Category Archives: Censorship

Professional networking site LinkedIn announced it will shut down its website in China because Chinas hefty compliance requirements have created a significantly more challenging operating environment. Its parent company, Microsoft, said it would replace LinkedIn China with a job listings website without a social media element later this year.

LinkedIns retreat from China sends a warning to all Western companies that there is no middle ground between Chinas authoritarian system and Western liberal democratic values. They must choose a side.

LinkedIn launched in China in 2014. It was the only Western social media site that operated openly in China, as Chinese authorities blocked other Western social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter. LinkedIn paid its admission price for the Chinese market by agreeing to adhere to the Chinese governments rules, including censorship requirements.

Like all Western companies doing business in China, LinkedIn claimed that to comply with Chinas law it had no choice but to censor content Chinese authorities object to. LinkedIn insisted the censorship was very light and in no way contradicted the company supporting free speech.

Still, LinkedIns censorship has caused great concern in the United States. In 2019, LinkedIn made headlines by blocking the profile of a U.S.-based Chinese dissident, Zhou Fengsuo. Zhou was one of the student leaders of the 1989 pro-democracy protest in Tiananmen Square.

After the Chinese government brutally cracked down on protestors, Zhou was forced into exile in the United States. He co-founded a nonprofit organization to aid human rights activists and organizations in China. On January 3, 2019, Zhou tweeted out a notice from LinkedIn, which stated that although the company strongly supports freedom of expression, Zhous profile and activities would not be viewable because of specific content on your profile.

Zhou demanded an answer in atweet, This is how censorship spread from Communist China to Silicon Valley in the age of globalization and digitalization. How does LinkedIn get the order from Beijing? After Zhous tweet received wide media attention, LinkedIn reversed its action and unblocked Zhous account,claiming his profile had been blocked in error.

As Chinas leader Xi Xinping seeks to return China to the Maoist socialist model and intensify his suppression of dissenting voices, he demands more censorship from Chinese and foreign companies. Early this year, Chinese regulators visited LinkedIns headquarters in China and gave the company 30 daysto clean up its content. The companydisclosedthat it had to stop new member sign-ups in China for weeks to ensure we remain in compliance with local law.

LinkedIn learned the hard way that capitulation to Beijing is not a one-time action but a process. Once you bend the knee, Beijing will soon demand a better attitude and posture. Surrender leads to more surrender because Beijing always wants more.

LinkedIns censorship on behalf of the Chinese government reached new heights in recent months. It used to only remove individual posts that Chinese censors did not like. But recently, LinkedIn blocked profiles and posts of foreign journalists, academics, researchers, and human rights activists from its China-based websites.

Well-known journalists affected includedAxios Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, Vice News Melissa Chan, and U.K.-based author Greg Bruno. All of them have written about Beijings human rights violations in the past. All received similar messages from LinkedIn, which claims their profiles were blocked in LinkedIn China due to prohibited content in the summary section of these journalists profiles.

Besides these well-known journalists, LinkedIn also banned academics and researchers. One of them is Eyck Freymann, a Ph.D. student at Oxford University. According to theWall Street Journal, Freymanns profile was probably blocked in China because he included the words Tiananmen Square massacre in an entry describing his job as a research assistant for a book in 2015.

To add insult to injury, LinkedIn offered suggestions to those affected: modifying their content to remove the ban. Greg Bruno, author of a bookon Chinas soft power on Tibet, disclosed in an interview with Verdict, LinkedIn suggests that my ban is not permanent, and that I am welcome to update the Publications section of my profile to minimize the impact of my offending content.

Bruno rejected LinkedIns offer. HetoldVerdict: While I am not surprised by the Chinese Communist Partys discomfort with the topic of my book, I am dismayed that an American tech company is caving to the demands of a foreign government intent on controlling access to information.

LinkedIn refused to explain whether its recent heightened censorship resulted from self-censorship by the company or was explicitly requested by the Chinese government. The companys actions and its silence received widespread backlash at home and drew attention from U.S. lawmakers. Rep. Jim Banks, R-Indiana, wrote to LinkedIn, demanding the company say which Chinese Communist Partys speech regulation it was enforcing on Americans and whether the company had handed over American users data to Beijing.

Senator Rick Scott, R-Florida, sent aletteraddressed to Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella and LinkedIn CEO Ryan Roslansky. He said the companys censorship raised the serious questions of Microsofts intentions and its commitment to standing up against Communist Chinas horrific human rights abuses and repeated attacks against democracy. He criticized the companys action as a gross appeasement and an act of submission to Communist China.

Besides censorship, LinkedIn has been embroiled in another controversy. Chinese intelligence agents have used fake profiles on LinkedIn and disguised themselves as headhunters, consultants, and scholars to collect information and recruit potential spies. In 2017, Germanys intelligence agency disclosedthat Chinese agents targeted more than 10,000 German citizens, including senior diplomats and politicians.

A year later, William Evanina, the U.S. counterintelligence chief,warnedLinkedIn about Chinas super aggressive intelligence activities on the site. In 2020, a Singapore national wasconvictedin U.S. court as an illegal agent for a foreign power. He had set up a fake consulting company and used LinkedIn to recruit Americans to spy on behalf of China.

Eventually, both the pressure from China and from home has proven too much for LinkedIn. The company finally realized that Beijing would continue to demand more censorship while abusing its intelligence-gathering on the companys platform.

To please Beijing means to abandon the companys business model as a platform for the open and free exchange of ideas and to face more backlash from the public and more scrutiny from lawmakers at home. Eventually, LinkedIn chose to fold its China operation because it couldnt straddle two different political systems with opposing values and still be successful.

LinkedIns exit from China should serve as a warning for all Western businesses and organizations. For too long, Western companies and organizations, from Nike to the NBA, have operated by this one company, two systems model. They have acted as if they are the defenders of liberal democratic values in their home countries.

But they have instead overlooked the Chinese Communist Partys human rights abuses and insisted on abiding by the CCPs speech code, all for the sake of chasing profit they dont want to be shut out of potentially lucrative Chinese markets. They have damaged their reputations while finding out Beijings appetite for control and censorship cannot be satisfied.

LinkedIns experience in China has shown that the one company, two systems model is a failure. All Western companies and organizations must realize that Beijings authoritarian model is incompatible with Western liberal democratic values.

Trying to find a middle ground will please no one. Western companies and organizations have to choose a side.

They should remind themselves that the liberal democratic values such as freedom of expression they enjoy at home have not only fattened their bottom line, they have given birth to superb products, including music, movies, products, and sports teams with universal popularity. If Western companies and organizations want to maintain their success and achieve more, they should choose freedom and democracy over kowtowing to Beijing.

See the original post:
LinkedIn's Retreat From China Is A Warning To All Western Businesses - The Federalist

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL On our platform Dissenters Voice Banned YouTube videos we publish videos that are censored and deleted on YouTube.

We believe that the arbitrary removal of inconvenient content on social media should not be a part of our civilization. That is why we give censored content the opportunity to be seen.

xxxx

What happens to a society in which satire is no longer allowed? This video about the broken promises of Covid vaccines does not convey misinformation and yet it must not exist.

And what will happen tomorrow if we tolerate this kind of censorship by social media today?

The Rio Times expressly points out that as an independent newspaper, we also strive to provide a platform for the dissemination of suppressed statements in an era characterized by censorship on social media. The information conveyed in each case does not necessarily reflect our own views.

Join us on Telegram:t.me/theriotimes

Go here to read the rest:
Banned YouTube videos: Satire about broken promises of Covid vaccines - The Rio Times

Key Takeaways:

Beijings ongoing crackdown on pretty much everything spurred by President Xi Jinpings highly publicized common prosperity campaign has brought about a new challenge for influencers hoping to maintain their online traffic as well as authorities on the lookout for those posting anything that smells of wealth-flaunting. With authorities on extra-sensitive mode, many if not most celebrities and influencers are lying low and resisting the urge to post photos of lavish outfits or handbags, yet others have sought to skirt the scrutiny of censors by shoehorning their high-end items into seemingly unassuming content.

As noted in our recent report Chinese Cultural Consumers: The Future of Luxury, Chinas influencer landscape is changing, with the formerly dominant Hollywood stars or established Chinese actors holding less sway over young consumers than livestreams by KOLs (key opinion leaders), KOCs (key opinion consumers), or even brand owners and employees. This means there are now dozens, if not hundreds, of types of influencers, all fighting for the attention of consumers and keeping online censors on their toes.

Below are just three recent examples of innovative influencers in China, whose crafty content strategies are testing the limits of the wealth-flaunting crackdown:

The Buddhist Socialite ()

Buddhist Socialites have attracted particular ire from censors, since commercial advertising using religion is illegal in China. Image: Weibo

Almost exclusively made up of young women, the appearance of the Buddhist Socialite influencer in recent months was marked by content that often showcased activities at Buddhist temples praying, eating vegetarian meals, or transcribing religious texts. All common practices, none of which are the target of Chinas content crackdown. However, where the Buddhist Socialite attracts the ire of censors is in her often prominently featured luxury apparel and accessories and elaborate makeup which they typically offer for sale via e-commerce livestreaming or other online channels.The Patient KOL ()

Patient KOLs often appear in hospital beds in full make-up. Image: Weibo

This highly niche group claims to be hospitalized for medical treatment yet manages to find the time to share recommendations for beauty and wellness products. Often, Patient KOLs tell their audience they have just undergone a procedure such as major surgery that left scars on their skin that they successfully treated with various products (which theyre happy to recommend or sell via e-commerce livestreaming, of course). One distinguishing factor about this type of influencer is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain whether he or she had a genuine illness or medical procedure.

In one case, a female Weibo user responded with lawsuit against media reports that named and shamed her as a Patient KOL, claiming that she had a thyroid procedure and did not promote any healthcare product for profit. Nevertheless, the fact that short video platform Kuaishou has reportedly removed more than 100 videos from Patient KOLs speaks to their prevalence.

The Volunteer Teacher KOL ()

Altruism or opportunism? Image: ce.cn

The latest secret influencer controversy surrounds the founder of a charity organization that organizes volunteer teachers to assist young students in remote, mountainous areas. Catapulted to internet fame by post in September that praised her as the prettiest volunteer teacher in China, who had helped over 2,000 students over ten years in 24 different schools, skepticism soon emerged. How, some asked, could the young lady volunteer for an entire decade, given she claimed to hold degrees from overseas institutions, and how was she able to maintain such an impeccable appearance on-camera without a professional photography team?

Soon, it was revealed that the individual only volunteered for short periods during her summer breaks, and that her organization charged around RMB 5,000 ($775) for volunteer trips that consisted of only seven classes in two days but offered volunteer certificates and multiple souvenirs. Some viewers were quick to saythat the trips expensive accommodation and the flashy apparel and accessories shown off by those taking part in the volunteer trips did more harm than good to the children they are supposed to help.

These new types of undercover influencers have emerged in response to the governments crackdowns on ostentatious displays of wealth. The most recent of these campaigns which do appear with some frequency launched in May, when the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) issued a series of policies designed to curb overt displays of extravagant lifestyles through measures such as blacklisting andcontentfiltering, which have been taken up by social platforms such as Douyin and Xiaohongshu.

By selecting themes that appear, at first glance, to be altruistic and far removed from the usual fashion-influencer content, this new spate of KOLs hoped to stay under the radar. However, Chinese state-run media quickly caught on and condemned their behavior. One state media op-ed accusedBuddhist Socialite influencers of stoking materialism while compromising the integrity of temples, while also noting thatcommercialadvertising using religion is illegal in China. Likewise, Patient KOLs have been criticized for corrupting the sacredness of hospitals and the healthcare profession and potentially engaging in fraudulent advertising. Another Xinhua Daily op-ed criticized the phenomenon of volunteer teaching for show and called for moral condemnation and legal action against exploiting volunteering opportunities to generate traffic and profit. For their parts, short video platform Douyin and lifestyle platform Xiaoghongshu have penalized dozens of accounts and removed their objectionablecontent.With Xis common prosperity becoming a central concept in recent government action, any public displays of wealth, whether obvious or subtle, are likely to come under greater scrutiny in the run-up to next years National Congress. But its not just government censors on the lookout for this type of content. Major social platforms are also stepping up their scrutiny of sneaky KOLs, having pledged to promote core socialist values. Although the KOLs who most recently came under fire were not directly sponsored by brands, their experiences offer a cautionary tale for luxury brands engaged in influencer marketing in China: simply switching to influencers previously not associated with excessive wealth might come along with its own problems if the crackdown continues to spread and intensify.

Here is the original post:
Undercover Influencers Test the Patience of China's Censors - Jing Daily

The Chinese government has banned all depictions of gay people on television, as part of a cultural crackdown on vulgar, immoral and unhealthy content.

Chinese censors have released new regulations for content that exaggerates the dark side of society and now deem homosexuality, extramarital affairs, one night stands and underage relationships as illegal on screen.

Last week the Chinese government pulled a popular drama, Addicted, from being streamed on Chinese websites as it follows two men in gay relationships, causing uproar among the shows millions of viewers.

The government said the show contravened the new guidelines, which state that No television drama shall show abnormal sexual relationships and behaviours, such as incest, same-sex relationships, sexual perversion, sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual violence, and so on.

The ban also extends to smoking, drinking, adultery, sexually suggestive clothing, even reincarnation. Chinas State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television told television producers it would constantly monitor TV channels to ensure the new rules were strictly adhered to.

The clampdown follows an increase in cultural censorship in China since Xi Jinping came to power in November 2012. In December 2014, censors stopped a TV show, The Empress of China, from being broadcast because the actors showed too much cleavage. The show only returned to screens once the breasts had been blurred out.

In September 2015, a documentary about young gay Chinese called Mama Rainbow was taken down from all Chinese websites.

The new regulations have angered gay activists in China, who have fought for two decades to overcome the substantial stigma in their country against homosexuality. It was only decriminalised in 1997 and was only taken off the official list of mental illnesses in 2001.

In November, one Chinese campaigner took the government to court over its description of homosexuality as a psychological disorder in textbooks.

See the article here:
China bans depictions of gay people on television ...

Perched nude and contrapposto at the Galleria dellAccademia in Florence, Michelangelos David is widely regarded as a masterpiece of Renaissance sculpture. Visitors to Expo 2020 Dubai now have the chance to see a 3D-printed reproduction of the chiseled marble statue, but only from the shoulders up. The replica stands 23 feet tall within the Italian pavilions octagonal two-story gallery, but only diplomats and VIPs will have exclusive access to the pavilions lower floorand unimpeded views of Davids undercarriage.

Italian media is decrying the decision. When the statue was uncovered and seen by the Emiratis, there was enormous embarrassment, an anonymous Italian source told La Repubblica. We even considered putting underpants on him or changing the statue, but it was too late. Art critic Vittorio Sgarbi describes it as an unprecedented, unacceptable, intolerable humiliation made in deference to Islamic tradition. While not stated outright, its believed that artistic director Davide Rampello reckoned with concerns over showing the heroic male nude in front of conservative Emiratis.

Rampello denied the allegations of censorship. According to him, the decision was purely functionalto allow visitors to see David from eye level, a vastly different and more personal perspective than what tourists typically enjoy in Florence. An Emirati tour guide, meanwhile, doesnt seem to mind: We look at nudity as something which shouldnt be displayed but in practice, when it comes to art, I feel people are opening up to it.

The censored David will be on display in the Italian Pavilion at Expo 2020 Dubai until March 31, 2022.

See the original post:
Censorship of David Replicas Manhood Stirs Controversy in Dubai - Surface Magazine

How convenient that Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen just gave the social network another excuse to crack down on conservative content.

In her congressional testimony Tuesday, Haugen, a data scientist, called on Congress to enact more regulations on her former employer to combat misinformation on the platform, saying the company puts profits over public safety.

At issue for Haugen is Facebooks algorithm, which in 2018 the company changed to prioritize high-engagement content, thereby contributing according to Haugen to increased divisiveness and polarization among users. Haugen even went so far as to say that Facebooks switching off of safeguards after the 2020 election led to the Jan. 6 US Capitol riot.

Fast forward a couple months, we got the insurrection, she said in an interview with 60 Minutes on Sunday.

Whatever you think of the Capitol riot, Facebook did not cause it. The way Haugen used the word insurrection hinted of her likely progressive-lefty politics revealing her true motives. And what Haugen means by safeguards is no doubt censoring of conservative content, in a way Post readers know all too well.

Thats her main objective: censorship. She wants a complete overhaul of the content-moderation rules on Facebook, including an independent governmental body overseeing such changes. And as a good progressive, she pushes these new regulations under the guise of safety.

Facebook has demonstrated they cannot act independently, Haugen told 60 Minutes. The company over and over again chooses its profits over safety. It is subsidizing it is paying for its profits with our safety, and Im hoping that this will have a big enough impact on the world that they get the fortitude and the motivation to actually go put those regulations into place.

Like clockwork, a couple of hours after Haugens congressional testimony, Facebooks Director of Policy Communications Lena Pietsch jumped on Haugens push for more regulations.

We dont agree with her characterization of the many issues she testified about, Pietsch said in a statement. Despite all this, we agree on one thing; its time to begin to create standard rules for the Internet. Its been 25 years since the rules for the Internet have been updated, and instead of expecting the industry to make societal decisions that belong to legislators, it is time for Congress to act.

It seems like Haugen and Facebook have been on the same side this entire time. And it makes sense, as Haugen doesnt actually want to break up Facebook.

Instead, shed like the company to remain a billion-dollar monopoly imposing extreme-content regulations on its users. All while this is overseen by a federal agency created at her behest and staffed, no doubt, by former Facebook employees.

Haugen did leak some important information on Facebooks coverup of Instagrams negative effects on teen girls mental health (although who doesnt know this to be true?) and its lax treatment of drug cartels and human traffickers on its platform. But her drive for censorship wont remotely fix those issues.

Her objective is censorship. She wants Facebook and Instagram and all social-media companies, for that matter to enact safeguards to combat misinformation and hate.However, given the hyper-politicized arena and the Democrats past form for weaponizing supposedly impartial government agencies to push a progressive-elitist agenda, many will assume thismeans banning of conservative content or that which is negative to the Democratic Party.

It is one thing to propose an independent body to force Big Tech platforms to reveal the mechanics behind their algorithmicmachines of virality to spark a transparent discussion about how information is distributed and controlled. But it is far more perilous to police what is acceptable or fact. Without proper independence and rigor, it has been proven time and again that what is deemed fact and what is not merely depends on whether the person in charge wants it to be.

In this case, without once defining either misinformation, or hate, (again, the subtext was clearly right-wing content all along), Haugen opened the door for all content Silicon Valley dislikes to be banned.

If that happens, say goodbye forever to stories like The Posts expos of Hunter Bidens e-mails, which Facebook banned. Or suggestions that COVID may have originated at the Wuhan lab the theme of another squelched Post column long before the idea gained broader acceptance.

Some whistleblower, Frances Haugen. She just gave Big Tech and its progressive buddies the go-ahead to ramp up its censorship and control of the American public.

Victoria Marshall is the Collegiate Network Fellow atThe Post.

See more here:
What Facebook 'whistleblower' Frances Haugen really wants: more censorship of conservative views - New York Post

Stand-up comedian, actor, and writer Jim Norton will perform at the Punchline in Atlanta, tomorrow through Saturday. After a hiatus from live shows due to COVID, Nortons spicy and irreverent humor returns to the stage with new material and plenty to joke about. The comedian joined City Lights host Lois Reitzes via Zoom for a conversation covering such weighty topics as flat-Earthers, Lost, and gaining pounds in quarantine.

Interview highlights:

On committing to comedy:

It was honestly the only thing I ever wanted to do. I wanted to be a lawyer at one point, but Princeton wouldnt accept me because I had dropped out of high school. So I said, You know what? I have no education, Im driving a forklift and this is what I really want to do. I left myself no backup plan on purpose because it forced me to be a good comic, or I would have no way to make a living.

On Joan Rivers and other heroes:

I saw [Joan Rivers] at the Cutting Room here in New York She was 80 at the time, and she had note cards on the stage, on the floor, said Norton. She was a barbarian for an hour, and it was great. There was nothing off-limits Shes one of the all-time greats and she doesnt get the credits she deserves.

[Richard Pryor] was my favorite comedian of all time. I imagine if he saw my act now, he would say, Take my name out of your bio. Hed be slightly embarrassed that I love him so much, but he was the guy that made me want to do comedy.

On sensitivities and censorship in comedy:

Comedians have to deal with things through humor, but no one is telling Stephen King not to kill children in his books. No one is telling actors not to play slave-owners, not to play slashers, not to play murderers, or not to play rapists. So for people to think that comedy is harmful, when portraying someone committing a horrible act in seriousness can get you an award, I just reject the idea that comedians as performers should be limited in a way that any other form of the arts is not limited.

I think, as a performer, any subject you want to touch is absolutely acceptable; all that matters is, do you do it well, or do you do it poorly? And I think thats what you should be judged on.

Jim Norton performs stand-up at the Punchline in Atlanta on Thursday, Oct. 7, and Saturday, Oct. 9. Tickets and information are available at http://www.punchline.com/shows.

Go here to see the original:
Comedian Jim Norton discusses censorship, flat-Earthers and his admiration for Joan Rivers | 90.1 FM WABE - WABE 90.1 FM

Nevada Senate candidate and Purple Heart recipient, Sam Brown, issued a stark warning to social media users during an interview on "Fox & Friends First" on Wednesday saying American voices are "at risk" after Twitter admitted it censored his account by mistake.

"This is this isn't just a warning to me," Brown stated. "This is a warning to America that all of us, all of our voices are at risk here."

GOP SENATE CANDIDATE SAM BROWN FIRES BACK AT TWITTER AS TECH GIANT ADMITS HIS ACCOUNT WAS BANNED BY MISTAKE

The Purple Heart recipient stressed the importance of civil discourse and the ability to speak freely in America through the First Amendment.

"The fact of the matter is this is not in alignment with the spirit of the First Amendment and what our country is about, which is being able to have a debate in the public domain," said Brown.

"These companies are definitely censoring some voices and others a lot more than than they should."

WHISTLEBLOWER SAYS FACEBOOK IS A US NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE

Brown's account was permanently suspended for hours earlier this week. He filed an appeal after he realized his account had been affected. Fox News reached out to Twitter amid Brown's suspension, which was lifted less than two hours later.

"We're writing to let you know that we've unsuspended your account," Twitter told Brown in an email obtained by Fox News. "We're sorry for the inconvenience and hope to see you back on Twitter soon."

Twitter added, "A little back background: we have systems that find and remove multiple automated spam accounts in bulk, and yours was flagged as spam by mistake. Please note that it make take an hour or so for your follower and following numbers to return to normal."

"Twitter did not provide a very good explanation as to what occurred," said Brown. "They gave sort of a standard response that I was caught up in some sort of anti-spam initiative and my account was deemed to be something like a spam account, and so with no warning, no 12-hour suspension."

Twitter did not respond to Fox News' multiple requests for comment.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"I think this is a question that America needs to ask itself is why is this occurring to conservatives?" Brown questioned.

"But beyond that, if this can happen to me, if President Trump was de-platformed completely and never to be allowed back on, what will these big tech companies like Twitter or Facebook do in the future?"

Brown said censorship is an issue he hopes to tackle if he gets elected to represent Nevada in 2022. Brown is running in the Republican primary hoping to unseat Democratic incumbent Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto.

Fox News' Joseph Wulfsohn contributed to this report.

Read the rest here:
Nevada Senate candidate, Purple Heart recipient blasts Twitter censorship: 'This is a warning to America' - Fox News

Have you ever been captivated by the words of a book? Lost in a world created or reflected by the mind of an author? Has a book ever challenged your ideology?

A challenged book is one that has faced a great deal of discourse or received a proposition for a ban. A banned book is one that is made unavailable in libraries or stores including public libraries, school libraries, regions and sometimes even nations.

Banned Books Week 2021 was Sept. 26 Oct. 2. According to the American Library Association, Banned Books Weekis an annual event celebrating the freedom to read.

In honor of Banned Book Week 2021, the David L. Rice Library staff created displays featuring and providing infographics on banned books.

Marna Hostetler, director of David L. Rice Library, said Banned Books Week is an opportunity for authors, librarians, publishers and book lovers to unite over a common cause the freedom to read.

The most common reason for banned books today, according to the American Library Association, is the inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters and issues, alongside religious values, sexual themes, racial issues, profanity and stories being deemed inappropriate for their intended age group.

Recently, several authors of beloved books have rightfully faced criticism for insensitive remarks. This has led to question whether or not books can stand alone from their authors, or if a book with a morally wrong perspective can be appreciated for its literature without condoning its content in the modern world.

In my opinion, there are little to no books that deserve to be banned.

There are no doubt books with vile, condemnable content but simply censoring or banning them ignores the issue rather than addresses it. We can use controversial literature to better understand the past and challenging, uncomfortable ideas without the danger of bringing them into the real world.

Because book banning is a modern issue, I reviewed eight banned books to show how literature of all types is censored like classic literature. Reasons for these bans are in accordance with the American Library Association.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky

Reason for ban: LGBTQ+ characters, sexual content, drug and alcohol abuse, abusiverelationships, abortion, suicidal themes, sexual abuse, bullying.

Synopsis: The Perks of Being a Wallflower is told through a series of letters written byCharlie, a high school freshman who is struggling to find his place in his school and the world. To cope with his familial issues and mental health, the aspiring writer Charlie, who aspires to be a writer, writes about the upperclassman known as wallflowers who teach him about the nature of the human mind and heart.

Despite the very emotionally troubling topics the book covers such as suicidal ideation and abuse, the book was strangely most widely banned across high schools for having a homosexual character. Its a perfect example of the dangers of censoring important issues rather than addressing them.

It is important that we have conversations about the topics in the novel rather than ignoring them. This book has been a favorite of mine for many years, and I would recommend it to anyone who knows what its like to feel out of place in the world.

And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson

Reasons for ban: features a same-sex penguin couple.

Synopsis: This sweet childrens book follows two penguins, Roy and Silo, who couple up anddo everything together. One day, a zookeeper notices that another penguin couple were unable to take care of their egg, and so he gives it to Silo and Roy. The egg hatches into baby Tango, and together the three become a family. The picture book is based on a true story of two male penguins from the Central Park Zoo.

Obviously as the only picture book on this list, I doubt many college students would be interested in reading it for leisure. However, this book is important to put on the radar for potential elementary education teachers who wish to include diverse, quality childrens literature in their classrooms.

The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas

Reasons for Ban: profanity, being anti-police, racial sensitivity

Synopsis: Starr lives between two worlds: the impoverished mostly black neighborhood ofGarden heights and the rich white population of her private school. Thus, Starr has two identities. Her worlds shatter when her friend is killed unjustly by a cop. Starr can no longer pretend to be somebody shes not.

The Hate U Give released in 2017 is the winner of the Coretta Scott King and Carnegie book awards. It addresses relevant issues including police brutality and racial injustice in an understandable way. It is one of the more popular young adult books addressing serious issues, and one I think everyone can benefit from reading.

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Reasons for ban: racism including racial slurs, strong language, violence

Synopsis: To Kill a Mockingbird follows a young family set in the Great Depression as theylearn empathy, humanity, and how to take a stand. While their father struggles to defenda black man accused of raping a white woman, Jem and Scout are fascinated by their reclusive, mysterious neighbor.

To Kill A Mockingbird is the winner of multiple prizes including the Pulitzer and has been a staple for classic American literature for decades. It is one of the most popular fictional narratives of what life was like in the segregated United States as well as the oppressive nature of the judicial system and society towards black Americans.

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie

Reasons for ban: profanity, sexuality, religious conflict, political conflict, underage drinking, unsuited to age group

Synopsis: Arnold Spirit Jr. Has spent his entire life on the Spokane Indian Reservation,surrounded by the only culture and family hes ever known. Junior leaves the reservation school to follow his aspirations and desires to be a cartoonist at an all white school in a farm town. There, his efforts to fit in make an enormous impact on his peers and community.

I read this book many years ago on a whim and couldnt put it down. It is humorous and emotional all at once with characters anyone would grow to love. I personally am not familiar with many other books with a perspective on modern Native American life and feel that this book is worthy of a recommendation for that element alone. It has been in the top 5 of most challenged books for eight non-consecutive years.

Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling

Reasons for ban: negative family relationships, witchcraft, Satanism, occult, religious conflict, violence. Recently, the series was challenged in light of transphobic statements made by the author.

Synopsis: Harry Potter is a perfectly normal boy, living a miserable life with his aunt anduncle in a small respectable town in England. He has resigned himself to his aunt and uncles scorn and living in his cousins shadow forever until he is informed that he is actually a famous wizard. Potter is invited to attend a school that will allow him to learn magic.

Harry Potter has been controversial since its release in 1997 because of its depiction of a magical world. Despite the enormous protest that the book was met with, it has become a beloved part of popular culture and one of the largest franchises of its kind.

In addition, the Harry Potter series has fallen subject to modern day book burning due to the authors recent transphobic remarks. While I do not agree with supporting Rowling financially in light of her aggression towards the transgender community, the Harry Potter story lives in my heart.

George by Alex Gino

Reasons for ban: LGBTQ+ characters, LGBTQ+ themed childrens book

Synopsis: George features a fourth grade girl Melissa who was born a boy and known by thename George. Only Melissa knows of her true identity and is caught between the fear of being misunderstood and the desperation to be seen. A school play of Charlottes Web gives Melissa an idea for a plot to be seen by her school and community as the girl that she is.

This book is one of the most widely banned books in schools and has been at the top of the banned book list for several years. The writing style for George is simplistic, making it easier for younger children to understand but not so enthralling for adults. While I wouldnt recommend this book to any college peers, the story is important to share with children to allow them to understand and empathize with others or themselves.

The Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller

Reasons for ban: sexually explicit, vulgar language.

Synopsis: The Tropic of Cancer is a dramatized autobiography of Henry Millers life. He laments the struggles of being a writer in 1900s Paris. It follows narratives of Miller, aswell as his friends and colleagues, as they seek to find a place in the world and betterunderstand their passions.

Likely the least recognizable book on this list, the Tropic of Cancer stands out on lists of banned books as it caused a large-scale court proceeding, questioning what content America can label as obscene or pornographic. As a result, American censorship laws were challenged for years thereafter.

This story is definitely a tough read due to its explicit nature and extensive use of racial and sexist slurs, but if you can overlook those elements, Tropic of Cancer may be a worthwhile read if only for its historical significance.

See the article here:
Banned Book Week highlights the dangers of censorship - Shield

A controversial bill that would allow parents to have online access to what their children are learning in public schools won passage on Wednesday in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

The bill, which if enacted would take effect starting next school year, would provide information about curriculum, including the academic standard to be achieved, instructional materials, course syllabus, and assessment techniques.

With its approval by the House on a 110-89 vote with all Democrats and three Republicans opposing, the bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.

The measures sponsor, Rep. Andrew Lewis, R-Dauphin County, said he seeks to standardize a practice already happening in some districts in the commonwealth that makes it easy for parents to annually review a schools curriculum materials, rather than having to visit a school or administrative building to see them.

The bill would apply to school districts, career and technical centers, charter schools and intermediate units.

It simply brings our state into the 21st Century by making sure that especially in an environment of remote learning, parents can access the information that theyre entitled to [by state law] online, Lewis said.

Pa. Rep. Andrew Lewis, R-Dauphin County, referred to his bill requiring the posting of curriculum materials online as bringing the state into the 21st Century but one critic called it "an invitation to censorship."Oct. 6, 2021Screenshot from Pa. House of Representatives website

Republicans have touted the bill as a tool for transparency. But critics said it placed an unnecessary burden on school officials and suggested hidden motives are at play in this measure.

This bill will drag education right into the middle of the culture wars, said Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny County, Your neighbor, her grandfather in Florida, your crazy uncle and his best friend in California can all weigh in on what the schools are teaching your child. Lets be clear.

Frankel said teachers are happy to share with parents what their children are supposed to learn and parents also could ask their children directly about it.

This bill isnt about transparency for parents, Frankel said. Its about bringing the fights that get started on Fox News to the kindergarten classroom near you. ... This legislation is an invitation to the book burners and anti-maskers to harass our schools and our teachers.

Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, D-Philadelphia, picked up on that point, saying he sees it as having the potential to intensify threats and violence against teachers and school administrators already under fire over masking requirements and other matters.

It encourages certain factions in our country to be emboldened and to continue to spread lies about what is happening in our classrooms, Kenyatta said.

Rep. Aaron Bernstine, R-Butler County, countered those arguments, saying, There will be no lies because information will specifically be online so people can see it.

Referring to the bills critics, Bernstine said, Theres no reason to hide if theres nothing to be scared of.

Since broadband access is still limited in areas of the state, though, Rep. Mike Sturla, D-Lancaster County, said the only people who will be able to view the curriculum in those districts are those who are outside those areas. Secondly, he faulted the bill for failing to include private schools that receive public funding through various state programs.

This is a bad bill even if it did include those things, Sturla said. This is simply an attack on public education, plain and simple.

Lewis said the bill puts the responsibility for placing the curriculum and instructional materials online on the chief school administrator or a designee, not teachers. However, opponents argued teachers will be the ones who have to gather that information together and insisted it will be a burden for them.

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association and other public school advocacy organizations have opposed the bill.

This mandate would amount to a crushing level of work for educators at a time when they are navigating in-person instruction, addressing student learning delays, and meeting students needs during a global pandemic, said Rich Askey, president of the Pennsylvania State Education Association. Its an absolutely unnecessary distraction from what is really important teaching kids.

Among other concerns, Askey and Rep. Mark Longietti, D-Mercer County, said the bill raises questions related to the posting of copy-written materials, quizzes and tests online.

Sharon Ward, senior policy advisor of the Education Law Center, agreed with opponents that the bill is burdensome and unnecessary.

We are also concerned that the bill invites censorship in the guise of transparency, Ward said.

The bill was amended on Tuesday to require schools to update curriculum information each time a new or revised curriculum is used within 30 days of its approval.

Jan Murphy may be reached at jmurphy@pennlive.com. Follow her on Twitter at @JanMurphy.

Read the original post:
Pa. schools may be required to post their curriculum online. Is it about transparency or censorship? - PennLive