media and education.

While some recent American pictures have done huge business in China, the government there has lately tended to favor local productions and patriotic films. China has produced an increasing number of patriotic movies following the Partys guidance to implement socialist core values and build Chinese spirit, Chinese values, Chinese power under the important guiding spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping, as Central Propaganda Department director Huang Kunming declared at a Chinese movie awards ceremony last year. That has made the market more challenging for American movies.

Entertainment industry veteran Chris Fenton, author of the upcoming book Feeding the Dragon, about the relationship between U.S. studios and China, said studios should be more careful about how they respond to Chinese restrictions.

Studios need to admit that there is a lot of hypocrisy going on, Fenton said. They need to get out of their bubble and realize that a lot of their constituents are becoming very aware of the issues in China.

Most observers dont expect China to immediately retaliate against the major studios over administration officials statements. Foreign movies including Universals Robert Downey Jr. family film Dolittle and Sonys Vin Diesel action movie Bloodshot were recently approved for release in the country. It remains unclear when Disney will be able to release its live-action Mulan remake there, despite the inclusion of Chinese cultural consultants during the $200-million production.

China still needs big Hollywood movies to fuel the recovery of its massive cinema industry, which has been shuttered since late January. Ultimately, having Hollywood releases in China is as beneficial to China as it is to Hollywood, said Eric Wold, an entertainment industry analyst at B. Riley FBR.

Still, producer Einbinder hopes the politicization of the entertainment industry cools.

Its easy for the Trump administration to pick on Hollywood, he said. But its much more complicated than that. They have to remember, also, that Hollywood creates a lot of jobs around the country.

Times staff writer Alice Su contributed to this report.

Continued here:

Hollywood 'kowtowing' to China takes heat. But why now? - Los Angeles Times

Social media sites have come out swinging against a video pushing misleading information about hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment which led to Twitter partially suspending Donald Trump Jr.s account.

Conservative media outlet Breitbart first published the contested clip, which features men and women dressed in white lab coats and referring to themselves as Americas Frontline Doctors staging a press conference outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. The individuals make questionable coronavirus claims that have been proven false, such as calling hydroxychloroquine (a drug used to treat malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis for decades) a cure for COVID despite a growing body of scientific evidence that has not shown this to be an effective treatment against the virus.

Whats more, one of the so-called doctors identified as Stella Immanuel from Houston claims in the video that you dont need masks, despite plenty of evidence showing that face coverings help slow the spread of the coronavirus. (She has also said that alien DNA is being used in medical treatments, and gynecological problems such as cysts are caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches, the Daily Beast reported.)

Facebook FB, -0.07%, Twitter TWTR, +0.46% and the Alphabet-owned GOOG, -1.03% GOOGL, -0.78% YouTube have been pulling down the video since it began going viral on Monday, but the damage was already done. By late Monday evening, NBC News reporter Brandy Zadrozny tweeted that the Breitbart clip had been viewed 20 million times on Facebook alone, and thats not including versions that have been shared among private accounts.

President Donald Trump even retweeted a few versions of the video on his Twitter account before they were taken down, undermining his own recent calls for Americans to wear masks to help prevent spreading COVID-19. His son Donald Trump Jr. also tweeted the video, which led Twitter to confirming on Tuesday that it was partially suspending his account for 12 hours, meaning he will be unable to send tweets, retweet posts, follow users, or like messages.The company cited its policy that requires the removal of content that may pose a risk to peoples health, including content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information.

Trump supporters and conspiracy theorists accusing the social media giants of censorship and buying into the bogus drug claims led the hashtag #hydroxychloroquineworks to become a top trending Twitter topic on Tuesday morning. Twitter refuted the hashtag somewhat by noting under the topic tab that the drug is not an effective treatment for COVID-19, according to the FDA.

Indeed, the Food and Drug Administration has revoked its emergency use authorization of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which Dr. Anthony Fauci repeated on Good Morning America Tuesday morning. The director of the National Institute for Allergy andInfectious Diseases told George Stephanopoulos that, I go along with the FDA: the overwhelming prevailingclinical trials that have lookedat the efficacy ofhydroxychloroquine haveindicated that it is noteffective in coronavirusdisease.

Hydroxychloroquine was touted as a potential miracle drug early in the pandemic. The FDA issued emergency-use authorization for the malaria drug in March to treat COVID-19 patients, and clinicians across China, France and the U.S. began testing it to treat the novel coronavirus. Drug makers such as Bayer AG BAYRY, -0.69% and Novartis AG NVS, -0.31% donated millions of doses to the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile.

There was so much excitement, despite scant evidence that it was actually effective against COVID-19, that chloroquine shortages were reported as pharmacies and hospitals stockpiled excessive amounts of the drug something both the American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists strongly opposed in a joint statement.

Read more:Theres scant evidence so far for chloroquine as a COVID-19 drug but theres already a shortage

But reality hasnt lived up to the hype.

Three randomized clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine failed to prove or disprove a beneficial or a harmful effect on COVID-19. These include researchers from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, who reported in the New England Journal of Medicine last month that the drug was no better than a placebo in preventing COVID-19 infections. A Spanish study of more than 2,300 people also found that the drug was not effective for early treatment of mild COVID-19. And the U.K. Recovery trial also ruled out any meaningful mortality benefit from using the drug.

Related:Heres the latest on what we know works and doesnt work in treating coronavirus infections

One by one, the World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health dropped the drug from their clinical trials, and the FDA revoked its emergency use authorization. The general consensus in the scientific community is that the drug does not help COVID-19 patients.

Problem is, one study published in Lancet that claimed hydroxychloroquine put COVID-19 patients at a greater risk of death was later retracted, which has helped to fuel skepticism over whether any coronavirus research can be trusted. And false COVID-19 conspiracy theories have spread even as the virus itself has infected at least 16.5 million people and counting worldwide, killing 655,084. In fact, roughly one in three Americans doesnt believe that the coronavirus has killed as many people as has been reported, even as Texas and Arizona officials have requested refrigerated trucks as deceased coronavirus victims began overwhelming hospital morgues.

Read more: Hope dims for hydroxychloroquine even as medical study detailing the drugs failure is retracted

Further confusing the publics understanding of the coronavirus, President Trump has supported hydroxychloroquine time and time again, and even took the drug himself for a time to ward off the virus. Rep. Roger Marshall(R.-Ky.) has also touted taking the drug as a preventative measure against COVID-19.

The struggle to contain the spread of misinformation about the coronavirus is the latest struggle Big Tech is facing as Alphabet, Amazon AMZN, -0.81%, Apple AAPL, -0.86% and Facebookface questioning over their business practices on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

It also comes as the Trump administration moves forward in petitioning the Federal Communications Administration to reinterpret Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which says that websites cannot be punished for what other people publish on their sites. The petition complains that social media sites use Section 230 to unfairly censor conservative views.

Visit link:

Why Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are taking down that hydroxychloroquine video and suspending accounts, including Donald Trump Jr., that shared it -...

For so long, we essentially have believed, as a people, that truth is best found through the exchange of ideas, even contrasting ones. But is it really so anymore? Can it really be, as some might hold, that truth is better found by simply adhering to common beliefs, without allowing another point of view to surface?

Take, for example, a newspaper that publishes a conservative U.S. senators opinion piece about rioters and then apologizes for it and accepts the resignation of its opinion editor because of the staffs opposition to it. Or the university that revokes a deanship over the deans legal representation of Harvey Weinstein in his sexual misconduct cases. Or another university that, because of student opposition, canceled a virtual commencement address by Ivanka TrumpIvana (Ivanka) Marie TrumpWhite House COVID-19 case underscores persistent threat of virus OVERNIGHT ENERGY: EPA effort to boost uranium mining leaves green groups worried about water | DNC climate platform draft calls for net-zero emissions by 2050 | Duckworth introduces safety net bill for coal country Ivanka Trump visits Rocky Mountain park after passage of conservation bill MORE because of her fathers unrelated, controversial reaction to protesters in D.C. streets.

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously dissented in Abrams v. United States from the Supreme Courts decision upholding convictions for anti-war leafleting. Holmes opined that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get accepted in the competition of the market later and better known as the marketplace of ideas. Meaning, it is only when a position is directly confronted by oppositional thought that truth will out.

Of course, Holmes spoke in the limited context of governmental silencing of dissenting thought, and therefore addressed the high stakes of a constitutional right in connection with the governments war efforts, no less. Now, those who would limit or not even allow the airing of dissenting or opposing thought when government isnt the would-be silencer seem to ignore, or even reject, Holmess view. That is, his view that truth is best procured by the airing of competing thought as has happened with Confederate Gen.Robert E. Lee, for example, leading to a major revision of how many now think about him.

Heres the broader issue: Dont we best learn the falsity of, or lack of merit in, what Doe tells us only with the opportunity to also listen to Roes point of view? Put otherwise, if Roes point of view cant be found in the market on the shelf alongside Does, we are only able to acquire Does, never coming to know that Roes may be the better product.Or here, the better thought maybe even the objectively truthful thought.

When Pontius Pilate, somewhat mischievously, asked Jesus if he was the King of the Jews,Jesus responded: I came into the world to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to me. Pilate famously retorted, What is truth?

Now, 2,000 years later and often not over the issue of religious creed, we are left with the same question: What is truth? And just as was the case then, we often find an unwillingness by opponents of those who propose to proclaim their truth to even allow what they have to say. Surely not at the extreme penalty of crucifixion, but certainly at the penalty of a censorship that silences their ability to articulate their opinions in the public square - whether that public square is an op-ed page, a speakers podium at a university graduation, or wherever articulate opponents of challenged thinking can drown out the proponents voice, all venues where government isnt the would-be censor and considerations of First Amendment censorship arent directly implicated.

Unquestionably, in advocating against those who would suppress the airing of dissident, unpopular or even traditional views on issues of societal concern, we must be mindful that often its the louder or more charismatic voice that may be most convincing to the masses. He or she may not be speaking anything even approaching truth, but nonetheless is somehow able to present the most persuasive advocacy about it. Do we not allow him or her to speak and the same for a less articulate opponent?

The truth no pun intended is that there often is no objective truth. Rather, truth may be an evolving process regarding an issue in question. Or, as in the case of religion, your truth is and may always be different than mine. As long as the preaching of hate, violence, harmful falsity, criminal syndicalism, or intentional defamation arent implicated, why shouldnt you or I be able to speak publicly about who or what we think God is, or isnt if at all?Why shouldnt we be able to speak in the public square for or against modern issues such as abortion, a two-state solution in the Middle East, the value of wearing a face mask during a pandemic, reparations for African Americans, defunding the police, the death penalty?

There may be those who speak to these and other pivotal issues who dont warrant a listening audience. But not because theyre not allowed to speak, or because their speech is drowned out by unreceptive voices. Members of the public can censor out for themselves voices that they just dont want to hear. Simple answer: Dont listen, or dont attend. Isnt that what we, as free people, believe in indeed, what the Founders intended by the Bill of Rights?

It may be that, empirically, what Holmes said about truth best surfacing in the cauldron of contrasting thought is itself wrong. Maybe truth surfaces only sometimes in that venue. But, even so, do we really want to deprive ourselves of those instances when robust debate does indeed get us to the place of truth?

Those who dont accept Holmess formulation might prefer Justice Louis Brandeiss in Whitney v. California: If there be a time to expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

Just consider how much the force of American intellectual thought would have suffered had the voice of Brandeis been drowned out or canceled by naysayers who opposed him simply because he, a Jew, believed in God differently.

Joel Cohen, a former state and federal prosecutor, practices white-collar criminal defense law at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. He is the author of Blindfolds Off: Judges On How They Decide and teaches a class at both Fordham and Cardozo Law Schools in New York based on the book.

Read this article:

Don't we believe in the 'marketplace of ideas' any longer? | TheHill - The Hill

If you ever want to find out who is in charge, you need to find out what you arent allowed to criticize. Or, in the case of China, find out what words they end up removing so the extremely sensitive politicians running the eastern nation into the ground dont get their delicate feelings hurt.

It was recently revealed thatPaper Mario: The Origami King has bizarre phrases censored out in the Chinese release that is removing the fundamentals driving idea behind Paper Mario, and to a greater extent, theMario franchise as a whole.

The two words that have been revealed thus far to be removed from the Chinese edition are human rights and freedom, as Toad requests the help from the derring-do plumber to release the citizens of the world from a sudden oppressive dictatorship that is pushed by The Origami King.

The irony is rich enough to taste.

In multiple releases ofPaper Mario: The Origami King, Toad states Toads have rights, Toads want freedom.

In the Chinese release, Toad states Toads want peaceful lives.

Here, we have the scenes in 4 languages.

In Japanese and English it clearly says "Toads have rights, Toads want freedom."In both Chinese version, it says "Toads want peaceful lives."

We may want to have more context behind the scene. But we clearly see the differences here. pic.twitter.com/kljHBjgm30

ShawTim (@ShawTim) July 24, 2020

An interesting look at the overall ideal that is guiding China at the moment, where freedom and personal rights are expected to be exchanged for the citizens to live in what the Chinese government presumes to be peace.

Well bypass the low-hanging fruit of China running slave camps and committing genocide against hundreds of thousands indigenous peoples while forcing them to work in labor camps that multiple corporations allegedly directly benefit from, and instead focus on the amount of power that China is rapidly gaining over video games and media as a whole.

InTotal War: Three Kingdoms, a title by Creative Assembly that focuses on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms which was a fourteenth century novel by Luo Guanzhong which focuses on the Han Dynasty and China being ripped apart as three kingdoms vie for power, multiple phrases were censored out by Creative Assembly; a move that many note smells of the Chinese government directly controlling what is allowed.

Devotion was a Taiwanese psychological-horror title that was almost impeccable in delivery and performance; then China found out that it referenced the amusing Chinese President Xi Jinping as Winnie the Pooh, and Steam quickly removed the title a mere seven days after it was released to critical acclaim.

Steam themselves, while the darling of the PC gaming industry, have shown themselves to be more than complicit in censoring works coming from Hong Kong developers that paint Chinas political corruption and acts against humanity in a negative light; while they continue to publish titles that depict children in sexual situations.

Blizzard has also been in hot water with the Blitzchung controversy; a Hong Kong resident won aHearthstone tournament and offered a message of solidarity to the Hong Kong protestors; he was quickly removed from professional play and his winnings were not going to be delivered until internet outcry proved to be a formidable force.

The underlying issue it that we have a massive number of companies that directly influence the gaming industry, and theyre all more than eager to kowtow for Chinas absurd requests, as though removing the possibility to name a land Tibet inThree Kingdoms means that Tibet doesnt exist, or that rephrasing Toads plea for help means that Chinese citizens wont have a deeply-rooted fundamental desire for freedom.

Without any of the companies willing to take a stand against the censorship that China is levying, while Tencent wraps its arms around an ever-increasing number of developers, this is only the beginning. Its becoming an out of control issue that is white-washing severe social issues, all to the tune of a few extra dollars for the corporations complicit in the censorship. Seeing all of these brave acts of solidarity as these studios attempt to side with the BLM, while clearly positing that no one matters except for profits, leaves a poor taste in the mouth.

More:

Paper Mario: The Origami King Censors The Words Human Rights And Freedom... - Happy Gamer

By Jared Evan

In a letter to Attorney General William Barr, Florida Rep Gaetz alleged that Zuckerberg made false statements to Congress about Facebooks content moderation during two hearings two years ago.

The letter said: On both occasions, members of Congress asked Mr. Zuckerberg about allegations that Facebook censored and suppressed content supportive of President Donald Trump and other conservatives. In his responses, Mr. Zuckerberg repeatedly and categorically denied any bias against conservative speech, persons, policies, or politics Mr. Zuckerberg also dismissed the suggestion that Facebook exercises any form of editorial manipulation.

The congressman continued: As a member of this body, I question Mr. Zuckerbergs veracity, and challenge his willingness to cooperate with our oversight authority, diverting congressional resources during time-sensitive investigations, and materially impeding our work, Gaetz, a House Judiciary Committee member, wrote. Such misrepresentations are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal and fraudulent.

Gatzs ammunition to this latest accusation against Facebook and Zuckerberg is a series of recent investigations from Project Veritas. He mentioned in the letter to Barr: recent reports from Project Veritas, featuring whistleblowers who worked as Facebooks content moderators, have shown ample evidence of Facebooks purported bias and manipulation against conservative speech.

Left leaning outlets like Business Insider were quick to besmirch Project Veritas and its founder. James Okeefe. Business Insider sloppily and biasedly wrote Project Veritas is a right-wing activist group that frequently traffics inmisinformationandpropaganda, in an effort to minimalize the impact of Gatz requests to AG Barr.

It is true that Project Veritas investigates subjects that conservatives would be interested in exposing, such as Planned Parenthood, Bernie Sanders staff members and Facebook bias. However, not a single investigation has ever been proven to be fraudulent. OKeefe carefully crafts investigations, staffs professional actors and sends them out undercover equip with recording devices to capture evidence on camera and audio. The goal is do destroy the credibility of Project Veritas, albeit with no proof.

Gatz expanded on the Project Veritas expose in the letter: according to the Veritas report and undercover footage, the adjudicators were outspoken about their political bias against Republicans, and actively chose to eliminate otherwise-allowable content from the platform and from public view simply due to its political orientation, Gaetz wrote to Barr.

This arbitrary and capricious behavior is not done in good faith and falls outside of the express intent of 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which affords Facebook liability protection as long as the platform moderates content in good faith.'

It is yet to se seen if Barr will take any action and look further into Gatz requests. This topic is nothing new to The Jewish voice, which has been tenaciously reporting on Facebook and social media censorship, and shadow banning since 2018.

In 2018, the first major banning of a conservative figure took place.

TJV reported in 2018 :

The permanent suspension of flamboyant and controversial, conservative political speaker, writer, and former Breitbart technology editor Milo Yiannopoulos from Twitter was what many consider a watershed moment in social media censorship. Yiannopoulos had several million followers on Twitter and had used social media to build his name and career to his advantage. His local appearances at college campus bring giant protests from hard left protestors as evidently free speech is no longer acceptable at universities; but it was not any radical political viewpoints that got him banned from Twitter, no it was simply insulting actress and comedian Leslie Jones.

It is at this point; the floodgates were opened. Immensely popular radio host and owner of popular alternative news site Alex Jones was methodically removed from all social media. In 2018, YouTube began suspending his account, by mid-2019, Alex Jones was 100% removed from social media. The same happened to Jewish fire-brand right-wing personality Laura Loomer, removed from all social media. There have been countless others, outright banned. The more edgy sometimes conspiratorial social media personalities are outright banned, while something sneaky frequently happens to more straight forward news entities that lean conservative: the shadowban

Shadow-banning is a clever trick designed to drive traffic and impact down of conservative outlets. Breitbart, one of the most popular news sites in America, was an early victim of shadow-banning. When you are shadowbanned on Facebook, the induvial user who may be following Breitbart, will not see any updates from the outlet on their news feed. The user has to go directly to their favorite news outlets Facebook page to see their updates. Without knowing this, one can simply forget outlets like The Jewish Voice, Daily Caller or Breitbart still exist, as the updates to do not show up when one logs into Facebook. This is a sneaky way to cause damage to media outlets not favored by Silicon Valley.

The Jewish voice can attest to the impact of shadowbanning. Since 2018, TJV has seen our traffic coming from Facebook essentially vanish. According to Facebook statistics, which one receives when running a Facebook page for a company; we witnessed the clear pattern of our posts being shadowbanned. The average post went from on average 6-7 thousand viewers seeing the post, to on average 200-300 people per post. TJV did not lose large amounts of followers, but our exposure has dropped like a rock. Many people who follow The Jewish Voice, have pointed out to us, they no longer see us on their Facebook News Feed. Our Twitter interaction has slowed to a crawl as well.

I hope Mr Barr takes this seriously and looks into not only the outright banning of conservative media figures and outlets, but the shadow banning as well, which is sneaky, unfair and negatively effects our business The Jewish Voice publisher David Benhooren told me after learning about Gaetz efforts.

More here:

Rep. Matt Gaetz Says Zuckerberg Lied Under Oath About Facebook Conservative Censorship, calls on DOJ to Open Criminal Investigation - The Jewish Voice

As it rounds the corner toward next months milestone 300th issue, Heavy Metal magazine for decades the go-to destination for some of fans edgiest and wildest comic book rides closed ranks at Comic-Con@Home to take a look at how the seminal magazine will carry the torch in the years to come.

Coming together for a birds-eye view of the magazines place in a changing world, CEO Matthew Medney emceed an online chat with partner, publisher, and creative chief David Erwin, along with Dylan Sprouse (Sun Eater), George C. Romero (The Rise, Cold Dead War), Brendan Columbus (Savage Circus), and Dan Fogler (Fishkill, Brooklyn Gladiator, Moon Lake) all for a deep talk that veered hilariously between big-picture issues like censorship and the magazines punk-rock soul; and silly diversions (like Columbus fascination with man-eating giraffes).

First things first: everyone in the Heavy Metal family planted their flag as die-hard lovers of artistic freedom and following their creative impulses to the ends of the Earth even as the larger creative world, in Erwins word, grows more vanilla and risk-averse. Were the Ben & Jerrys, he joked, noting that his background with big-budget DC productions like Christopher Nolans Batman movies taught him the value of system-bucking artists, toiling away on far less bankable comic book ideas.

This is what I think makes Heavy Metal exciting, he explained bringing in these different personalities and taking risks and taking chances.

Not everything needs to be for everyone, Medney agreed. That idea thats kind of infected our society, that everything should be palatable for everyone, is kind of as dangerous as misinformation.

Heavy Metal was born in an era of immense social and artistic ferment, and thats exactly what Romero who said he tried for years to get his famous, zombie film-pioneering father to work with the magazine back when horror and sci-fi didnt often cross paths said he values about being a part of it.

Growing up, Romerosaid, the magazine inspired him with its willingness to go against the cultural grain and engage all kinds of artistic visions. It was an opportunity for writers to put characters into world views that everybody, kids and grown ups, could identify with, he said. By putting messaging into characters that I think we looked to almost as role models growing up, one way or another, it formed our ability as a generation to have what our parents mightve called'dangerous' thoughts

What could be more dangerous than ravenous giraffes? Everyone roasted Columbus for the insane sights that await readers of Savage Circus when HM Issue #300 arrives next month. But Columbus confessed he wasnt trying to challenge prevailing values when he came up with the idea nope; he simply wanted to have a comic where crazy, zany stuff would be the rule, rather than the exception.

I wanted to see people get torn apart by animals, he joked. Thats the why. When I opened a comic book as a kid, it was to see the things [adults didnt want you to see] so I made Savage Circus a throwback to sort of the emotional stories of the 80s for fans of all the hard-edged violence and pulpy humor the eras creators playfully engaged.

Fogler said thats the idea he was going for with Moon Lake, the Hitchcock on acid 2010 graphic novel anthology that put the current Walking Dead star on comic book fans radar. Moon Lake is an homage to everything I was not supposed to see as a kid; everything I stayed up late to watch, he said, adding that Heavy Metals 300th issue marks an important testimony to the unfettered artistic spirit.

History is repeating itself man; it feels like the 60s all over again, and Heavy Metal was birthed out of that, he reflected. What a perfect voice. [The magazine] is not going to censor us and theres so much censoring going on right now.

Featuring an English-language debut of a Moebius short story, with work from Medney, Erwin, Sprouse, Columbus, Richard Corben, Liberatore, Vaughan Bode, Stephanie Phillips, Justin Jordan, Blake Northcott, and more, Issue #300 of Heavy Metal is set to arrive on Aug. 19.

Click here for SYFY WIRE's full coverage of Comic-Con@Home 2020.

Original post:

Zombies, censorship, & killer giraffes: Heavy Metal reflects on making it to issue #300 - SYFY WIRE

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced a bill that would strip big tech companies of their Section 230 immunity if they use or enable manipulative, behavioral advertising.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act currently protects tech companies from liability for unlawful content that users post on their platforms. But the Behavioral Advertising Decisions Are Downgrading Services (BAD ADS) Act, which Hawley announced on Tuesday, would remove that protection for large platforms that use tactics like tracking users past location or creating personal psychological profiles to target them with ads that match their online behavior and history.

Big techs manipulative advertising regime comes with a massive hidden price tag for consumers while providing almost no return to anyone but themselves, Hawley said. From privacy violations to harming children to suppression of speech, the ramifications are very real.

This isnt the first time Hawley has gone after big tech. In June, he introduced a bill that would enable users to sue platforms for selectively censoring political speech.

In August 2019, Hawley also proposed a bill, the Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology (SMART) Act, that would prohibit social media platforms from using infinite scroll or auto refill and engagement-related awards, in an effort to combat excessive use of social media.

Two months before that, Hawley introduced the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, which would only grant Section 230 immunity to big tech companies that could show their content moderating practices were not politically biased.

Hawley isnt the only lawmaker critical of Section 230. Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler introduced a bill in June that would remove liability protections for platforms that censor free speech. Sens. Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham have also indicated that they would support pulling back some of the protections for big tech companies if censorship continues.

Meanwhile, the House Antitrust Subcommittee will hear from the heads of Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple on Wednesday. Conservatives expect the hearing to be an opportunity to discuss growing concerns about censorship by social media platforms.

Elle Reynolds is an intern at the Federalist, and a senior at Patrick Henry College studying government and journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

Read this article:

New Bill Would Punish Tech Companies That Use Behavioral Ads To Collect Your Information - The Federalist

Parler CEO John Matze on offering a Twitter app alternative which allows users to express free speech and engage in discussions without censorship.

Some users have become frustrated with the most mainstream social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter, over alleged conservative censorship, data security issues and other concerns.

They're creating accounts on sites like Gab, 4chan and the newly minted Parler however, it's unclear whether these companies will ever take significant market share away from today'ssocial media giants.

WHO IS PARLER CEO JOHN MATZE?

Some sites, like 4chan,have reputations as gathering places for extremists since the site isloath to censor offensive posts.

Meanwhile, sites like Parler are marketing to conservatives who think that companies like Twitter and Facebook are censoring right-of-center viewpoints.

Parler's homepage. (Screenshot)

"I think they are censoring," Parler CEO John Matze Jr. told FOX Business' "Mornings with Maria." "I don't think they believe they are. I don't know that they would admitthey are, but it is pretty clear that they're behaving like publications. ... They're telling you they're an open community forum for people behaving like publications, choosing what gets to reach its audience, what doesn't."

WHO IS TWITTER CEO JACK DORSEY?

Here are some alternative social media sites trying to grow their platforms or rehab their images:

Imageboard 4chan, a weird and often lewd corner of the internet,was founded by 15-year-old Christopher Poole in 2003. The site allows users to post anonymously on topic boards that range from politics to anime.

WHICH SOCIAL MEDIA SITE HAS THE MOST USERS?

Poole left 4chan and is now a product manager at Google. 4chan has grown to more than22 million monthly visitors worldwide.

Christopher Poole, founder of 4chan, speaks during the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in New York, on Tuesday, May 25, 2010. (Ramin Talaie/Corbis via Getty Images)

4chan has also faced serious criticism for its lack of controls after killers posted gory photos of their victims, including in the case of slain teen Bianca Devins.

Andrew Torba foundedGab.comin 2016,nearly 15 years after 4chan was created, and Gabhas a much smaller user base than 4chan's. Gab's interface is similar to Twitter's, but it is banned by both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store because of its content.

WHAT IS SECTION 230?

Gab insisted it has "zero tolerance" for racism and terrorism after facing backlash when it was revealed that the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter had posted anti-Semitic messages on the website.

The site had more than 1.1 million registered users as of April.

In June, alternativesocial mediasite Parler seemedto have sprung up overnight after fed-upconservativesannouncedthey were making accounts because of Twitter's censorship policies.

But the sitehas been around since 2018 and was founded by John Matze Jr. and Jared Thomson. Both studied computer science at the University of Denver.

Conservative pundit Dan Bongino ispushing Parler afterannouncingearlier in June that he had taken an ownership stake in the platform.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Ello now describes itself as a network for "creators" after starting out as an ad-free Facebook alternative in 2014. The site was not user-friendly and therefore unable to retain a solid user base, according to TechCrunch. Its reinvention focuses on connecting artists with partnership opportunities and allowing them to share their work with the wider world.

Ello's homepage. (Screenshot)

The site had about 625,000 artists as of 2017, according to TechCrunch.

A lot of people thought we died and went away and the whole time weve been cultivating a really niche and creative community thats gotten more focused as Ive been able to enact my vision," CEO Todd Berger told TechCrunch.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

See the article here:

What alternative social media sites are there? - Fox Business

NEW YORK (AP) So youve probably read a lot about cancel culture. Or know about a new poll that shows a plurality of Americans disapproving of it. Or you may have heard about a letter in Harpers Magazine condemning censorship and intolerance.

But can you say exactly what cancel culture is? Some takes:

It seems like a buzzword that creates more confusion than clarity, says the author and journalist George Packer, who went on to call it a mechanism where a chorus of voices, amplified on social media, tries to silence a point of view that they find offensive by trying to damage or destroy the reputation of the person who has given offense.

I dont think its real. But there are reasonable people who believe in it, says the author, educator and sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom. From my perspective, accountability has always existed. But some people are being held accountable in ways that are new to them. We didnt talk about cancel culture when someone was charged with a crime and had to stay in jail because they couldnt afford the bail.

Cancel culture tacitly attempts to disable the ability of a person with whom you disagree to ever again be taken seriously as a writer/editor/speaker/activist/intellectual, or in the extreme, to be hired or employed in their field of work, says Letty Cottin Pogrebin, the author, activist and founding editor of Ms. magazine.

It means different things to different people, says Ben Wizner, director of the ACLUs Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

In tweets, online letters, opinion pieces and books, conservatives, centrists and liberals continue to denounce what they call growing intolerance for opposing viewpoints and the needless ruining of lives and careers. A Politico/Morning Consult poll released last week shows 44% of Americans disapprove of it, 32% approve and the remaining 24% had no opinion or didnt know what it was.

For some, cancel culture is the coming of the thought police. For others, it contains important chances to be heard that didnt exist before.

Recent examples of unpopular cancellations include the owner of a chain of food stores in Minneapolis whose business faced eviction and calls for boycotts because of racist social media posts by his then-teenage daughter, and a data analyst fired by the progressive firm Civis Analytics after he tweeted a study finding that nonviolent protests increase support for Democratic candidates and violent protests decrease it. Civis Analytics has denied he was fired for the tweet.

These incidents damage the lives of innocent people without achieving any noble purpose, Yascha Mounk wrote in The Atlantic last month. Mounk himself has been criticized for alleging that an astonishing number of academics and journalists proudly proclaim that it is time to abandon values like due process and free speech.

Debates can be circular and confusing, with those objecting to intolerance sometimes openly uncomfortable with those who dont share their views. A few weeks ago, more than 100 artists and thinkers endorsed a letter co-written by Packer and published by Harpers. It warned against a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity.

The letter drew signatories from many backgrounds and political points of view, ranging from the far-left Noam Chomsky to the conservative David Frum, and was a starting point for contradiction.

The writer and trans activist Jennifer Finney Boylan, who signed the letter, quickly disowned it because she did not know who else had attached their names. Although endorsers included Salman Rushdie, who in 1989 was forced into hiding over death threats from Iranian Islamic leaders because of his novel The Satanic Verses, numerous online critics dismissed the letter as a product of elitists who knew nothing about censorship.

One of the organizers of the letter, the writer Thomas Chatterton Williams, later announced on Twitter that he had thrown a guest out of his home over criticisms of letter-supporter Bari Weiss, the New York Times columnist who recently quit over what she called a Twitter-driven culture of political correctness. Another endorser, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, threatened legal action against a British news site that suggested she was transphobic after referring to controversial tweets that she has written in recent months.

The only speech these powerful people seem to care about is their own, the author and feminist Jessica Valenti wrote in response to the Harpers letter. (Cancel culture ) is certainly not about free speech: After all, an arrested journalist is never referred to as canceled, nor is a woman who has been frozen out of an industry after complaining about sexual harassment. Canceled is a label we all understand to mean a powerful person whos been held to account.

Cancel culture is hard to define, in part because there is nothing confined about it no single cause, no single ideology, no single fate for those allegedly canceled.

Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, convicted sex offenders, are in prison. Former television personality Charlie Rose has been unemployable since allegations of sexual abuse and harassment were published in 2017-18. Oscar winner Kevin Spacey has made no films since he faced allegations of harassment and assault and saw his performance in All the Money in the World replaced by Christopher Plummers.

Others are only partially canceled. Woody Allen, accused by daughter Dylan Farrow of molesting her when she was 7, was dropped by Amazon, his U.S. film distributor, but continues to release movies overseas. His memoir was canceled by Hachette Book Group, but soon acquired by Skyhorse Publishing, which also has a deal with the previously canceled Garrison Keillor. Sirius XM announced last week that the late Michael Jackson, who seemed to face posthumous cancellation after the 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland presented extensive allegations that he sexually abused boys, would have a channel dedicated to his music.

Cancellation in one subculture can lead to elevation in others. Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has not played an NFL game since 2016 and has been condemned by President Donald Trump and many others on the right after he began kneeling during the National Anthem to protest a country that oppresses black people and people of color. But he has appeared in Nike advertisements, been honored by the ACLU and Amnesty International and reached an agreement with the Walt Disney Co. for a series about his life.

You can say the NFL canceled Colin Kaepernick as a quarterback and that he was resurrected as a cultural hero, says Julius Bailey, an associate professor of philosophy at Wittenberg University who writes about Kaepernick in his book Racism, Hypocrisy and Bad Faith.

In politics, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a Democrat, remains in his job 1 1/2 years after acknowledging he appeared in a racist yearbook picture while in college. Sen. Al Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota, resigned after multiple women alleged he had sexually harassed them, but Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax of Virginia defied orders to quit after two women accused him of sexual assault.

Sometimes even multiple allegations of sexual assault, countless racist remarks and the disparagement of wounded military veterans arent enough to induce cancellation. Trump, a Republican, has labeled cancel culture far-left fascism and the very definition of totalitarianism while so far proving immune to it.

Politicians can ride this out because they were hired by the public. And if the public is willing to go along, then they can sometimes survive things perhaps they shouldnt survive, Packer says.

I think you can say that Trumps rhetoric has had a boomerang effect on the rest of our society, says PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel, who addresses free expression in her book Dare to Speak, which comes out next week. People on the left feel that he can get away with anything, so they do all they can to contain it elsewhere.

More here:

Everywhere and nowhere: The many layers of 'cancel culture' - Associated Press

ISTANBUL: A proposed law that Turkey says will make social media companies more accountable to local regulations will rather increase censorship and accelerate a trend of authorities silencing dissent, critics including a UN body said this week.The Turkish parliament was to begin debate on Tuesday on the bill that is backed by President Tayyip Erdogans ruling AK Party, which has a majority with an allied nationalist party. It is expected to pass this week.As an overwhelming majority of the countrys mainstream media has come under government control over the last decade, Turks have taken to social media and smaller online news outlets for critical voices and independent news.Turks are already heavily policed on social media and many have been charged with insulting Erdogan or his ministers, or criticism related to foreign military incursions and the handling of the coronavirus pandemic.The law would require foreign social media sites to appoint Turkish-based representatives to address authorities concerns over content and includes deadlines for its removal.Companies could face fines, blocked advertisements or have bandwidth slashed by up to 90%, essentially blocking access.Social media is a lifeline... to access news, so this law signals a new dark era of online censorship, said Tom Porteous, Human Rights Watch deputy program director. It would damage free speech in Turkey where an autocracy is being constructed by silencing media and all critical voices, he added.Presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin said the bill would not lead to censorship but would establish commercial and legal ties with platforms.What is a crime in the real world is also crime in the digital world, he said on CNN Turk, adding that these included terrorism propaganda, insults and violation of personal rights.Turkey was second globally in Twitter-related court orders in the first six months of 2019, according to the company, and it had the highest number of other legal demands from Twitter.Erdogan has repeatedly criticized social media and said a rise of immoral acts online in recent years was due to lack of regulations.A spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said the draft law would give the state powerful tools for asserting even more control over the media landscape.It would further undermine the right of people in Turkey to freedom of expression, to obtain information and to participate in public and political life, said spokeswoman Liz Throsell.

More here:

Lebanese PM urges caution amid heightened border tensions with Israel - Arab News

In the weeks since Beijing passed the Hong Kong national security law, political titles have been pulled from public library shelves, a protest slogan has been banned and students have been prohibited from political activities in schools. With lawyers, academics, and journalists expressing concern over the laws vague wording, the future of free speech and expression in the city is uncertain.

Booksellers, like the citys librarians and publishers, fear stricter regulations on the titles they are allowed to offer, creating a chilling effect among institutions which traditionally uphold and safeguard the free flow of ideas, information, and narratives.

Fears for the independent bookselling arena in Hong Kong first arose in 2015, when five staff members of Causeway Bay Books which sold political gossip titles disappeared. Then, in mid-2018, it was revealed that the China Liaison Office in Hong Kong owned the company controlling Sino United Publishing (SUP), which in turn controlled more than half the citys bookstores.

But there are still booksellers in Hong Kong who continue to safeguard against Chinese influence. Albert Wan of Bleak House Books, a local English-language bookstore at the heart of a tight-knit reading community, is committed to resisting any changes in how he runs his business. This includes continuing to stock sensitive political titles that could potentially contravene the law: [These titles] mostly would be books that are not published by large presses. Books that relate specifically to Hong Kong and the law, the Umbrella Movement, or protests from last summer these are obviously the most sensitive books, he told HKFP.

He now wonders whether previously unproblematic titles will become contraband: Under the new law, and based on what we know happens in mainland China, would it be a problem to stock 1984, Animal Farm, or On Tyranny? [What about] general theory-based books [or] academic texts about revolutionary movements that have taken place in China in the past? Who knows?

As a former US lawyer before running his own bookshop, Wan is sceptical about the legal validity of recent government-issued statements about what may or may not be acceptable: Its hard to tell where the red-lines are. Everyones saying it, but its true. It doesnt help when the government willy-nilly comes out and makes statements about the law or how people might be violating it. Theres no official interpretation. What the government says, at least in my understanding of how things work their statements are not the law, he said.

Wan is not the only independent bookstore owner frustrated by the legislation. May Fung of ACO Book a local bookstore specialising in arts and culture also expressed concern: Every publication on any subject is now subject to this national security law. I think it is dangerous and I am somewhat worried, she told HKFP.

If we still lived in a society with rule of law and a legal system we can trust, we can go to court and the court will fairly decide whether or not a certain title contravenes the law. But this new national security agency is outside of the government, so thats not necessarily the case now; we dont know whether or not they will be fair.

However, Fung, like Wan, is committed to business as usual, unless forced to do otherwise. I wont stop operations because [the government] may or may not ban certain titles. We will keep doing what we are doing until we are forced into a corner, she said.

Since the anti-extradition law protests started last June, Wan and his store have taken a clear stance in support of the pro-democracy movement. He says that, especially for indie bookstores like Bleak House, it is difficult to stay apolitical.

I dont think theres anything wrong with being apolitical, its really up to the person who runs the bookshop. I think its a problem to not have a stance personally, but it doesnt necessarily have to translate into what you do for work, he said. [But] its a little hard to do that when youre selling books the books you stock reflect the perspectives and the ideologies of the person or people running the bookshop its harder for smaller bookshops to be in the middle and not take a side.

When asked whether he will obey orders to pull books off his shelves for the sake of national security, Wan gave a tentative answer: We would not go and start pulling books off our shelves just because we receive [an order to do so]. It depends on the nature of the order and what itll look like.

We are very hesitant to go down the path of any kind of censorship, whether its self-imposed or whether its imposed from outside because if we go down that road theres really no turning back.

Fung echoed the sentiment: I dont want to go to prison but I will not self-censor until I absolutely have no other choice, she said.

Despite their commitment to resisting self-censorship, both Wan and Fung said they have to weigh the risks to their livelihoods and the safety of those around them.

My initial reaction will be to tell them to f-off, but I also have a bookstore to run I have responsibilities as a husband and father, Wan said. Its a matter of how muchI feel like I can keep doing [what Im doing] and not be a burden and compromise the safety of my family.

If they do come and tell us certain books can no longer be sold like we saw with Causeway Books, then I will have to stop selling the titles to protect my colleagues from being arrested, Fung said.

Elsewhere in the city, international bookstores are adopting a more cautious approach under the new law. The manager of a bookstore selling books by a German publisher, who requested to remain anonymous, told HKFP their brand has had to self-censor for the sake of business.

Following the passing of the national security law, we do feel that the freedom that once existed has been curtailed. he said. For example, we used to be very carefree and bold in our displays in art fairs in the city, we even put on display a book about Tibet in recent years.

This year, however, the new law has forced them to rein in their displays. We sell lots of books on very diverse subjects. But there is definitely more self-censorship now. At the end of the day, we are a business entity, he said.

This doesnt necessarily mean the international brand will steer clear of every potentially problematic title in Hong Kong: In our shop, we are still selling books by Ai Wei Wei. Its just for higher-profile events, we now have to be less bold.

Under the security law, the company is approaching bookselling in Hong Kong with lessons learnt from its operations on the mainland. While we have healthy business relations on the mainland, we have been careful about the types of books we sell in the mainland Chinese market. For example, we stay away from selling more sensitive books such as those depicting maps or dealing with religion. the manager said.

Beyond preemptive self-censorship, international bookshops in the city may encounter direct censorship as the laws implementation unfolds. If told to remove certain titles from their catalogue, the brand would have to comply: We are a business in Hong Kong and have no choice but to follow the law.

This, however, is a marked change from the companys original intentions when setting up operations in the city more than ten years ago: Its not necessarily what we want since we set up our regional office in Hong Kong as it was a free city and one of Asias capitals with the freedom of publication, the manager added.

We can still run a healthy business even with the tighter controls and with more titles becoming more sensitive. However, we will have to see how the new law unfolds to see if we will further expand in the city.

HKFP also approached other large book chains in the city, including Swindon Books, Bookazine, and HKMoAs TheBookshop, but did not receive any response.

In spite of the rapidly changing political landscape, booklovers are still carrying on as before. Commenting on whether he has seen a change in his bookstores community, Wan was surprised at the lack of immediate change: We thought that people were going to change their book-buying habits after they passed the law because we have books and literature at the bookshop that some people might deem problematic, he said. But people are still buying the same books they were buying before the law was passed.

The manager for the German-based retailer suggested that customers themselves still had the agency to resist censorship and the curtailing of freedoms through their spending: Our customers are using their purchasing power in the same way, they are buying the same titles they did before.

Likewise, despite the pressures, Wan said he believes bookstores too must continue to play their quiet yet crucial rolein facilitating access to knowledge: [Our] duty is just to keep the flow of information going. To keep it as open and as wide and as free as possible. Theres nothing special they have to do. Its not like they have to fight back or say anything thats especially incendiary or provocative, he said.

He said he has this hope for other bookstores: Just [keep] doing business the way they used to before the law was passed. Just maintaining that sense of freedom that is a trademark of Hong Kong society. This is what sets it apart from the mainland. To maintain that atmosphere and that culture is important.

For Fung, keeping her store open and uncensored is a question of keeping knowledge accessible for all.

I think bookstores play an important role in providing access to knowledge in the community. Not everybody has access to an official education so its vital to keep providing a channel of knowledge to society, she said. This is important for me, and I think lots of people also believe in this.

And the future for Hong Kong bookstores? The fate of bookstores is sort of tied to [Hong Kong] as a society thats rooted in law and free expression and transparency. You cannot run a bookstore without those core principles in place, Wan said.

The way Hong Kong goes, bookshops will go. Right now it doesnt look good, but who knows? We just have to stay hopeful and keep doing what were doing.

SIGN UP to HKFP Dim Sum a weekly summary of our best content

Emails are sent every Friday. Unsubscribe at any time. HKFP will not share your details with third parties.

Success! You've joined the HKFP Dim Sum mailing list

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

More:

I will continue until I have no other choice: The art of bookselling under Hong Kongs national security law - Hong Kong Free Press

(Getty)

But there is no question that weve got some major issues, and free speech is so dependent these days on these big tech companies, so they have to be very careful that free speech is protected. And, of course, theres a pattern now that shows otherwise

On July 21st, Merion West editor Erich Prince was joined by Rep. Jody Hice, a Republican who represents Georgias 10th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives. (Rep. Hice has also joined Merion Westfor previous discussions in 2018 and 2019.) In this conversation, Mr. Prince and Rep. Hice discuss recent unrest in the country, including the Defund the Police movement, which has gained particular inroads recently in cities such as New York and Minneapolis. Rep. Hice then also weighs in on recent concerns about free speech, including allegations that various technology companies have an anti-conservative bias.

Good morning, Congressman. Nice to talk to you again and thanks so much for your time. I want to start off by quickly saying that I understand the President was in Atlanta last weekand that you had the chance to fly with him on Air Force One. How was that experience?

Great experienceits always wonderful to be with the president, but to be on Air Force One is just icing on the cake to be with him in that environmentjust an amazing experience all the way around.

I saw a video you posted on Twitter showing your constituents the conference room [on board], and you shared with them a message about getting involved in politics.

Yeah, you know we are a country of We the People; our voice matters. I feel like Im an example of that myself; [I] never dreamed Id be in a place like this. And I just want to encourage other people that their voices matter; their votes matter; and to step up to the plate in whatever capacity they can and to be involved. I thought the place, the conference room on Air Force One, was appropriate for getting that message out on.

Jumping ahead, I read your June op-ed in The Daily Caller End RacismNot the Police, as well as your recent letters co-signed with a few other colleagues to the mayors of New York, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis. Obviously, this anti-police moment is gaining a lot of traction. What do you think is the best way to turn the tide against this from your perspective?

I think, in fact, Americans in generalin every polltheyre opposed to defunding the police or eradicating police departments. People understand that its impossible to have law and order if you dont have law enforcement in the mix. And this attempt to remove all law enforcement in their capacity to maintain law and order is only going to create further chaos and more crime. And, of course, thats what were seeing in all of those three cities that you mentioned: Crime is up; violent crime is up. Its ludicrous to think that we can maintain a civil society without police departments and law enforcement.

And closer to home for youobviously, Atlantas not your districtbut that was an area that was hit pretty hard by things. And there were reports about morale suffering within law enforcement, such as reports of walkouts by police in Atlantas Zone 6 in particular.What are you hearing around the state of Georgiawhether in your district or around the statefrom law enforcement?

As you mention, Atlanta is not in my district, but I have spoken to many law enforcement individuals in the 10th district of Georgia, and its a difficult time. We are not seeing the same type of protests as have happened in Atlanta and some other major cities. What protests there have been in our district have been peaceful and that type of thing, but the overarching question that you bring up is: How is the Defund the Police movement impacting these various departments, sheriff departments, police departments?

And it is impacting them. They are having great difficulty in hiring people, even receiving applications from individuals who are interested in law enforcement. And thats been an area in the past that people have been proud to be in law enforcement, to be public servants in that capacity, but now its a different scenario. And even in rural parts of our nation, that is having an impact.

On the flip side, one does see some of this effort to show extra support for police. I saw a weekend or two ago in Queens [New York] that there was a very sizable pro-police march, so perhaps some of the people on the other side [of this debate] are also trying to make their voices heard.

Yes, and I think youre going to see more of that because, again, the vast majority of Americans understand that the vast majority of police officers are great people, and theyre public servants. Are there bad actors? Of course, there are, and those are the individuals we need to go after. Thats where the problems that exist need to be dealt with and eradicated. But to punish entire departments is doing nothing other than punishing entire communities and cities. Its just the wrong way to go about it, and I think the majority of Americans are keenly aware of that, and they will be supporting the police departments.

So, yesterday when I was getting together this interview discussion, I was planning to ask you about free speech in a number of places, and one of the places was big tech. Then I saw your letter that you tweeted this morning about free speech, Twitter, big tech, and potential censorship. I know the Tom Cotton Twitter controversy a couple of weeks ago received a lot of attention. So, in the aftermath of recent events and free speech being arguably very much in the crosshairs, what is your thinking about the path forward as far as big tech?

Actually, there is going to be a hearing in judiciary with the big four big tech companies next week, so we will have a better feel next week as to where this whole thing is going to go. But there is no question that weve got some major issues, and free speech is so dependent these days on these big tech companies, so they have to be very careful that free speech is protected. And, of course, theres a pattern now that shows otherwise, and we want to stop that before it becomes a serious infringement upon peoples right to speak.

And I know a lot of people were concerned in particular with this perception that Twitter was employing its new fact-check feature disproportionately against conservatives, for example.

Yes, theres multiple examples of that, and, of course, there have been hearings trying to deal with those issues in the past during which [these companies] have assured us that their algorithms do not show bias towards conservative groupsbut its not just about algorithms. Its about the individuals who are working there, meaning those employees who do, in fact, carry biases, and they are able to override the algorithms. So, its a little disingenuous for these companies to say that our algorithms do not show any bias because thats not the only problem thats involved in this. And I think that issue has now come to light, and now well have to approach it from not only the systems themselves but also the people who are working those systems.

Lastly, college campuses have been a major discussion point when it comes to free speech. What are you seeing in Georgia [on this front]? Are you thinking about if this becomes an issue at various Georgia universities how to ensure free speech is taken care of there?

Right now, the big issue is if were even going to have college campuses and people meeting on those campuses, obviously. But, in the past, there have definitely been some issues in Georgia and across the country. And we are going to continue to keep a close pulse on that everywhere in this country, including college campuses. They should be the place where people have the right to express their ideas in the public square without fear of intimidation, or harassment, or punishment.

Unfortunately, that has not always been the case on college campuses, and there have been multiple lawsuits, and most of those lawsuits come out favorably. And, yet, the problem continues, so we will continue fighting and keeping a pulse on it here from the federal level as best as we can. Many of us up here at least have that as a major, important issue, and we will continue protecting the free rights of these students.

I appreciate your time, Congressman. Always nice to touch basethank you.

Always nice to talk with you. Thank you, Erich.

Erich J. Prince is the editor at Merion West. Erichhas contributed to a variety of publications includingThe Philadelphia Inquirer,the Hartford Courant,The News & Observer, the Orlando Sentinel, andThe Hill. His opinion writing has been honored with two awards from the Columbia University School of Journalism. He studied political science at Yale, completing his thesis on the history of polarization in the United States Congress.

Read the original:

Interview: Rep. Jody Hice on Defund the Police and Big Tech Censorship - Merion West

This Letter to the Editor ran in the July 23 issue of the Waltham News Tribune.

TO THE EDITOR:

In the rush to stop hate and misinformation on social media we need to hit pause and allow some public debate, because theres another side to this issue: censorship, a violation of our Bill of Rights.

The New Left demands censorship of any statement that isnt 100% in lockstep with their program. If you dont comply, they will attack you and in some cases, destroy your life.

This isnt what might happen; this is what is happening in America today.

With the media as their soul mates, the New Left has significant power. If you think thats an exaggeration look at the record of recent years. How many lives were destroyed rightly or wrongly by the press? The answer is: all the ones the New Left wanted destroyed.

The important question we need to ask is, who is going to be the policeman in this folly? The president, congress, a committee, Mark Zuckerburg, CNN, FOX, RNC, DNC? Put all of them, and their best intentions, into one bucket and I still wouldnt trust them or anyone else on this earth with control over my speech.

Personally, I dont believe theres such a thing as hate speech. You should be free to say what you want, on any subject. You can speak volumes about the benefits of necrophilia you aint ever gonna convince me its a good thing!

There should be no barriers to the exchange of ideas, so why are people afraid to let people say what they want? Are they afraid that not everything they believe will stand up to scrutiny?

Our forefathers have proven to the world what geniuses they were and one of the most sacred beliefs they understood was a God given right: free speech. They knew anything short of that was a form of compliance, allegiance to someone elses beliefs, a form of mind control. Thats why they didnt put limitations on any speech.

The power the New Left has achieved has created a new silent majority; silent because no one dares speak or write in opposition for fear they will be publicly humiliated, labeled a hate monger.

And now we want Facebook and others to determine what free speech will be free.

One of your most basic rights as an American is at stake here; its time for you to speak out.

John Savarese

Fuller Street

Letter to the Editor: Guidelines for writing

The News Tribune welcomes letters to the editor and guest columns from readers on issues of local interest. Letters are limited to 400 words; columns are limited to 600 words. Submissions exceeding the word limit may not be published and will be returned to the writer for editing. All opinion submissions are due by 9 a.m. the Monday before publication.

Submissions must include the authors street, which will be published with the name of the author. Only submissions from residents will be published. Unsigned letters and form letters will not be published. No two submissions by the same author will run in a 30-day period.

Send submissions to: Waltham News Tribune, 9 Meriam St., Lexington, MA 02420; or email to waltham@wickedlocal.com. Letters must include a phone number for verification purposes only; numbers will not be published.

See the rest here:

Letter to the Editor: Waltham resident calls for end to censorship - Wicked Local Waltham

Ozge Ozpirincci via YouTube / Beyaz Show

Netflix has decided to scrap production on a Turkish original series called If Only after Turkish officials refused them a filming license unless they removed a gay supporting character from the script.

Netflix remains deeply committed to our Turkish members and the creative community in Turkey, a Netflix spokesperson told TheWrap Tuesday. We are proud of the incredible talent we work with. We currently have several Turkish originals in production with more to come and look forward to sharing these stories with our members all around the world.

The eight-part relationship drama starring Turkish actress Ozge Ozpirincci was ordered in March and was being made by Turkish production outfit Ay Yapim, with Ece Yren serving as creator and showrunner.

Also Read: Netflix Pulls 'Designated Survivor' Episode From Turkey After Turkish Censors Objected

Here is shows logline, from Netflix:

The series tells the story of Reyhan who is unhappy and disappointed in her marriage with Nadir. On 27th of July 2018 at 8:19pm, during an evening where she was feeling exhausted of her husband whom shes known since his circumcision, of their marriage, their 9 year-old twins that were conceived as a result of a broken condom, the life she leads but mostly of herself, the strongest blood moon eclipse of the past 500 years takes place. And thanks to a miracle, Reyhan travels in time, to the turning point of her life, the night Nadir proposes to her, but this time with the wisdom of her 30 year old self.

According to a person familiar with the situation, Turkish officials are allowed to see scripts before they approve or deny filming permits. Producers would not have been able to continue filming If Only in Turkey unless they removed the gay character from the script, so the decision was made to cease production rather than give up creative control of the project.

Netflix currently has three other Turkish Originals on the platform, including Love 101, The Protector, and The Gift, the latter of which has been renewed for a third season. The streaming service has at least two other series in development.

The actor, who would have turned 69 today, made his acting debut in a little-seen 1977 comedy "Can I Do It 'Till I Need Glasses?"

Williams made his big screen debut in little-seen 1977 comedy "Can I Do It 'Till I Need Glasses?"

Williams made several appearances doing sketches on 1977's "The Richard Pryor Show"

The quirky comedy series "Mork and Mindy," a spinoff from "Happy Days" and an alien character he debuted on that hit, premiered in 1978 and put Williams on the map.

Christopher Reeve presented Williams with a People's Choice Award for Favorite Male Performer for "Mork and Mindy" in 1979.

"The World According to Garp" (1982) marked one of Williams' first dramatic performances, in the title role of a John Irving novel adaptation.

Williams was received his first Oscar nomination for his role in 1987's "Good Morning, Vietnam."

O Captain! My captain! Williams captivated a young audience by playing an unorthodox professor in 1989's "Dead Poets Society."

"There you are, Peter." Williams played a grown up Peter Pan returning to Neverland in 1991's "Hook."

Williams memorably voiced the Genie in Disney's animated classic "Aladdin," which came out in 1992.

"Mrs Doubtfire" was released in 1993 and remains one of Williams' most iconic roles.

Williams played a wild man returning to civilization as a result of a board game gone very wrong in 1995's "Jumanji."

Williams played one half of a flamboyant gay couple opposite Nathan Lane in 1996's "The Birdcage."

Williams won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for 1997's "Good Will Hunting" with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.

Williams celebrating his Oscar win for "Good Will Hunting" in 1998 with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, who also won Oscars for Best Original Screenplay.

For a film in which he plays a doctor/clown, 1998's "Patch Adams" was a somber and dramatic turn for Williams.

Williams went dark and twisted for Mark Romanek's 2002 cult favorite thriller "One Hour Photo."

Williams played Teddy Roosevelt in 2006's "Night at the Museum" and reprised the role in the 2009 sequel. The threequel, "Secret of the Tomb," hit theaters in 2014 -- just months after his death.

Williams with his daughter Zelda (with second wife Marsha Garces) in 2009.

Williams with his wife, Susan Schneider, in 2012. The couple was married in 2011.

Williams played President Dwight D. Eisenhower in Lee Daniels' "The Butler" in 2013.

The last Williams film to be released while he was alive was 2014's "The Angriest Man in Brooklyn," which co-starred Mila Kunis.

"Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb" was the last studio film Williams had completed prior to his death. He posted this photo with his stand-in and stunt double in May 2014.

The last photo Williams ever posted to social media was this #tbt featuring him with his daughter on July 31: "Happy Birthday to Ms. Zelda Rae Williams! Quarter of a century old today but always my baby girl. Happy Birthday @zeldawilliams Love you!"

The actor, who would have turned 69 today, made his acting debut in a little-seen 1977 comedy Can I Do It Till I Need Glasses?

The actor, who would have turned 69 today, made his acting debut in a little-seen 1977 comedy "Can I Do It 'Till I Need Glasses?"

Read more from the original source:

Netflix Scraps Turkish Original 'If Only' Over Censorship of Gay Character - TheWrap

NEW YORK - So you've probably read a lot about "cancel culture." Or know about a new poll that shows a plurality of Americans disapproving of it. Or you may have heard about a letter in Harper's Magazine condemning censorship and intolerance.

But can you say exactly what "cancel culture" is? Some takes:

"It seems like a buzzword that creates more confusion than clarity," says the author and journalist George Packer, who went on to call it "a mechanism where a chorus of voices, amplified on social media, tries to silence a point of view that they find offensive by trying to damage or destroy the reputation of the person who has given offense."

"I don't think it's real. But there are reasonable people who believe in it," says the author, educator and sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom. "From my perspective, accountability has always existed. But some people are being held accountable in ways that are new to them. We didn't talk about 'cancel culture' when someone was charged with a crime and had to stay in jail because they couldn't afford the bail."

"'Cancel culture' tacitly attempts to disable the ability of a person with whom you disagree to ever again be taken seriously as a writer/editor/speaker/activist/intellectual, or in the extreme, to be hired or employed in their field of work," says Letty Cottin Pogrebin, the author, activist and founding editor of Ms. magazine.

"It means different things to different people," says Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

In tweets, online letters, opinion pieces and books, conservatives, centrists and liberals continue to denounce what they call growing intolerance for opposing viewpoints and the needless ruining of lives and careers. A Politico/Morning Consult poll released last week shows 44% of Americans disapprove of it, 32% approve and the remaining 24% had no opinion or didn't know what it was.

For some, "cancel culture" is the coming of the thought police. For others, it contains important chances to be heard that didn't exist before.

Recent examples of unpopular "cancellations" include the owner of a chain of food stores in Minneapolis whose business faced eviction and calls for boycotts because of racist social media posts by his then-teenage daughter, and a data analyst fired by the progressive firm Civis Analytics after he tweeted a study finding that nonviolent protests increase support for Democratic candidates and violent protests decrease it. Civis Analytics has denied he was fired for the tweet.

"These incidents damage the lives of innocent people without achieving any noble purpose," Yascha Mounk wrote in The Atlantic last month. Mounk himself has been criticized for alleging that "an astonishing number of academics and journalists proudly proclaim that it is time to abandon values like due process and free speech."

Debates can be circular and confusing, with those objecting to intolerance sometimes openly uncomfortable with those who don't share their views. A few weeks ago, more than 100 artists and thinkers endorsed a letter co-written by Packer and published by Harper's. It warned against a "new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity."

The letter drew signatories from many backgrounds and political points of view, ranging from the far-left Noam Chomsky to the conservative David Frum, and was a starting point for contradiction.

The writer and trans activist Jennifer Finney Boylan, who signed the letter, quickly disowned it because she "did not know who else" had attached their names. Although endorsers included Salman Rushdie, who in 1989 was forced into hiding over death threats from Iranian Islamic leaders because of his novel "The Satanic Verses," numerous online critics dismissed the letter as a product of elitists who knew nothing about censorship.

One of the organizers of the letter, the writer Thomas Chatterton Williams, later announced on Twitter that he had thrown a guest out of his home over criticisms of letter-supporter Bari Weiss, the New York Times columnist who recently quit over what she called a Twitter-driven culture of political correctness. Another endorser, "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling, threatened legal action against a British news site that suggested she was transphobic after referring to controversial tweets that she has written in recent months.

"The only speech these powerful people seem to care about is their own," the author and feminist Jessica Valenti wrote in response to the Harper's letter. "('Cancel culture' ) is certainly not about free speech: After all, an arrested journalist is never referred to as 'canceled,' nor is a woman who has been frozen out of an industry after complaining about sexual harassment. 'Canceled' is a label we all understand to mean a powerful person who's been held to account."

"Cancel culture" is hard to define, in part because there is nothing confined about it no single cause, no single ideology, no single fate for those allegedly canceled.

Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, convicted sex offenders, are in prison. Former television personality Charlie Rose has been unemployable since allegations of sexual abuse and harassment were published in 2017-18. Oscar winner Kevin Spacey has made no films since he faced allegations of harassment and assault and saw his performance in "All the Money in the World" replaced by Christopher Plummer's.

Others are only partially "canceled." Woody Allen, accused by daughter Dylan Farrow of molesting her when she was 7, was dropped by Amazon, his U.S. film distributor, but continues to release movies overseas. His memoir was canceled by Hachette Book Group, but soon acquired by Skyhorse Publishing, which also has a deal with the previously "canceled" Garrison Keillor. Sirius XM announced last week that the late Michael Jackson, who seemed to face posthumous cancellation after the 2019 documentary "Leaving Neverland" presented extensive allegations that he sexually abused boys, would have a channel dedicated to his music.

Cancellation in one subculture can lead to elevation in others. Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has not played an NFL game since 2016 and has been condemned by President Donald Trump and many others on the right after he began kneeling during the National Anthem to protest "a country that oppresses black people and people of color." But he has appeared in Nike advertisements, been honored by the ACLU and Amnesty International and reached an agreement with the Walt Disney Co. for a series about his life.

"You can say the NFL canceled Colin Kaepernick as a quarterback and that he was resurrected as a cultural hero," says Julius Bailey, an associate professor of philosophy at Wittenberg University who writes about Kaepernick in his book "Racism, Hypocrisy and Bad Faith."

In politics, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a Democrat, remains in his job 1 1/2 years after acknowledging he appeared in a racist yearbook picture while in college. Sen. Al Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota, resigned after multiple women alleged he had sexually harassed them, but Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax of Virginia defied orders to quit after two women accused him of sexual assault.

Sometimes even multiple allegations of sexual assault, countless racist remarks and the disparagement of wounded military veterans aren't enough to induce cancellation. Trump, a Republican, has labeled cancel culture "far-left fascism" and "the very definition of totalitarianism" while so far proving immune to it.

"Politicians can ride this out because they were hired by the public. And if the public is willing to go along, then they can sometimes survive things perhaps they shouldn't survive," Packer says.

"I think you can say that Trump's rhetoric has had a boomerang effect on the rest of our society," says PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel, who addresses free expression in her book "Dare to Speak," which comes out next week. "People on the left feel that he can get away with anything, so they do all they can to contain it elsewhere."

Follow this link:

Everywhere And Nowhere: The Many Layers of 'Cancel Culture' - Voice of America

In an open letter published in Harpers Magazine, 152 writers, including JK Rowling and Margaret Atwood, claim that a climate of censoriousness is pervading liberal culture, the latest contribution to an ongoing debate about freedom of speech online.

As we grapple with this issue in a society where social media allows us all to share extreme views, the Victorian writers offer a precedent for thinking differently about language and how we use it to get our point across. How limits of acceptability and literary censorship, for the Victorians, inspired creative ways of writing that foregrounded sensitivity and demanded thoughtfulness.

There are very few cases of books being banned in the Victorian era. But books were censored or refused because of moral prudishness, and publishers often objected to attacks on the upper classes their book-buying audience. Writer and poet Thomas Hardys first novel, The Poor Man and the Lady, was never published because the publisher Alexander Macmillan felt that his portrayal of the upper classes was wholly dark not a ray of light visible to relieve the darkness.

However, more common than publishers turning down books was the refusal of circulating libraries to distribute them. These institutions were an integral part of literary consumerism during the Victorian period as the main means of distributing books.

Most influential of these was Charles Mudies Select Library, established in 1842. Mudies library was select because he would only circulate books that were suitable for middle-class parents to read aloud to their daughters without causing embarrassment.

This shaped how publishers commissioned and what writers could get away with. Victorian literary censorship, while limiting, managed to inspire writers to develop more creative and progressive ways to get their points across.

George Eliots publisher, John Blackwood, criticised her work for showing people as they really were rather than giving an idealistic picture. He was particularly uncomfortable when Eliot focused on the difficulties of working-class life.

In Mr Gilfils Love Story (1857), Eliots description of the orphan girl, Caterina, being subjected to soap-and-water raised Blackwoods censorious hackles:

I do not recollect of any passage that moved my critical censorship unless it might be the allusion to dirt in common with your heroine.

As well as dirt, alcohol consumption was also seen as an unwanted reminder of working class problems. Again in Mr Gifils Love Story, Eliot describes how the eponymous clergyman enjoys an occasional sip of gin-and-water.

However, knowing Blackwoods views and anticipating she may cause offence galvanised Eliot to state her case directly to the reader within the text itself. She qualifies her unromantic depiction of Mr Gilfil with an address to her lady readers:

Here I am aware that I have run the risk of alienating all my refined lady readers, and utterly annihilating any curiosity they may have felt to know the details of Mr Gilfils love-story let me assure you that Mr Gilfils potations of gin-and-water were quite moderate. His nose was not rubicund; on the contrary, his white hair hung around a pale and venerable face. He drank it chiefly, I believe, because it was cheap; and here I find myself alighting on another of the Vicars weaknesses, which, if I cared to paint a flattering portrait rather than a faithful one, I might have chosen to suppress.

Here, literary censorship enriches Eliots writing. Eliots refusal to suppress her work becomes part of the story and reinforces her agenda to portray Mr Gilfil as he really is, a vicar who mixes gin with water because he is poor.

As well as inspiring narrative additions, censorship was also powerful because of what was left out of a text. One of Hardys most loved books, Tess of the DUrbervilles, highlights the crimes of sexual harassment in the workplace and of rape. Because Hardy had to be careful about the way that he presented the sexual abuse of Tess, his descriptions were very subtle. This is how he portrays the scene where Tess is sexually assaulted by her employer, Alec DUrberville:

The obscurity was now so great that he could see absolutely nothing but a pale nebulousness at his feet, which represented the white muslin figure he had left upon the dead leaves. Everything else was blackness alike. DUrberville stooped; and heard a gentle regular breathing. He knelt, and bent lower, till her breath warmed his face, and in a moment his cheek was in contact with hers. She was sleeping soundly, and upon her eyelashes there lingered tears.

The influence of censorship meant that Hardy could not describe this scene in graphic detail. Instead, his depiction is more sensitive and thoughtful. Hardy does not dehumanise Tess by depicting her as a sexual object to entertain the reader.

By focusing on Tesss gentle regular breathing and the poignant image of her tear-stained eyelashes, Hardy avoids gratuitous depictions of violence while at the same time making us painfully aware of the injustice she has suffered. This makes his portrayal of Tess more powerful and poignant. It can be argued that this was achieved because of the limits placed on his writing, not in spite of them.

In these instances, we can see how literary censorship influenced writers to tread more carefully upon difficult territory. It made them think about whether including violence or socially controversial depictions were necessary or gratuitous to their narratives.

For Hardy and Eliot, censorship and its limits inspired creativity, sensitivity and thoughtfulness. These examples can provide food for thought in the debate today about free speech and censorship. As Hardy and Eliot wrestled with as they wrote, can things be said differently and, in some cases, do they need to be said at all?

Stephanie Meek, PhD Candidate in English Literature, University of Reading.

This article first appeared on The Conversation.

Go here to see the original:

If censorship were to return, could todays writers learn from their Victorian counterparts? - Scroll.in

Reports that Netflix is scrapping a Turkish series following a stand-off with the Turkish government over a gay character have sparked a discussion on the streaming platforms complete withdrawal from the country.

On Saturday, several Turkish news outlets reported that Netflix was pulling on the plug on teen comedy drama Ak 101 (Love 101) after Turkeys state broadcasting regulator RTK pressed to censor a leading gay character.

The total financial cost of RTKs condemnation of the series that premiered earlier this yearis a whopping 35 million lira ($5.1 million)for the ten-episode season, each episode amounting to 3.5 million lira, Fatih Altayl wrote in column in HaberTrk on Saturday.

From now on, interest in Turkish series and productions will increasingly decline and one considers the shows that these companies will no longer have produced in Turkey, the loss is great, Altayl said.

Television series have become on ofTurkeys mostprestigious exports since the ruling Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2012, with hundreds of series being sold to over 100 countries in Eastern Europe, South America and South Asia and the Middle East. The export of Turkish dramas reached $500 million in 2018, according to A Haber news.

At home, frustration is growing over Ankaras intervention in the entertainment industry. Controlled by allies of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, RTK has come under fire for turning increasingly conservative under the 18-year rule of his AKP.

Director Ece Yren weighed in on the negotiation breakdown, telling Turkish entertainment website Fasikl on Sunday that it was very scary that the series production was not permitted over a gay character.

The character in question, Osman, engages in no physical acts of intimacy in the show yet the government is still halting production, Yren told Fasikl.

Turkish pop singer Demet Akaln took to Twitter on Sunday to express her dismay at the reports of Netflixs departure from Turkey.

Netflix saved our souls during the quarantine! Whoever doesnt wish to watch it simply wont, Akaln said, referring to the Ak 101. This is no good. Where are we going to watch Netflix now?

Akaln, a pro-government figure, later deleted her tweet saying she was caught up in the moment, and wondered when Netflix would release an official statement on the show to end speculation.

Netflix has yet to release a statement over the series in question.

In 2018, Reed Hastings, the cofounder and CEO of Netflix dismissed concerns of theNetflix being forced out of Turkey over tightening censorship rules at the time.

Were in Saudi Arabia. Were in Pakistan. If there are no problems there, will we have problems in Turkey? I cant imagine that, Hastings told Hrriyet newspaper.

Read more:

Censorship standoff sparks concerns of Netflixs withdrawal from Turkey - Ahval

Saturday night, Fox News primetime host Jesse Wattersinterviewed President Donald Trumps son, Eric Trump, andhad some noteworthy words of praise for the QAnon conspiracy theory movement.

The interview included a discussion aboutbig tech censoring and news that broke earlier this week about Twitter banning 7,000 QAnon accounts for pushing misinformation and harassing other users.

Watters introduced the topic as censorship and some funny business now regarding Q, I guess this conspiracy deal on the internet.

Twitter has basically cracked down and eliminated about 7,000 accounts, said Watters, and another 100,000 accounts are now in the cross-hairs.

Do you think this is an attempt to interfere in an election? he asked Trump. Because you know, Q can do some crazy stuff with the pizza stuff and the Wayfair stuff but they also uncovered a lot of great stuff when it comes to Epstein and the deep state.

I never saw Q as dangerous as Antifa. But Antifa gets to run wild on the internet, what do you think is going on there? the Fox News host asked.

Guess what, Adam Schiff does a lot of crazy things, Jerry Nadler, and Eric Swalwell, they also do a lot of crazy stuff, Trump fired back.

Heres the fundamental problem, Jesse, that I have with it, Trump continued. You have some little dweeb in Silicon Valley, whos 22 years old, hes a tech savant.Hes running Twitter or one of these companies. And he literally has his finger on the power of a presidential election.

Trump continued, criticizing the radical, radical left Silicon Valley tech executives who wield enormous influence because they curate the information that we get on our mobile phones.

They are literally putting their finger on the scales of a U.S. election, said Trump.

Fox News reported in June thatQAnon is a conspiracy theory centered on the baseless belief that President Trump is waging a secret campaign against enemies in the deep state and a child sex trafficking ring run by satanic pedophiles and cannibals.

The Daily Beasts Will Sommer,who is a leading reporter in covering QAnon, went on in the Fox News article to describe the real-world violence, the online movement has grown to become.

Back in late June of 2020, Eric Trump was caught promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory on his Instagram page ahead of a rally, before pulling the image after public outcry.

Watch above, via Fox News.

UPDATE July 26, 2020: Fox News provided Mediaite with a statement from Watters retracting these comments, calling QAnon a fringe platform that he did not support or believe in.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Originally posted here:

WATCH: Jesse Watters Interviews Eric Trump About Twitter Censorship, Praises QAnon: They Uncovered A Lot of Great Stuff - Mediaite

Ellen Pao keeps trying to make Ellen Pao happen. But, to paraphrase her own words the world doesnt seem to think shes important.

This former Reddit CEO was forced to quit after a backlash caused by her (early) attempts to muzzle and censor free and unruly-by-nature Reddit communities. And although her legacy in this sense has since been gaining more and more momentum on that fairly unique social platform few credit or still remember Pao as the pioneer of the current woeful policies.

Pao, who has since co-founded a diversity consulting non-profit called Project Include, (which is exactly what it sounds like it is) also in the meanwhile lost a gender discrimination lawsuit against former employers Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

But there are still friendly outlets like The Guardian who will give her space and time, and now, its time for Pao to offer her two cents on free speech moderation on giant social media in the context of their treatment of ills such as racism, and presidents such as Donald Trump.

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

Under the headline, They dont think its important: Ellen Pao on why Facebook cant beat hate Pao whose approach to Reddit back in the day is described cynically as a more holistic view of protecting free expression shares lessons she thinks she learned while attempting to detoxify Reddit (Guardians choice of words).

The issue is Facebook allowing Trump to have a voice on the platform, even as others like Twitter, Reddit itself, and YouTube went about labeling his posts, banning subreddits, etc., all on hate speech grounds.

So why is Facebook holding out? According to Pao, Facebook has an unintelligible set of rules for moderators, and the higher-ups are simply not paying any attention.

Pao also advises less outsourced mercenary moderator staff and instead incorporates them into the full-time employee collective for better allegiance to the cause and of course, better control.

She even suggests that some Facebook moderators despite insider testimonies showing some of them stringently and openly anti-free expression might be making pro-Trump decisions because they are being bullied, unbeknownst to Facebook.

But why would Facebook disregard these points? The interviewer prods Pao on in a tiringly predictable direction.

Most of the CEOs of social media companies are white, and most of them are men. I believe that youre the only woman of color who has run a major platform. Do you think that that informed the way that you approached the job?

To nobodys surprise, Pao agreed. As for what Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Susan Wojcicki need to do Just do the right thing. Most of them know what the right thing to do is. Just have that conviction and push your way through.

Follow this link:

Ellen Pao calls for more Facebook censorship, says its the right thing to do - Reclaim The Net

Poll finds self-censorship on the rise across political groups. A disturbingly high percentage of people polled earlier this month think private political donations should be grounds for getting fired. The number was especially high among respondents under age 30, with 44 percent of the youngest group saying business leaders who donate to Donald Trump should be fired and 27 percent saying the same for execs who give to Joe Biden. Meanwhile, 62 percent of all respondents said they're reluctant to share their political views for fear of offending othersup four points from when the same question was posed in 2017.

Those are a few of the findings in a new national poll conducted by the Cato Institute and YouGov.

When it comes to free expression, the "fears cross partisan lines," writes Cato Director of Polling Emily Ekins. "Majorities of Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share."

There are some differences of degree. A majority (58 percent) of people who categorized themselves as "very" liberal told pollsters they felt they could express themselves freely, while only 48 percent of "moderate" liberals said the same.

"Political expression is an issue that divides the Democratic coalition between centrist Democrats and their left flank," suggests Ekins.

The percentage of respondents who felt they could speak freely was even lower among those who labeled themselves "moderate" (36 percent), "conservative" (23 percent), or "very conservative" (23 percent).

Of course, the poll doesn't tell us how much people's perceptions on this front are true to life and how much they reflect distorted evaluations. Maybe staunch liberals feel they can speak more freely because cultural currents do indeed allow it; maybe they just don't realize when their free expression is offending or alienating people. Maybe it's a little of both, plus a lot of other reasons.

On the conservative side, the strong feeling of having to self-censor is likely somewhat rooted in a media and political culture that thrives on peddling its own marginalization. But there's also statistical evidence that self-identification with conservatism and the Republican Party are on the decline, and no doubt that conservative ideas are sidelined in many elite institutions.

It's also hard to guess what people actually mean about their politics when they describe themselves as stronger or less-strong "liberals" or "conservatives" in an era where these meanings are mutable and often bizarre.

Ekins notes that even strong liberals are less confident in their ability to speak freely in 2020 then they were in 2017: "the share who feel pressured to self-censor rose 12 points from 30% in 2017 to 42% in 2020." At the same time,

The share of moderates who self-censor increased 7 points from 57% to 64%, and the share of conservatives rose 70% to 77%, also a 7-point increase. Strong conservatives are the only group with little change. They are about as likely now (77%) to say they hold back their views as in 2017 (76%).

Self-censorship is widespread across demographic groups as well. Nearly two-thirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share. Majorities of men (65%) and women (59%), people with incomes over $100,000 (60%) and people with incomes less than $20,000 (58%), people under 35 (55%) and over 65 (66%), religious (71%) and non-religious (56%) all agree that the political climate prevents them from expressing their true beliefs.

Not all self-censorship is bad, of course. There are times and places for restraint. So it's hard to know quite how to interpret the results above.

Alas, another part of the study is much more unambiguously depressing: A large number of people think whether someone is employable ought to be tied to their personal politics.

"Nearly a quarter (22%) of Americans would support firing a business executive who personally donates to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's campaign," notes Ekins. "Even more, 31% support firing a business executive who donates to Donald Trump's re-election campaign." And:

Support rises among political subgroups. Support increases to 50% of strong liberals who support firing executives who personally donate to Trump. And more than a third (36%) of strong conservatives support firing an executive for donating to Biden's presidential campaign.

Young Americans are also more likely than older Americans to support punishing people at work for personal donations to Trump. Forty-four percent (44%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives if they donate to Trump. This share declines to 22% among those over 55 years olda 20-point difference. An age gap also exists for Biden donors, but is less pronounced. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives who donate to Biden compared to 20% of those over 55a 7-point difference.

Respondents also expressed fear that their own political opinions or donations would cost them a job or a career opportunity. "Younger people are also more concerned than older people, irrespective of political viewpoint," notes Ekins.

Examining all Americans under 65, 37% of those under 30 are worried their political opinions could harm their career trajectories, compared to 30% of 3054 year-olds and 24% of 5564 year-olds. But the age gap is more striking taking into account political views.

A slim majority (51%) of Republicans under 30 fear their views could harm their career prospects compared to 39% of 3044 year-olds, 34% of 4554 year-olds, and 28% of 5564 year-old Republicans.

Democrats reflect a similar but less pronounced pattern. A third (33%) of Democrats under 30 worry they have views that could harm their current and future jobs, compared to 27% of 3054 year-olds, and 19% of 5564 year-old Democrats.

You can find the full surveyconducted July 16, 2020, with a national sample of 2,000 American adultshere. The sections on political donations and self-censorship are here. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.36 percentage points.

A couple of (positive) Portland updates:

Twitter is exploring subscription options.

The Malaysian government is backtracking on making people who post videos to their personal social-media accounts get a license.

A new documentary goes inside Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Read the original:

Is Giving to Biden or Trump Grounds for Getting Fired? New Poll Finds a Disturbing Number of People Who Think It Should Be - Reason