Category Archives: Censorship

Cubas art market shut down completely during the pandemic, leading the community to turn to digital markets for survival. However, artists say that they remain censored due to the United States sanctions against Cuba, with U.S. based platforms like the nonfungible token (NFT) marketplace OpenSea going to the extremes of deleting content and accounts linked to the country itself.

The censorship began in January with the sudden closing of the account of Fabrica de Arte Cubano an art gallery that provided exposure to emerging artists.

As Cuban visual artist and founder of the project CryptoCubans, Gabriel Bianchini, explains: The embargos sanctions are so vague that platforms just prefer to not take the risk and close our accounts.

This type of censorship is a common occurrence for Cuban artists exposing their work on the Internet. Ernesto Cisneros, a musician and NFT artist, recounted his own experience as a tragic one after losing all his earnings on Patreon due to the embargo during the pandemic. This experience brought him to Web3, unaware that the same story would repeat again. He recounted:

Adding to the consequences of censorship, they believe that Cuban artists have an increased susceptibility to being victims of hacks. Such is the case for Avinro, an NFT artist from Havana. There are antivirus programs that dont function correctly because Im in Cuba,he says, alleging that the lack of proper digital protection allowed an attacker passing for an interested buyer to send him a virus via Zoom link which should otherwise have been detected by the software. Avinro claimed that this oversight allowed the attacker to take over his MetaMask wallet, resulting in the theft of his earnings and the loss of his user profiles on various NFT marketplaces.

However, there is apparent progress on the technological side being made through official channels. Cubas government recently announced that it is open to the use of cryptocurrencies, which has fostered hopes of adoption at a rapid pace. Even if this comes to pass, however, it will still be highly regulated for citizens. Now, the arrival of blockchain smart contracts is a game changer for Cubans looking to send their messages back into the world. Bianchini said:

See the rest here:
Cuban NFT artists say they face censorship within the crypto market - Cointelegraph

British veteran Darren Brady said Hampshire police were impeding his right to free speech by tracking him down for reposting a meme featuring the LGBT pride flag arranged in the shape of a swastika.

In viral footage of the arrest taken by political activist Laurence Fox who created the meme, officers tell the 51-year-old at his residence in Aldershot that someone has been caused anxiety based on your social media post. That is why you have been arrested.

A spokeswoman for the Hampshire Constabulary told The Federalist that officers confronted Brady following a report that an offensive image had been shared online. It is unclear who filed the report but officers visited Bradys home to establish the exact circumstances around the social media post.

Harry Miller, a former police officer and Bad Law Project CEO who was also arrested, said police first tried to extort Brady by demanding he pay around 80 for educational course so he could downgrade from a crime to a non-crime, which would still show up in a basic Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.

Thats why when officers promised to return on July 28 to hear Bradys final answer about re-education, both Fox and Miller were on the scene to document what Miller dubbed the worlds worst shakedown. When officers arrived at Bradys house for a second time, the police spokeswoman said they were prevented from entering the address to discuss a potential resolution to the matter.

As a result, officers felt it was necessary to arrest a man at the scene so they could interview him in relation to the alleged offence, the spokeswoman continued. She also said a 57-year-old man, whom the Daily Mail identified as Miller, was arrested on suspicion of obstructing/resisting a constable in execution of duty.

He was released under investigation, and our enquiries are ongoing. Due to this being a live investigation we cannot comment further, the spokeswoman said.

Officers claimed to be investigating an alleged offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act (2003), a sweeping law that gives the United Kingdom government the authority to imprison someone if officials deem his online posts grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, or if he knowingly makes a false post for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another.

The spokeswoman made it clear that no further action is being taken against Brady but maintains that officers come to work every day to protect the public and were acting in good faith when they singled out Brady.

We are engaging further with our police and crime commissioner to make sure that we deploy our resource in a way that reflects need in our local communities, she concluded.

Donna Jones, the Hampshire police and crime commissioner, issued a statement criticizing her own force and voicing concern about both the proportionality and necessity of the polices response to this incident.

When incidents on social media receive not one but two visits from police officers, but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins dont always get a police response, something is wrong, Jones said before promising to write the College of Policing asking for greater clarification on how police should respond more appropriately in the future.

That hasnt stopped free speech critics such as Caroline Russell, a member of the Police and Crime Committee in the Greater London Authority, from demanding police look into Laurence Fox using pride flags to create nazi imagery and posting the images on a public platform.

This is a hate crime, Russell tweeted.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read more:
British Veteran Arrested For Reposting Meme That 'Caused Anxiety' - The Federalist

Newly unearthed documents obtained by America First Legal Foundation reveal that top U.S. health officials worked hand-in-hand with big tech companies to moderate content related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The documents released Wednesday were obtained after America First Legal sued the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after filing a FOIA request for documents related to communications with big tech firms. They reportedly show that companies including Twitter and Facebook were repeatedly advised by the CDC on what to flag as misinformation and how to moderate.

One email from May 2021 shows CDC official Carol Crawford emailing a list of tweets to Twitter employees that the agency regarded as misinformation about vaccine shedding and microchips. Another email from one month prior shows Twitter senior manager for public policy Todd OBoyle asking Crawford to help identify certain types of misinformation. The employee adds that theyre looking forward to setting up regular chats.

Another instance reveals OBoyle commenting that it would be tricky to set up a meeting to discuss misinformation because Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was testifying before Congress that week.

Facebook was also coordinating with the agency. Crawford sent the company a list of posts containing disinformation similar to the list she provided Twitter, and Facebook gave the CDC and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) $15 million in free advertising during the pandemic.

The company additionally set up a Misinformation Reporting Channel for CDC and Census Bureau officials to report posts to Facebooks team. The Census Bureau was involved because the CDC asked the agency to leverage their infrastructure to identify and monitor social media for vaccine misinformation.

Google appears to have gotten in on the action too. The CDC asked the search engine giant to include its vaccine finder page at the top of search results about the vaccine, and a Google employee said that they were working with the CDC to set up a Question Hub related to the pandemic.

Much of the information shared by the CDC and other top health agencies and officials in the early days of the pandemic turned out to be misinformation. CDC director Rochelle Walensky once said that vaccinated people wouldnt transmit COVID-19, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said vaccinated people were a dead end for the virus.

Fauci also said Americans shouldnt wear masks at the start of the pandemic, before quickly giving the exact opposite recommendation.

President Joe Biden himself has spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, saying in July 2021 that Americans wont get COVID-19 if theyre vaccinated. (RELATED: Biden FDA Commissioner Says Misinformation Is Leading Cause Of Death In America)

This isnt the first time federal agencies and officials have been exposed coordinating with big tech to censor speech. Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki once said that the administration was working with Facebook to flag alleged disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.

See the article here:
Internal Documents Reveal CDC Worked With Big Tech To Censor COVID-19 Speech - Daily Caller

from the just-knock-it-off-already dept

So, we just had a post mocking the Democrats for whining about Hulu refusing their issue ads, and falsely calling it censorship. And now we have Republicans issuing a bullshit blustery threat letter to Google not to limit searches for sketchy fake abortion centers.

If youre unaware, malicious anti-abortion folks have set up fake abortion centers, which they call crisis pregnancy centers, that are masquerading as actual abortion providers, but which are only there to lie to vulnerable patients about their options, and push them to give birth. Last month, Democrats (again, deeply questionably) told Google that it should demote search results pointing to these misleading centers when people are searching for abortions. As Ive argued for years, politicians have no rights trying to dictate anything about search results or content moderation. Coming from politicians there is always an implied threat that if these search results dont come out the way the politicians want, they may take action in the form of legislation.

And, now, a bunch of Republican Attorneys General have sent this ridiculous threat letter to Google with the opposite type of threat, saying that they will take action if Google does limit the search results to these centers. The letter is hilarious in that it whines about politicians seeking to wield Googles immense market power by pressuring the company to discriminate against pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in Google search results when these Republicans are doing the exact same thing just in the other direction.

Unfortunately, severalnational politicians now seek to wield Googles immense market power by pressuring the companyto discriminate against pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in Google search results, in onlineadvertising, and in its other products, such as Google Maps. As the chief legal officers of ourrespective States, we the undersigned Attorneys General are extremely troubled by this gallinglyun-American political pressure. We wish to make this very clear to Google and the other marketparticipants that it dwarfs: If you fail to resist this political pressure, we will act swiftly to protectAmerican consumers from this dangerous axis of corporate and government power.

Note that the letter from Republicans is much more explicit in the threat (and its coming from Attorneys General, so actual law enforcement agents, rather than elected legislature members who have much less power to act on their own).

The letter is chock full of nonsense.

Complying with these demands would constitute a grave assault on the principle of freespeech. Unbiased access to information, while no longer a component of Googles corporatecreed, is still what Americans expect from your company.

Thats bullshit. Its a search engine. The entire point is bias. It is literally ranking the search result to try to bring up the most relevant, and that, inherently, means bias. The attacks on free speech are not from Google trying to serve up more relevant search results, but from politicians of both parties sending these competing threat letters to try to pressure Google into modifying search results to get their own preferred search results shown.

This is what people are talking about when they say that all this politician jawboning and grandstanding is working the refs. As we noted last year, the bipartisan attacks on the internet are really all about trying to control the flow of information in their favor, and leaning on powerful companies to try to get their own side more prominence.

And, of course, Google itself has contributed to this somewhat. For years it took a completely hands-off approach to directly modifying its search results, noting that the algorithm returned what the algorithm returned. Yet almost exactly a decade ago, we noted that, for the first time, Google was caving to outside pressure to modify its search results when it promised the MPAA that it would start demoting websites based on DMCA notices.

We warned that this would open the floodgates of others pressuring Google to make modifications to demote sites they disliked, but now its reaching new and ever more ridiculous levels, with politicians of both major political parties screaming take it down from one side and leave it up from the other, with both sides threatening to take some form of punitive action if theyre not obeyed.

All of this is dangerous. All of this is government interfering with the 1st Amendment rights of sites to display information, content, and expression how they best see fit. Both the Democrats and Republicans need to stop this ridiculousness. Stop demanding how sites operate.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, control, crisis pregnancy centers, democrats, jawboning, republicans, search, search rankings, working the refsCompanies: google

Visit link:
Politicians Whining About Censorship Are All Just Trying To Dictate The Terms Of Debate - Techdirt

Meta's third-party fact-checkers have flagged as "false information" posts on Instagram and Facebook accusing the Biden administration of changing the definition of a recession in order to deny that the U.S. economy has entered one. This is yet another reminder that the project of purportedly independent fact-checking on social media is a highly partisan one, in which legitimately debatable opinions are passed off as objective truth.

Last week, the White House published an online article disputing the standard definition of an economic recession: i.e., two consecutive fiscal quarters in which GDP growth was negative.

"Both official determinations of recessions and economists' assessment of economic activity are based on a holistic look at the dataincluding the labor market, consumer and business spending, industrial production, and incomes," wrote the White House. "Based on these data, it is unlikely that the decline in GDP in the first quarter of this yeareven if followed by another GDP decline in the second quarterindicates a recession."

This post has been widely sharedand in some cases, mockedon social media. Graham Allen, an Instagram personality, posted a video reacting to the post in which he asked Siri to define the termrecession. Siri's definition: two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth.

But Allen's video is currently obscured on Instagram; users can still watch it, but they first have to click past a disclaimer that it contains "false information reviewed by independent fact-checkers." A similar label has appeared on some Facebook posts that also take issue with the Biden administration's wordplay.

The fact-checker is Politifact, a fact-checking website run by the Poynter Institute. Politifact is an official third-party fact-checking apparatus for Meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram. This means that PolitiFact is not like any ordinary website that offers a critique of a political narrative: PolitiFact's critiques are enforced by social media platforms.

In this instance, PolitiFact has rated as false the claim that "the White House is now trying to protect Joe Biden by changing the definition of the word recession." PolitiFact acknowledges that the Biden administration's efforts to spin current economic conditions as something other than a recession are political in nature. Nevertheless, the fact-checkers conclude that since the White House is citing the National Bureau of Economic Research's official definition, the administration is on solid footing.

Phil Magness, director of research and education at the American Institute for Economic Research, thinks PolitiFact is playing games.

"In this case, PolitiFact's 'ruling' is compounded by the fact that they have previously invoked the very same definition of a recession2 consecutive quarters of GDP decline in previous rulings to either provide cover to exaggerated Democratic claims about an impending recession or tear down Republican claims to the same effect," he tells Reason.

In a recent op-ed forThe Wall Street Journal, Magness explained that the NBER is not the "official arbiter of recessions"; on the contrary, the federal government has often used the general definition preferred by most lay people, as well as Siri:

Mr. Biden's economic advisers are certainly free to make the case for a revised determination. The NBER takes a more holistic approach, in part because some recessionary events are shorter than two quarters or manifest in nonconsecutive quarters. But this rationale worksagainstthe White House's current argument, which seeks to delay acknowledging a recession even if a two-quarter decline is observed this year. The NBER committee has previously acknowledged recessions that fell short of a strict and sustained two-quarter contraction. This last happened during the 2000 dot-com bust, which played out in nonconsecutive quarterly drops.

While recognizing its limitations, the traditional definition of a recession provides a functional rule of thumb to interpret events as they unfold. The NBER determination is a rigorous and reputable historical indicator for dating the beginning and end of business-cycle troughs, but it isn't suitable for real-time policy determinations.

This is hardly the first time that the social media fact-checking industry has failed to add clarity to a contentious issue. Last year, PolitiFact rated as false the claim that COVID-19 is 99 percent survivable for most age groups.

"Experts say a person cannot determine their own chances at surviving COVID-19 by looking at national statistics, because the data doesn't take into account the person's own risks and COVID-19 deaths are believed to be undercounted," wrote PolitiFact.

Regardless of what "experts say," it is certainly the case that individual persons can estimate their likelihood of surviving COVD-19 based on national statistics. The disease's age discrimination is extreme: The overwhelming majority of young, healthy people are not at significant risk, especially when compared with elderly Americans. This was a curious fact-check, and it was hardly the first.

Science Feedback, another of Meta's fact-checking partners, wrongly labeled as false one of my own articles about the efficacy of mask mandates in schools. Not only was the fact-check incorrect, but it also introduced a new error: The fact-checker suggested that my article had erroneously claimed masks don't work to stop the spread of COVID-19 in schools. In actuality, my article had only asserted that there wasn't much compelling evidence that mask mandateshad made a difference. (A year later, this distinction is moot, since even COVID-cautious public health officials now admit the cloth masks required in most schools do practically nothing to thwart the variants.) After I pointed out the mistake to Facebook, Science Feedback removed the "false information" label.

These are concerning mistakes. Media organizations routinely get things wrong, but the premise of fact-checkers was supposed to be that they are somehow above the fray, only weighing in when something can be proven or disproven quite definitively. Instead, they are often making dubious judgment calls on issues where reasonable disagreements exist.

"The fact-checking industry has become a partisan arbiter of political disputes, using claims of expertise that its writers do not actually possess to censor and shut down challenges to the political left," says Magness.

See the original post here:
Facebook, Instagram Posts Flagged as False for Noting Biden's Recession Wordplay - Reason

A recent overview in Publishers Weekly about the state of free expression in the industry noted, Many longtime book people have said what makes the present unprecedented is a new impetus to censor and self-censor coming from the left. When the reporter asked a half dozen influential figures at the largest publishing houses to comment, only one would talk and only on condition of anonymity. This is the censorship that, as the phrase goes, dare not speak its name, the reporter wrote.

The caution is born of recent experience. No publisher wants another American Dirt imbroglio, in which a highly anticipated novel was accused of capitalizing on the migrant experience, no matter how well the book sells. No publisher wants the kind of staff walkout that took place in 2020 at Hachette Book Group when the journalist Ronan Farrow protested its plan to publish a memoir by his father, Woody Allen.

It is certainly true that not every book deserves to be published. But those decisions should be based on the quality of a book as judged by editors and publishers, not in response to a threatened, perceived or real political litmus test. The heart of publishing lies in taking risks, not avoiding them.

You can understand why the publishing world gets nervous. Consider what has happened to books that have gotten on the wrong side of illiberal scolds. On Goodreads, for example, vicious campaigns have circulated against authors for inadvertent offenses in novels that havent even been published yet. Sometimes the outcry doesnt take place until after a book is in stores. Last year, a bunny in a childrens picture book got soot on his face by sticking his head into an oven to clean it and the book was deemed racially insensitive by a single blogger. It was reprinted with the illustration redrawn. All this after the book received rave reviews and a New York Times/New York Public Library Best Illustrated Childrens Book Award.

In another instance, a white academic was denounced for cultural appropriation because trap feminism, the subject of her book Bad and Boujee, lay outside her own racial experience. The publisher subsequently withdrew the book. PEN America rightfully denounced the publishers decision, noting that it detracts from public discourse and feeds into a climate where authors, editors and publishers are disincentivized to take risks.

Books have always contained delicate and challenging material that rubs up against some readers sensitivities or deeply held beliefs. But which material upsets which people changes over time; many stories about interracial cooperation that were once hailed for their progressive values (To Kill a Mockingbird, The Help) are now criticized as white savior narratives. Yet these books can still be read, appreciated and debated not only despite but also because of the offending material. Even if only to better understand where we started and how far weve come.

See the article here:
Opinion | Theres More Than One Way to Ban a Book - The New York Times

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Media Research Center found that "secondhand censorship" is allowing big tech platforms to shield Americans from content that would otherwise come across on social media.

MRC founder Brent Bozell oversees the organizations Free Speech America CensorTrack database, which tracks the effects of secondhand censorship. It found that seven big tech platforms Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn and Spotify kept information from users a staggering 144,301,713 times during the first quarter of 2022 alone.

The study defined secondhand censorship as "the number of times that users on social media had information kept from them" by big tech. The group "calculated the secondhand censorship effect by adding the number of followers each account had at the time of each censorship case recorded during the quarter," according to Brian Bradley and Gabriela Pariseau of Free Speech America.

GOP LAWMAKERS LAUNCH PROBE OF TIKTOK'S SHARING OF USER DATA WITH CHINESE PARENT COMPANY

TFacebook is among the seven big tech giants accused of secondhand censorship. (AP Photo/The Des Moines Register, Charlie Litchfield)

"The secondhand censorship effect for the first quarter of 2022 includes only the censorship cases we found or were informed about. Because of this, it represents a mere fraction of the total scale of secondhand censorship taking place," Bradley and Pariseau added. "Big Techs lack of transparency means that an incalculable amount of censorship beyond what is shown in this report takes place every day."

Bozell joined "Fox News @ Night" with Shannon Bream on Wednesday to discuss the findings.

"Social media is the communications vehicle of the future whether we like it or not. The censorship of conservatives and Christians, and most especially conservative Christians, by big tech is a huge problem," Bozell said.

"It is enormous because it is affecting the public square in ways that has never happened in American history. So, how important is this? Those of us who have been looking at censorship have been looking at it from the standpoint of the producers. Weve logged, weve verified about 4,000 cases that are confirmed examples of censorship," he continued. "But we havent looked at it from the standpoint of the consumer. Whats the effect of that censorship?"

U.S. MOVINGSOME SAY TOO SLOWLYTO ADDRESS TIKTOK SECURITY RISK

The Media Research Center found that "secondhand censorship" is allowing big tech platforms to shield Americans from content that would otherwise come across on social media. (Muhammed Selim Korkutata/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

"For the first three months of this year, we looked at 172 cases, just 172 cases of confirmed, verified censorship, we then looked at how many times that information was withheld from the American people through those 172 acts, 140 million times information didnt reach the American people because of 172 acts of censorship," Bozell said.

Bream then pointed out that many liberals deny censorship is happening, pointing to a poll of Facebooks top performing posts that indicates conservatives are "doing very well" on the platform as evidence liberals could use to make their case. However, Bozell disagreed with the notion.

"In fact, the worst case came from Facebook," he said. "Facebook has over 80 these instances."

TWITTER ALLOWS SOME THREATS AGAINST CONSERVATIVE SCOTUS JUSTICES, PRO-LIFE PREGNANCY CENTERS TO FLOURISH

Media Research Center president Brent Bozell asked, "When was the last time you heard a liberal complain about being censored?"

Bozell then said made it clear that he believes this is a partisan issue.

"When was the last time you heard a liberal complain about being censored? It just doesnt happen. But conservatives across the spectrum are now being censored. Heres the important thing, that number is minuscule, it just scratches the surface," he said. "We only looked at three months we didnt look at people whove already been censored had we looked at cases of censorship before that three-month period, it would have been billons of pieces of information that have never reached the American people because of the censorship."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Brian Flood is a media reporter for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent tobrian.flood@fox.comand on Twitter: @briansflood.

Original post:
Big techs secondhand censorship shields conservatives from information at alarming rate, study shows - Fox News

More than two days since it was first imposed, a lock on the Twitter account of the Socialist Equality Party (Australia) remains in place, effectively disabling it. The protracted character of the measure, and the absence of any credible explanation from the social media company, brands its actions as political censorship.

Posts demanding the full reinstatement of the SEP account and an explanation from Twitters page have been shared hundreds of times and have reached thousands of users. Many have drawn a connection between the lock on the SEP account, and a broader campaign to silence those critical of official policies, including militarism, war and the herd immunity COVID policies.

As the WSWS reported previously, the lock was first imposed on Thursday, Australian (AEST) time no later than 10:50am.

Only a couple of minutes earlier, the SEP account had published a video.

It defended Dr David Berger, a well-known general practitioner, under sanction from Australias medical authorities for his consistent opposition to the let it rip COVID policies and advocacy of an elimination strategy aimed at ending the pandemic. The video drew attention to the parallel between the attacks on Berger and other fighters for social and democratic rights, including WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.

The video can be viewed below.

When the lock was imposed, that video was removed by Twitter and replaced with a label claiming that it had violated unspecified rules.

The initial lock was to be for 12 hours, gave no information about the supposed infractions of the page, could not be reviewed and provided no means of communication or redress. After the 12 hours had elapsed, the SEP received notification that its account remained locked.

The video supposedly had Violat[ed] our rules against posting or sharing privately produced/distributed intimate media of someone without their express consent. The lock would remain in place until and unless the video was deleted entirely.

On Friday morning, at roughly 9:30am (AEST), the SEP filed an appeal. It noted that the stated grounds for the censorship of the video were bogus. It contained no intimate content. All the images were in the public domain or had been provided to the WSWS by those depicted.

Three hours later, at 12:30pm (AEST), the SEP received confirmation that its appeal had been received. More than 24 hours since then, Twitter has not answered the appeal in any way.

The timeline raises concerning questions:

Was the initial unexplained lock of 12 hours merely to provide administrators with time to concoct a pretext for the censorship?

Why was the SEP account disabled entirely, rather than given some sort of warning? It is associated with a well-known and longstanding political organisation, has more than 2,000 followers and has operated on Twitter since 2010 without any accusations of rule infringements.

Have any human evaluators been involved in the censorship of the SEP account? If so, how could they possibly be under the misapprehension that the video contains intimate images, when it clearly does not? If they were so mistaken, why didnt they contact the SEP to clarify the issue?

If Twitters actions to this point are purely the result of algorithms and automated processes, why did it take three hours for receipt of the SEPs appeal to be acknowledged? This clearly indicates the involvement of human moderators.

If the SEP video was the subject of a false complaint in the few minutes that it was visible, why has this malicious report been taken at face value and acted upon so drastically? Anyone who has been on Twitter for some time knows that such false reports are a common occurrence. Generally they are investigated before any action is taken.

Why has the report, if one were made, seemingly been treated by Twitter as an unchallengeable and semi-official edict?

This raises the obvious question: If there was a false report in relation to the SEP video, did it come from a prominent political figure or any individual associated with government and state agencies?

In regard to the last question, it is notable that Bergers personal Twitter account has repeatedly been subjected to comments from right-wing trolls, defending the government policies of mass infection and death.

There is also an ecosystem of anti-Assange accounts, which feed off and promote the decade-long campaign of the intelligence apparatuses to destroy the courageous journalist. One of the most persistent of those accounts has repeatedly gloated about the SEP Twitter lock.

Twitters silence is all the more striking, given the substantial support that has been voiced for the full reinstatement of the SEP account.

On Thursday afternoon, SEP National Secretary Cheryl Crisp posted a Tweet reporting the lock. As of this writing, Crisps post has been retweeted, or shared, more than 240 times and liked by almost 500. It has received over 35,000 impressions, a measure of how many times the post appeared in Twitter feeds of unique individual users.

Loading Tweet ...

Many others have posted strong comments. Chris Turnbull, an independent journalist, retweeted Crisps post, with the comment: The attack on Dr Berger continues: now extended to those who defend him: Twitter suspending groups who are not in violation of their own rules.

Loading Tweet ...

Another user wrote: It is unconscionable but unsurprising to find Twitter solidarizing itself with the state in suppressing a major physician-journalist like Dr David Berger from telling the truth about the pandemic.

Loading Tweet ...

A longstanding supporter of Assange wrote: . @TwitterSupport unlock the @SEP_Australia acct - reinstate it fully! @Twitter users need reliable accts! SEP reports on & defends workers around the world! For yrs they have defended #JulianAssange bringing light to a blacked-out story. 7 articles on #AssangeCase in July alone!

Loading Tweet ...

One user cut to the heart of the issue, posting: Irony? Someone tweets about the free speech of *others* on *various* topics. Twitter responds by removing their tweet and locking their account?! The tweet was maliciously reported as [containing intimate] content @TwitterSupport

Loading Tweet ...

The SEP will continue to demand the complete reinstatement of its account and a full explanation of how and why the censorship was imposed. This is critical to defeating a precedent for further attacks on anti-war, left-wing and socialist posts on the platform.

We urge all other Twitter users committed to democratic rights to aid this campaign. Tweet your opposition to the lock, direct it to @TwitterSupport and include the hashtag #OpposeSEPTwitterLock.

Join the SEP campaign against anti-democratic electoral laws!

The working class must have a political voice, which the Australian ruling class is seeking to stifle with this legislation.

Original post:
Growing opposition to Twitter censorship of Socialist Equality Party (Australia) - WSWS

A look at the latest in censorship attempts around the country spotlights actions in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Missouri.

District Attorney Ben David of New Hanover and Pender Counties (NC) found no criminality in having nine books in libraries at the countys middle and high schools. The titles, which were challenged by parents and investigated by members of the New Hanover County (NHC) Sheriffs Office, will remain available in the libraries, according to WHQR Public Media.

NHC Sheriffs Office officers met with David in May, providing him with the list of offensive books, which schools made the titles available, and which passages they deemed offensive. They asked David to investigate if the books violated any criminal laws. David found that the law protected the schools and teachers for making these books available, adding that the obscenity test is high in order to protect First Amendment rights, according to the story.

The books were: All Boys Arent Blue by George M. Johnson, Out of Darkness by Ashley Hope Prez, The Glass Arrow by Kristen Simmons, Forged by Fire by Sharon M. Draper, Melissa (formerly George) by Alex Gino, Stamped byIbram X. Kendi and Jason Reynolds, A Good Kind of Trouble by Lisa Moore Rame, The 57 Bus by Dashka Slater, and Queer, There and Everywhere by Sarah Prager.

The Miami-Dade (FL) School Board voted 5-4 to remove two textbooks on sex educationComprehensive Health Skills for Middle School and Comprehensive Health Skills for High Schoolfrom middle and high school curricula, according to Local10.

The board previously voted 5-4 in favor of keeping the books when objections were raised. A subsequent hearing was held to evaluate them. Age-appropriateness and references to sensitive subjects such as abortion, emergency contraception, gender identity, and sexual orientation were cited as reasons to remove them.

A local chapter of Moms for Liberty in Fauquier County (VA) formally requested the removal of 50 books from public school libraries during a school board meeting, according to FauquierNow. A member of the group is quoted as claiming that access to these books causes long-term sex-related behavioral problems. Parents from the community spoke up in opposition to removing the books, including the recently retired supervisor of Library and Media Services for Fauquier County Public Schools, who noted that there is a formal reconsideration process that should be followed.

While a specific list of books to be censored was not given, FauquierNow compiled a list after reviewing parent comments and found that titles include A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah Maas,Dress Codes for Small Towns by Courtney Stevens, and Ace of Spades by Faridah bk-ymd.

Independence School District (MO) Board of Education voted 6-1 to remove the book Cats vs. Robots Volume 1: This is War by Margaret Stohl from elementary school libraries because of nonbinary character and references to gender identity, according to KCUR and the Kansas City Star.

One member of the nine-person committee convened to review the book cited concerns that the title and cover do not indicate that gender identity is mentioned in the book, as well as examples of young characters being skeptical of and mistrusting adults, which he said was not appropriate and deeply concerning. Parents and students came to a school board meeting to object to the removal and explain the importance of having books with LGBTQIA+ characters.

Libraries are always evolving. Stay ahead. Log In.

Read the original:
Some Wins, Some Losses in Fight to Keep Books on the Shelves | Censorship Roundup - School Library Journal

As is the case with most solutions in search of a problem,Ohio House Bill 327currently winding its way through the legislative process is an attempt to control the teaching of what its authors considers "divisive" subjects.

If approved, the Promoting Education, Not Indoctrination Act (which initselfis propaganda)would "Prohibit teaching, advocating, or promoting divisive concepts."

The billoffers such examples as:

Teachers are already juggling with knives. Who has time to court this kind of trouble?

The proposed law would permit:

How does one conveyobjectivityregarding such clear moralwrongs as slavery,Native American genocide,or why mostwomen couldn't vote until 1920?

Who gets to selectthe textbooks and materials which would offer theseimpartial lessons?

More Charita Goshay: Book banning is an old, dangerous trick

In March, bill cosponsor state Rep. Sarah Fowler Arthur, R-Ashtabula, offeredWEWS(Channel 5) an example of how teaching about the Holocaust could offer both sides of the storyby including, say, a perspective from a German soldier.

Eleven million innocent civilians,including 6 million Jews,1 million children, people with physical andintellectualdisabilities, gays,and outspoken Christians, were systematically murdered by the Nazis in concentration camps spread across Europe.

There are lines in history which are clear. There is no counterargumentforwhy the Nazis and the Axis powers did what they did none.

Now, no serious scholarwould be opposed to an examination of the Third Reich'smasterful misuse of racism,lies and propaganda;how Adolf Hitler was able to seduce an entire nation into abandoning its ownhumanity,replacingit with a depravitythe likes of which the modern world had never seen.

But there is no, "Yeah, but ..."

The billalso would allow parents, students and colleagues to report schools and personnel suspected of violating the standards, which could result in a loss of fundingor individual punishment, such as a teacher losing his or her license.

Schools and teachers are already underconstant scrutiny. What ifa complaint is baseless? It has all the elements of Fascism 101.

It strips away opportunities for critical thinking and writing. Without such skills, education simply becomes regurgitation.

It undercuts the local control people claim they want.Either we trust local school boards, or we do not.

It goes without saying that school libraries wouldbe subject to even more scrutiny and censorship.

It's clear that some in Columbus are taking their cues from other state legislatures who have already waded into thewater; among themTexas and Florida.

A strongnation canbearthe truthabout itself. America's storyis unique, one of freedom, ingenuityand limitless promise. It's also a tale ofinjustice,materialismand hubris.

As it stands, Americansavoid history like it wasthe Ebola virus. We don'tneedskewedinformation, which will only deepen thedeficit.

Wemusthave more faith in our children,whohave a right to learn the full story of who we are, where we've been, and where we may be headed.

Charita M. Goshay is a Canton Repository staff writer and member of the editorial board. Reach herat 330-580-8313 or charita.goshay@cantonrep.com. On Twitter: @cgoshayREP

Link:
Ohio's divisive subjects bill is rooted in denial and avoidance - Canton Repository