Monthly Archives: January 2024

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

View All posts by Kelly Jensen

This is the first in a series of posts that will offer insights and calls to action based on the results of three recent surveys conducted by Book Riot and the EveryLibrary Institute. The surveys explored parental perceptions of public libraries, parental perceptions of librarians, and parental perceptions of school libraries.

We know the results of these surveys are a study in tension. Where parents agreed with big picture ideas across all three surveys, 94% said they feel their child is safe at the library it was some of the more granular topics where we saw conflicting responses. It is important to talk about those, including the fact that there are parents who believe library workers should be prosecuted for the materials they offer in the collection and that many believe there needs to be more barriers to material access in place for their children. But rather than focus on those as threats, perhaps theyre better framed as opportunities. These areas of contention are places where librarians, who are overwhelmingly perceived as trustworthy and worthy of respect, can harness those perceptions to combat mis-, dis-, and malinformation about what they do.

Lets take heart here. The vast majority of parents believe the following things about libraries and library workers:

More:

When it comes to the materials available in the library:

On the topic of parental rights:

Taking heart with this data is important. In a time when library workers are beleaguered by rhetoric from the far-right and are the most likely to be handling book banning issues, it is important to remember the vast majority of parents trust and respect librarians. Where tensions or conflicting ideas emerge is where there is opportunity to educate and challenge mis- and disinformation about the roles and responsibilities of librarians and libraries.

Note that you might need to adapt or modify these ideas based on the laws and policies in your own jurisdiction.

Many library workers already do this, but it bears emphasis. If most parents do not know how librarians select materials for the collection (81% of parents in the school library survey and 53% in the public libraries survey), then offer them an answer. Create a one-sheet or short video explaining the process, including the sort of review sources used in making decisions and why those review sources are used. If youre in a school, explain that materials in the collection both serve the curriculum and meet the recreational needs of student readers. This means meeting the needs of all students in a building, from the youngest to the most senior. Demystify the process and put this information in readily accessible places. Your website is great, and if you are in a school where you can get printed materials into a take-home folder, use that to your advantage. Talk with your boards, too it is possible that board members do not know how the process of selecting library materials works, either, especially if they are new to their role. Offer to give a short presentation at one of the meetings; this will be especially useful for the historical record, as it will be included in meeting minutes and any video repository if recorded.

This also helps inform patrons about why librarians are the most qualified to make collection selections. While librarians ranked as most qualified to choose materials both in public and in school libraries (rating a 3.6 on a 5-point scale, with 5 being most qualified), a small percentage also believed that librarians should be prosecuted for the materials available (25% in public libraries and 16% in school libraries) even if they do not know how those materials are selected.

Parents might still say they do not know how librarians select materials for the collection, but youve done your work. Putting this information out there is transparency and further bolsters your perception as trustworthy. You arent, nor have you ever, tried to hide what youre doing because there is nothing TO hide.

Chances are that you already do, but where and how can you make your presence more visible? This goes more for the school librarians than the public, but it is valuable for both. Only 41% of parents state they have met their school librarian. Where and how can you reach another 41%?

This feels like library 101, but if theres anything that several years of book banning have shown, its that parents do not know there is a list of every book available in the library a frequent call from uninformed parental rights activists (the survey findings are that 67% of parents believe this should exist). Its the library catalog. While you might spend time teaching students how to use it, do you have a handy guide on your website for parents? What might be basic knowledge to you, though, is not to those who are being led by false narratives. Put a guide to using the catalog in an easy-to-find place, and if nothing else, youll have given yourself a point or two for transparency.

The ideal time to update your collection development and management policies was when challenges to books began to rise. The second best time is now, especially given that book banners are taking advantage of bad policies to get hundreds of titles removed at a time. Make these policies robust, explaining the kinds of materials you collect; if you have the opportunity, include information as to why you collect diverse materials, too. The data might not change the minds of those who are committed to a white, cishet christofascist agenda, but it might be eye-opening to others. For example, when you note in your policy that your collection is inclusive of a range of gender and sexual identities, include the statistic that one-quarter of US teens openly identify as LGBTQ+, per the CDC. More, PEW Research notes that only slightly more than half of todays teenagers are non-Hispanic white. One in four of todays teens in the US are Hispanic, 14% are Black, 6% are Asian, and 5% are bi- or multi-racial. Nearly 1/4 of Generation Z are the children of immigrants, and 66% live in households with married parents. This information should not be necessary to state your librarys commitment to inclusion, but it offers information to further support the decisions made by staff.

Use the language being used right now in your collection policies: note that parents always have the right to determine what their children access. If you have opt-out policies for your library, include or link to those; if you dont, emphasize that parents are responsible for having these conversations with their children. They say so themselves! Mention in your policies that you do not remove the right of all children to access materials based on the beliefs of a few. Instead, it is up to parents to set those limits for their own children.

Data show that 43% of parents report knowing their library has a collection development policy, and the same percentage report knowing how to locate it. A slightly higher percentage, 56%, know how to file a complaint about a book they believe to be inappropriate. Once you have updated your policy and created a robust form for book challenges, make it easy to find. You might not like having your challenge policy readily available, but the more you make it findable, not only are you more transparent, but you build trust, too, through being open so that patrons can voice their feelings about the collection. This right to petition goes hand-in-hand with the right to read, and libraries, as upholders of the First Amendment rights of all, should not shy away from it.

Book banners are loud, well-funded, and connected to those perceived to have a lot of power. That is real, and at times, it is unrelenting.

But its also true that those voices are the minority. You have the majority behind you and your work.

With the holidays and school breaks, this list is shorter than usual.

More here:
Data Overwhelmingly Supports Libraries and Library Workers: Book Censorship News, January 5, 2024 - Book Riot

According to innumerable media reports, kids these days dont properly understand or value free speech. The spate of illiberal currents and identitarian blowups in recent years can be blamed on the arrival of Gen Z on college campuses and, later, the workplace.

Except that they cant. Members of Gen Z may indeed hold importantly different perspectives on risk, conflict and identity compared with previous cohorts. However, these differences are not the cause of the Great Awokening and the struggles over status and power that have accompanied it. For that, we have to look to adults these days.

For example, the radical shifts in media discourse, focusing intensely on identity-based discrimination and prejudice, began after 2011 when the oldest members of Gen Z (born in 1997) were only 14. Obviously, they werent working as journalists or in editorial roles deciding what gets published. Nor were they the primary audience that media companies and advertisers were trying to reach.

Protests also increased in 2011, exemplified by the rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement. However, more than 65 per cent of Occupy protesters were 30 years or older at the time (theyd be over 40 today). Subsequent studies looking at the post-2015 #Resistance marches (the Womens March, the March for Science, the March for Racial Justice) put the average age of demonstrators at 38-49.

Likewise, teenagers and tweens couldnt possibly have been responsible for the dramatic shifts in academic culture, administration and research since 2011. People generally dont even begin publishing in academic journals until at least their mid-twenties, and more senior scholars in their forties and fifties typically determine what gets through.

The ideas associated with the Great Awokening have been circulating for decades, developed largely by mid-career professionals, imposed on institutional policies and educational curricula by bureaucrats and implemented by teachers from K-12 through college, pushed on Gen Z during some of their most formative years (largely to their detriment, research suggests, to the extent that young people internalised these messages at all).

Recent rules micromanaging student interactions or encouraging students to report their peers and professors for any perceived offence were likewise developed and imposed by adults, mostly before Gen Z set foot on college campuses and well before they began to comprise a majority of undergrads (around 2017).

Nor was Gen Z responsible for most decisions over the past decade to terminate employees with little to no due process based on social media outrage and unsubstantiated accusations or for defying prevailing orthodoxies or committing unintentional social faux pas. Although young people often participated in these outrage campaigns, senior management ultimately made the decisions to let people go. And financial considerations are typically far more central to such decisions than concerns about what young people think or say.

Similar realities hold for trends in censorship and self-censorship in science. Yes, as colleagues and I illustrate in a new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), censorship seems to have grown worse in recent years. However, its often driven by scientists rather than students.

Sometimes academics self-censor to protect themselves not just because theyre concerned about preserving their jobs, but also out of a desire to be liked and included within their disciplines and institutions, or because they dont wish to create problems for their advisees (at the hands of intolerant professors and other gatekeepers).

Other times, scholars attempt to suppress their own or others findings because they view them as incorrect, misleading or potentially dangerous. Sometimes scientists try to squash public discussion of contentious issues for fear that it undermines public trust or scientific authority or provides ammunition for perceived bad actors. As mid-career professionals grew more focused on social justice after 2011, they probably also grew more likely to censor and self-censor in pursuit of these prosocial ends.

This reality has been obscured, in part, because professors often use students as foot soldiers in their censorious campaigns for instance, by trying to cultivate complaints against colleagues they hope to purge, or by firing up students to demonstrate in the service of their pet causes.

According to data by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), roughly 45 per cent of attempts to punish US scholars for their teaching, research or speech are driven by students often egged on by professors or others. While this is a lot, its also the case that most (55 per cent) of the time faculty face disciplinary action, the campaigns are led by colleagues, administrators or outside actors. Other forms of censorship (such as politically biased publication and institutional review board decisions) are driven almost exclusively by academics, not students.

Again, it might be true that Gen Z has idiosyncratic beliefs about free speech, but thats not why knowledge economy institutions are so messed up. They were on a negative trajectory already and seem to be turning a corner now, even as Gen Z are enrolling in ever-growing numbers.

The kids are alright. Its the adults you have to worry about.

Musa al-Gharbi is a sociologist and assistant professor in the School of Communication and Journalism at Stony Brook University and a research fellow at Heterodox Academy.

Go here to see the original:
Blame adults these days for censorship - Times Higher Education

CNNhas long been criticized by media analysts and journalists for its deference to the Israeli government and the Israel Defense Forces in its coverage of the occupied Palestinian territories, and the cable network admitted Thursday that it follows a protocol that could give Israeli censors influence over its stories.

A spokesperson for the networkconfirmedtoThe Interceptthat its news coverage about Israel and Palestine is run through and reviewed by theCNNJerusalem bureauwhich is subject to the IDF's censor.

The censor restricts foreign news outlets from reporting on certain subjects of its choosing and outright censors articles or news segments if they don't meet its guidelines.

Other news organizations often avoid the censor by reporting certain stories about the region through their news desks outside of Israel,The Interceptreported.

"The policy of running stories about Israel or the Palestinians past the Jerusalem bureau has been in place for years," the spokesperson told the outlet. "It is simply down to the fact that there are many unique and complex local nuances that warrant extra scrutiny to make sure our reporting is as precise and accurate as possible."

The spokesperson added thatCNNdoes not share news copy with the censor and called the network's interactions with the IDF "minimal."

But James Zogby, founder of the Arab American Institute, said the IDF's approach to censoring media outlets is "Israel's way of intimidating and controlling news."

ACNNstaffer who spoke toThe Intercepton condition of anonymity confirmed that the network's longtime relationship with the censor has ensuredCNN'scoverageof Israel's bombardment of Gaza and attacks in the West Bank since October 7 favors Israel's narratives.

"Every single Israel-Palestine-related line for reporting must seek approval from the [Jerusalem] bureauor, when the bureau is not staffed, from a select few handpicked by the bureau and senior managementfrom which lines are most often edited with a very specific nuance," the staffer said.

Jerusalem bureau chief Richard Greene announced it had expanded its review team to include editors outside of Israel, calling the new policy "Jerusalem SecondEyes." The expanded review process was ostensibly put in place to bring "more expert eyes" toCNN's reporting particularly when the Jerusalem news desk is not staffed.

In practice, the staff member toldThe Intercept, "'War-crime' and 'genocide' are taboo words. Israeli bombings in Gaza will be reported as 'blasts' attributed to nobody, until the Israeli military weighs in to either accept or deny responsibility. Quotes and information provided by Israeli army and government officials tend to be approved quickly, while those from Palestinians tend to be heavily scrutinized and slowly processed."

Meanwhile, reporters are under intensifying pressure to question anything they learn from Palestinian sources, including casualty statistics from the Palestinian Ministry of Health.

The Ministry of Health is run by Hamas, which controls Gaza's government. The United Nations agency for Palestinian refugeessaidin October, as U.S. President Joe Biden waspublicly questioningthe accuracy of the ministry's reporting on deaths and injuries, that its casualty statistics have "proven consistently credible in the past."

Despite this,CNN's senior director of news standards and practices, David Lindsey, told journalists in a November 2 memo that "Hamas representatives are engaging in inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda... We should be careful not to give it a platform."

Another email sent in October suggested that the network aimed to present the Ministry of Health's casualty figures as questionable, with the News Standards and Practices division telling staffers, "Hamas controls the government in Gaza and we should describe the Ministry of Health as 'Hamas-controlled' whenever we are referring to casualty statistics or other claims related to the present conflict."

Newsroom employees were advised to "remind our audiences of the immediate cause of this current conflict, namely the Hamas attack and mass murder and kidnap of Israeli civilians" on October 7.

At least 22,600 people have beenconfirmed killedin Gaza and 57,910 have been wounded in Israeli attacks on Gaza since October 7. Thousands more are feared dead under the rubble left behind by airstrikes. In Israel, the death toll from Hamas' attack stands at 1,139.

Jim Naureckas, editor of the watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting,notedthat the Israeli government is controlling journalists' reporting on Gaza as it's been "credibly accused of singling out journalists for violent attacks in order to suppress information."

"To give that government a heightened role in deciding what is news and what isn't news is really disturbing," he toldThe Intercept.

Meanwhile,pointed outauthor and academic Sunny Singh, even outsideCNN, "every bit of reporting on Gaza in Western media outlets has been given unmerited weight which not granted to Palestinian reporters."

"Western medianot justCNNhas been pushing Israeli propaganda all through" Israel's attacks, said Singh.

Read more:
CNN admits it runs all Gaza coverage through bureau monitored by Israeli military censor - Salon

Iranians could pay up to 34% more for the internet in 2024 as providers get the green light from the government to increase their tariffs.

Deemed as a move to balance persistent high levels of inflation, many commentators fear that less affordable internet rates could exacerbate ongoing issues with online censorship while discouraging citizens from accessing digital services.

Authorities have long been attempting to control the information users can and cannot accessespecially during times of protests. As a result, Iranians have turned en masse to VPN services as a way to bypass restrictions. More expensive internet rates seem to be yet another way to limit people's online activities.

"In an environment of political unrest and regular protests, reliable and affordable internet is crucial for maintaining social connections and staying informed, making this new barrier to connect to the internet all the more devastating," Lina Survila, spokeswoman for VPN provider Surfshark, told me.

Tehran is infamous for heavily restricting the internetSurfshark counted 55 instances since 2015. However, this trend considerably intensified at the end of 2022 when a wave of protests erupted, following the news that a 22-year-old Iranian woman had died in the custody of Iran's morality police for allegedly violating strict hijab rules.

It's very likely this increase in internet tariffs is an attempt to put online access out of reach for many Iranians

Authorities began by throttling internet connections andrestricted access to Instagram and WhatsAppas a means to silence protesters.

Weekly disruptions to internet connectivity have also been enforced during Friday prayers in the Zahedan region ever since, making Iran by far the biggest perpetrator of internet shutdowns in 2023.

While a virtual private network (VPN) cannot help during periods of total internet shutdown, it's a very useful tool for accessing restricted social media platforms and other blocked sites. It spoofs users' IP addresses, while encrypting internet connections for better privacy.

Put simply, VPNs make government imposed restrictions ineffectiveand that's something which doesn't go down well with authorities.

We already mention how technology acts as both an oppressor and liberator in Iran. A spike in internet prices certainly falls into the first category.

On this point, Survila said: "Its very likely that thisincrease in internet tariffsis an attempt to put online access out of reach for many Iranians.Surfsharksinternet divide studyhas shown that the internet already tends to be unaffordable in lower-income countries (including Iran). This price surge threatens to exacerbate the issue."

To make things worse, Iran's internet infrastructure is also considered one of the worst across the globe. In a detailed report the Tehran Electronic Commerce Association described it as being in a "critical state." The government has even previously shared plans for creating a national internet, echoing what China has with its infamous Great Firewall.

This time, concerns also came from the political benches.

As Iran International reported, the former Communications Minister Mohammad-Javad Azari-Jahromi said: "The result of the price hike is apparently clear; the end of this spiral will lead to securing the economic interests of satellite internet providers and widening the [political] gap between the people and the government."

Originally posted here:
Iran's internet price rises, and so does the fear of greater censorship - TechRadar

MAJOR European governments systematic censorship and repression of solidarity with the Palestinians has been revealed in a new damning report, with some states associating peaceful activism with terrorism.

The briefing by Cage International, released on Thursday, analyses state policies in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Britain in relation to Israels military campaign in Gaza and calls for a ceasefire.

European governments have adopted a unified stance in response to the genocidal bombardment of Gaza by Israel, the campaign and advocacy group said.

This involves the condemnation of the Palestinian peoples right to resistance and self-determination and unequivocal support for Israel.

As a result, there is active repression of support and solidarity movements for Palestine, the reportwarned.

The report highlighted how European governments are conflating pro-Palestinian activism with support for terrorism, as seen in decisions by the French and German authorities to ban pro-Palestine demonstrations.

In France, the ban was overturned by the Court of Cassation following a widespread backlash, but it remains in force in Germany.

Similar policies are also in place in Austria, Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands.

Alongside the ban, the French Ministry of Justice issued a guideline that forms of support for Palestine should be regarded as backing for terrorism, which led to raids and arrests.

Cage International also reported that right-wing parties are using the issue to attack immigration, threatening the already vulnerable lives of migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees.

In Spain, the far-right Vox party urged the government to suspend applications for Spanish nationality and residency and prohibit migrants from countries of Islamic culture from entering the country.

Cage International said that political, diplomatic, and military backing for Israel persists among these European states, further fuelling the mass murder of innocent Palestinian lives.

Managing director Muhammad Rabbani said: Across Europe, a discernible pattern of systematic repression is emerging.

Governments have been actively seeking to curb public solidarity with Palestine.

This effort has manifested in numerous arrests, prosecutions and even the outright banning of legitimate civil society organisations.

Overall, it appears these policies of intimidation have failed to achieve their intended goal.

Mr Rabbani said that the public outcry against Israels actions and sympathy for the Palestinian cause are now at unprecedentedlevels.

Following its findings,Cage International is to publish a toolkit on how to resist crackdowns and continue to show solidarity with Palestine.

Read more here:
Report highlights censorship and repression of Palestine solidarity across Europe - Morning Star Online

Happy New Year I hope

Entering a new year typically encourages us to reflect on the past 12 months and consider the impact of what is likely to happen in the next 12. Depressingly, 2023 was yet another year marked by authoritarians clamping down on freedom of expression and harnessing the power of digital technology to persecute, harass and undermine those who challenge them.

Not only did the tyrants, despots and their allies attempt to again crack down on any seemingly independent thought within their own territories, several also sought to weaponise the legal system at home and abroad through the use of SLAPPs. Several EU member states, especially the Republic of Ireland, as well as the United Kingdom have found themselves at the centre of these legal attacks on freedom of expression.

SLAPPs werent the only threat to freedom of expression in 2023 though from the crackdown on protesters in Iran, to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the continuing repressive actions of Putin and Lukashenka, the end of freedom of expression in Hong Kong, the increasingly restrictions imposed by Modi, the latest war in the Middle East and the ongoing attacks on journalists in South America.

My depressing list could go on and on. However, we desperately need to find some hope in the world, so Index on Censorship ended 2023 with our campaign entitled Moments of Freedom, highlighting the good in the world so lets carry on with that optimism. A new year brings new beginnings after all. So lets focus on the new moments of light which will hopefully touch our lives this year.

Half the worlds population will go to the polls this year. Thats an extraordinary four billion people. Each with their own aspirations for their families, hopes for their country and dreams of a more secure world.

As a politician it should come as no surprise to anyone that I love elections. The best campaigns are politics at their purest, when the needs and aspirations of the electorate should be centre stage. Elections provide a moment when values are on the line. How people want to be governed, what rights they wish to advance and how they hold the powerful to account. These are all actioned through the ballot box.

There are elections taking place in countries significant for Index because of their likely impact on freedom of expression and the impact the results may have on the current internationally agreed norms, including Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, Russia, Brazil, the European Union, the USA and the United Kingdom. And given current events we can only hope for elections in Israel to be added to the list. The list goes on with each election posing different questions and the results having a different impact on the current world order.

Many other human rights organisations will talk about the importance of these elections for international stability, and rightly so. At Index we will focus on what these elections mean for the dissidents, journalists, artists and academics. Our unique network of reporters and commentators around the world will allow us to bring you the hidden stories taking place and will highlight the threats and opportunities each result poses to freedom of expression. As with 2023, 2024 will be a year where Index hands a megaphone to dissidents so their voice is amplified.

The rallying cry for 2024 must be: Your freedom needs you! If you are one of the four billion remember that your ballot is the shield against would-be despots and tyrants. It is the ultimate democratic duty and responsibility and the consequences go far beyond your immediate neighbourhood so use it and use it wisely.

See the original post here:
2024, the year that four billion go the polls - Index on Censorship