Mediaboss Marketing

EFF recently received dozens of pages of documents in response to a FOIA request we submitted about Operation Choke Point, a Department of Justice project to pressure banks and financial institutions into cutting off service to certain businesses. Unfortunately, the response from the Department of Justice leaves many questions unanswered.

EFF has been tracking instances of financial censorship for years to identify how online speech is indirectly silenced or intimidated by shuttering bank accounts, donation platforms, and other financial institutions. The Wall Street Journal wrote about the Justice Departments controversial and secretive campaign against financial institutions in 2013, and one Justice Department official quoted in the article stated:

"We are changing the structures within the financial system that allow all kinds of fraudulent merchants to operate," with the intent of "choking them off from the very air they need to survive."

While Operation Choke Point was purportedly aimed at shutting down fraudulent online payday loan companies, we became concerned that this campaign could also affect legal online businesses.

EFF filed FOIA requests with the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission. The documents EFF received from the DOJ are primarily correspondence between members of Congress and the Department of Justice. In that correspondence, Congress members raised concerns about Operation Choke Point, asked questions about how it operates, and stated that this is an issue that constituents are sending letters about.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Rep. Kenny Marchant (D-TX), for example, emailed the Department of Justice with specific questions about how the Department defines a high risk financial business.

In the correspondence we received, the DOJ overwhelmingly replied with form letters that didnt describe the criteria the Department used to decide whether a company was considered high risk, how many companies were currently labeled high risk, whether a company would ever know if it was considered high risk, or any appeal process for companies to have themselves removed from that category.

Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) wrote a letter to then Attorney General Eric Holder describing how two community banks in Wisconsin were bullied by regional agents of the FDIC, who told them to stop working with prominent online lenders:

These banks were informed that if they chose to ignore the FDIC's request, they would face "the highest levels of scrutiny they could imagine," and were given no explanation, details of complaints, or any evidence as to why these demands were being made.'

Duffy called these threats "outrageous" and "intimidation tactics."

Other members of Congress wrote to the Department of Justice about how Operation Choke Point was hampering opportunities for law-abiding Native American tribes and the Hispanic community.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who cosponsored the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and advocates for additional financial regulation, expressed deep concern about the Department of Justice stepping beyond the bounds of the law with Operation Choke Point. In his letter to Holder, he stated:

As much as I would like to see stronger regulation of consumer lenders, I've sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, I must oppose efforts to "legislate by prosecution" and legislate by "criminal investigation," even if I agree partly or completely with the ultimate substantive aim.

He also said, "[y]our department should conduct criminal investigations for the purpose of enforcing laws we havenot laws you (and I) might wish we had."

Unfortunately, the responses from the Department of Justice left more questions than answers. Vital details about Operation Choke Pointincluding what industries beyond online loans may be impacted, the exact criteria for labeling a business high risk, and the tactics used to pressure banks into participationare still unknown.

Many people believe that Americas financial institutions may need additional regulation, and some may believe that online lenders should face additional scrutiny. However, an intimidation squadron secretly pressuring banks to cut off businesses without due process is not the right way forward. As weve seen with digital booksellers, whistleblower websites, online publishers, and online personal ads, payment providers often cave to pressurewhether formal or informalto shut down or restrict accounts of those engaged in First Amendment-protected activity. In order to foster a future where digital expression can flourish, we need to ensure that necessary service providers like banks and payment processors dont turn into the weak link used to cut off unpopular speech.

But that requires transparency. We need more information about how the government is pressuring financial institutions. Unfortunately, the Department of Justices nonresponses to Congress dont get us any closer to understanding this complicated issue.

Check out the most recent documents EFF got in response to its FOIA request on Operation Choke Point. See documents EFF received earlier on this program.

Go here to read the rest:
Documents About Financial Censorship Under Operation Choke Point Show Concern from Congress, Provide Few ... - EFF

Common Dreams

Comparing Trump to Stalin, Australia's Chief Scientist Warns Against Censorship Common Dreams American scientists are facing censorship on par with that imposed in the USSR under Josef Stalin, Australia's chief scientist Alan Finkel said during a scientific roundtable in Canberra, Australia, on Monday. "Science is literally under attack ... Australia's Top Scientist Blasts Donald Trump Over Stalin-Like CensorshipHuffington Post Australia's chief scientist tears Trump's EPA mandate: 'It's reminiscent of the censorship exerted by political ...The Week Magazine Australia's chief scientist: Trump's EPA changes akin to Stalin's censorship of scienceTheBlaze.com The Guardian -The Australian -The Sydney Morning Herald all 15 news articles »

See more here:
Comparing Trump to Stalin, Australia's Chief Scientist Warns Against Censorship - Common Dreams

Renowned Pakistani poet, social activist and academic Salman Haider was abducted on January 6 from Islamabad Highway while he was on his way back home. His wife received a text from his own number, telling her to pick the car from a place few hundred meters away from their house. As the news about his abduction emerged in the mainstream media, the families of two other bloggers, Aasim Saeed and Ahmed Waqas Goraya, reportedto the police that they had been missing since January 4. Two other activists, Ahmed Raza Naseer and Samar Abbas, also went missing in the following days. All of them are well-known for holding a progressive worldview, often critical of the militarys policies.

After weeks of speculation and widespread protests across the country, fourof them returned to their families on January 28. Two of them have since left the country after an active media campaign framing them as blasphemers threatened their lives. The other two, although still in Pakistan, have relocated along with their families, uncertain about their future.

While several quarters suspect military spy agencies of being behind the abductions, the director general of the militarys Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), Major General Asif Ghafoor, in his first press conference, denied the armys involvement. Still, abold editorial appearing in Dawn newspaper on January 11 read, The sanitized language missing persons, the disappeared, etc. cannot hide an ugly truth: the state of Pakistan continues to be suspected of involvement in the disappearance and illegal detentions of a range of private citizens.

Dawns editorial predicted that a dark new chapter in the states murky, illegal war against civil society appears to have been opened.

After protests against the disappearances erupted, a popular Twitter and Facebook hashtag #WhoAreTheyDefending accused the protesters of supporting blasphemers, with many tweets calling for their deaths. TV anchor and televangelist Aamir Liaquat Hussain launched an attack against leading journalists like Owais Tohid, media outlets like Jang and Dawn group, as well as several members of the civil society, accusing them of committing treason and blasphemy. In doing so, Hussain who hosts a controversial talk show in a recently-launched TV channel repeatedlydefied a banon such accusations laid down bythe Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority(PEMRA), which called Liaquats commentshate speech.

Renowned activist and analysts Marvi Sirmed, who herself has come under personal attacks from Aamir Liaquat Hussain, believes there is no way to know if he is parroting someones line. However, looking at who else is taking the position that Aamir Liaquat is taking, it becomes clearer which unseen power wants that line to be propagated, she says.

In October last year, Dawn newspaper staffer Cyril Almeida reported the details of an off-camera meeting where the civilian leadership confronted the then-director general of Inter-Services Intelligence(ISI), Lt. General Rizwan Akhtar, about not allowing action against banned outfits in Punjab. Almeidas story drew a strong backlash from the government, andhis name was put on the Exit Control List only to be removed a few days later after a strong response from the English press and overall media platforms.

Daily The Nation, in aneditorial following the ban on Cyril Almeida, wrote, how dare the government and military top brass lecture the press on how to do their job. How dare they treat a feted reporter like a criminal. And how dare they imply that they have either the right or the ability or the monopoly to declare what Pakistans national interest is.

While the media attempt to push back, the state-sponsored censorship seems to be expanding from topics like Balochistan to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC); from mainstream to social media. Marvi Sirmed has observed the same phenomenon. I havent received any direct censorship directions from anywhere ever. Its just that they show their displeasure through hundreds of anonymous Twitter accounts, she says.

Sirmed, who writes a weekly column for Pakistan Today, recounts how her voice was censored: Recently, my regular column in The Nation has been stopped abruptly in the wake of pressure from some known unknowns.

The Nation became a target of social media abuse under the hashtag #ShameOnTheNation after publishing some op-eds criticizing the states policies. After a barrage of abuse and threats online, the publication was forced to remove some of the op-eds from its website.

After The Newsrecently broke the news that 90 acres of land had been allotted to the former chief of army staff, General Raheel Sharif, an organized campaign, both online and offline, called Jang Group treasonous and a blasphemer. Overnight, banners calling for the death of Najam Sethi a senior journalist and analyst associated with Jang Group appeared in front of the Karachi Press Club.

Shad Khan, a U.K.-based Pakistani journalist, was recently removed from the country while he was filming for a documentary on the effects of investment brought by CPEC on the people of Gwadar.

I was granted permission by the Gwadar Port Authority to shoot around the area, Khan says.

Known for The Secret Drone War, which won him an Amnesty Award, Khan was provided with a security official in Gwadar. I filmed with Pakistan Navy for a day after they verified all of the documentation provided by me, he says. However, on the fifth day of shooting, I started receiving visits from officials in civilian clothes who asked for my identity card and I was interrogated by an army major.

Khan was asked to leave Gwadar without his equipment and the intelligence officials accompanying escorted him to a plane for the U.K.

Khan explains the apparent reason for his removal. I had to cover a rally of Sardar Akhtar Mengal, the head of Balochistan National Party, when they came to me and asked me to not cover the rally at all, Khan recalls. Upon my refusal to comply with their demand, they requested to cover the rally positively, which, as a journalist, is not a good practice.

Im a Pakistani citizen but not sure if I was just removed or deported. Im not sure if I still hold the Pakistani nationality or not. Pakistani High Commission in the U.K. hasnt returned my queries, he laments.

A similar incident happened with two New York City-based filmmakers, Rehana Esmail and Sina Zekavat, who have been working on a documentary called Boats Above My House for the past 18 months. The film is about a landslide in the northern areas of Pakistan and the chain of environmental, social, political, and economic events that followed. We focus on a group of people in Attabad village who are not formally recognized as citizens and are attempting to build their lives back after they lost their homes after this landslide, Zekavat says.

Their film received an on-site stop order on November 3, 2016from the Pakistani security agencies. Our line producer and DP (all locals) were forced to undergo a prolonged and unclear investigation process, Zekavat says, adding, all of our gear (including rental equipment and personal cell phones) and footage is being held for a forensic investigation and weve been informed that there are possibilities of serious charges against our fellow crew members.

One of the people they were filming with was Naz, who is the sister of the Baba Jan a left-wing activist and politician currently imprisoned for life. Naz is partially involved in her brothers release from prison as well the general human rights situation for people of Gilgit-Baltistan, Sina Zekavat says, adding, however, the footage that we got up until the stop, mainly consisted of Naz and her family cooking and eating together and doing very ordinary things.

The line of questioning by the investigators focused on filming Baba Jans house, which the co-directors insist wasnt the highlight of the documentary. Human rights activist and lawyer Asma Jahangir has decided to take up their case in the court.

In another sign of a growing crackdown, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) recently banned Khabaristan Times, a satire news website famous for taking on politicians, the military, and religious extremists.

Khabaristan Timeseditor Kunwar Khuldune Shahid considers the ban a continuation of the states crackdown on dissent in online spaces. Our content was published without any bylines, and the author only revealed their name to their audience if they chose to. Article 23 of the cybercrime law itself outlaws spoof and parody, and hence could be triggered to ban the satirical publication, he says.

Khuldune adds: Whether it was to target satire or anonymity, it is evident that secular and liberal voices are being targeted. For many jihadist groups are open to express themselves many do it anonymously as well.

Islamabad-based journalist Taha Siddiqui believes the attempts by the state to coerce journalists into toeing their narrative line are increasing. State has financially squeezed news networks if they tried to challenge the state narrative or openly report on taboo topics like Pakistani military affairs independently, since manages stories on such topics.

Siddiqui predicts tougher days for dissenting voices in Pakistan. The worst part is that journalists and activists have no idea what the red line is anymore and the state has started to react even more violently when it wants to clamp down on those who are vocal about critically evaluating sociopolitical issues in Pakistan, he asserts.

Kunwar Khuldune Shahid, who is a keen observer of current affairs himself, agrees.

This targeting of secular pages and websites could be a way to appease the Islamist sections at a time when a crackdown against jihadist groups and leaders has become inevitable owing to international pressure.

Hafiz Saeed being under house arrest, and members of LeT and JuD being put under the ECL [exit control list], highlights this. Maybe the states action against liberal voices, and the fact that it preceded the crackdown, was designed to forestall the Islamist backlash, he concludes.

Umer Ali is a freelance journalist based in Pakistan. He reports on human rights issues, social problems and more. He can be reached on Twitter at @iamumer1.

See the article here:
Pakistan's Censorship Takes a Dangerous Turn - The Diplomat

Jaspery Goh / HIGHLANDER

The easy way to begin the origin story for the Black Lives Matter movement is to start in July of 2013 when George Zimmerman the neighborhood watch volunteer who fatally shot down an unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida was acquitted of murder.

That day, Alicia Garza, one of the three co-founders of BLM, posted her response to the verdict on Facebook: the sad part is, theres a section of America who is cheering and celebrating right now. and that makes me sick to my stomach. we GOTTA get it together yall.

And not long after, another post from Garza, in which the closing words read, black people. I love you. I love us. Our lives matter.

From there, Patrisse Cullors, a friend of Garzas since the two met at an organizers conference in Providence, Rhode Island in 2005, altered the final three words of Garzas post to form the unapologetically blunt and now-emblematic hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. Quite rapidly, the words became less of a momentary hashtag and more a call to action, then not solely a call to action but more broadly a crusade. And now, co-founders Garza, Cullors and writer and immigration-rights organizer Opal Tometi firmly remain at the forefront of what effectively stands as the premier social justice movement of the contemporary era the absolute trailblazer for modern day Black activism.

Though again, thats the easy way to tell it.

In truth, Black Lives Matter (BLM), as the women attest, is not merely a hashtag-turned-movement established by three community organizers in 2013 but a direct manifestation of centuries of systematic black oppression in America and long-standing racism both domestically and abroad. It is an extensive and complex history which I will absolve from this here platform (also, really, if you arent aware by now ) and one for which a singular root is likely untraceable.

However, if Garza were to pinpoint a foundation, she may begin with Mama Harriet a.k.a. American abolitionist Harriet Tubman who, in 1849, escaped slavery and rescued upward of 70 enslaved family and friends using the Underground Railroad. While on stage Wednesday evening, Garza acknowledged she prays to Tubman often, finding inspiration through her unequivocal persistence.

This is a woman who, when she first went through the Underground Railroad, lost her two brothers, and then they got free and they decided they were going to go back (into slavery), attested Garza. This is a woman who went back for her sister and her sister had died once she got there, but she kept going. This is a woman who went back to get her husband, who had since remarried and decided he wasnt trying to go nowhere. She kept going.

Mama Harriet is somebody who, in short, worked insatiably to break through literal chains and help her loved ones achieve the same. And, as the BLM movements epoch moves further along, it is Tubman who serves as an archetype for their still-to-be-written narrative.

As it has long stood, these chains (injustice, inequality and anti-black racism) remain ceaseless and, while on stage Wednesday for the Womens Resource Center and ASPBs Beyond the Hashtag: #BlackLivesMatter event, Cullors and Garza acknowledged a room full of students and staff looking to join them in efforts to break free. To where it leads will be told with time.

Following their discussion and an impromptu picture and autograph session with more than a few of the events attendees, Cullors and Garza sat down with me for a very brief interview backstage, which youll find below. In it, they discuss the growth of the movement, operating under the current political climate, how cross-sectionality affects their direction and how exactly those chains get unbroken.

The questions and responses below have been unedited.

Myles: First, I appreciate yall taking the time to speak with me. One thing I wanted to get to is that you started this movement over three years ago and, if one were to only pay attention to the headlines or whats portrayed by media on the surface, it would be difficult to accurately gauge the development of the relationship between the black community and law enforcement. Youve been on the ground and actively immersed within the movement; how would you describe the growth youve seen over time?

Patrisse: Over the last three years or in general?

Lets say the last three years.

Patrisse: I think that in the last three years the movement has evolved in different ways. On the one hand, with the killing of Trayvon Martin, I dont know if folks remember but there was very, very little media coverage during his murder. In fact, his family, his parents were the ones that were on the frontline being like This is out of control. Not only did you not arrest the killer of my son, nobodys having this conversation. And so it was really through their leadership that they built a movement around how to have the conversation about Trayvon and its why many of us started to follow the situation over social media, we followed the trial of George Zimmerman and then the acquittal of George Zimmerman. It was a spontaneous response, right? We were literally grieving on social media and processing and talking. It wasnt until Alicia wrote Black Lives Matter and we put a hashtag on it and then we built a project around it. Were organizers. So we didnt come in saying were going to organize a political project but, once we saw how it resonated with people online, we were like, Oh, actually we could build something out from this. This is something that can live both online and offline. And so what you see in that first year, if you look back at protest pictures, of people holding the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter from Los Angeles to Oakland to Delaware to New York, people are using it as a way to have another conversation and to talk about us as Black people and then a lot happens in that year. If you remember Marissa Alexander, the Black woman who was a mother who was fighting off her abuser and fired two warning shots in the air, right? Didnt kill anybody but was on trial for 60 years, she was fighting a 60-year trial. So we were following that. Renisha McBride was killed that year.

Alicia: Thats right. Jordan Davis was killed that year.

Patrisse: Jordan Davis. And so what we start to see is we have to expand the conversation. Very early on we were expanding the conversation around whose Black life actually matters. So the narrative around its only cis-black boys who are the perfect victims, right? We were actually interrupting that narrative from the very beginning. That we need to be showing up for Renisha McBride, we need to be showing up for Cece McDonald. And then the movement evolves again and its when Mike Brown is killed and we realized theres a lot of people around the world and the country that want to put their boots in the ground and fight back. And that for people, Mike Brown and the uprising in Ferguson resonated so deeply in Black communities because we understood that Ferguson was everywhere. The media was trying to tell us something different, like this backward ass town in Missouri killed this boy on the street Oh my god that town, that dont happen in California and we had to be like, Nah actually here are all the ways it does and actually this is a national and international crisis, state violence in Black communities. And so we started the network and that was very intentional. We wanted to be able to hold space for people across the country and we wanted it to be nimble, we wanted it to be decentralized, we wanted it to be local-focused with sort of big ideas around whats possible in a pushback. And now were in a new moment. With 45 (45th U.S. President Donald Trump) in office were, as a network, trying to figure out whats next, how do we relate and were sort of in that.

I was queer before I knew there was a movement and I was Black before I knew there was a Black liberation movement and Ive never felt so much of those things as I do right now.

Bouncing off what you mentioned about changing the narrative, not only are you people of color, but youre women of color and, as you said on stage, two of the three of you identify with the queer community as well. Im curious how that intersectionality has shaped your experience in trying to build this movement. Both in ways youve struggled and how its been advantageous. Question is open to either one of you.

Alicia: I mean, this is our life, you know what Im saying? I was queer before I knew there was a movement and I was Black before I knew there was a Black liberation movement and Ive never felt so much of those things as I do right now. I was just on my phone and I was reading two things: One, they tore it up at Cal (in protest of Breitbart senior editor outspoken Trump-supporter Milo Yiannopoulos) they said, Nah not today. We dont do that kind of thing in the Bay.

Patrisse: (Laughs) I saw that. You saw that?

I did, I did.

Alicia: See what happens when you bring this hate speech to Berkeley, people dont have it (laughs). But the other thing that I was reading was about the executive order thats gonna come out later this week that is basically allowing for discrimination against queer people based on religious preferences. And this is what I was saying in terms of Donald Trumps new deal for Black America. It literally says inside of there that he pledges to protect the church and thats what this looks like. And so what that means for me very personally, beyond the rhetoric is Im married to somebody who doesnt fit inside gender binaries and we were in limbo for a really long time because people in our state decided they wanted to try to move that agenda in California. Supreme Court eventually struck it down but what that means for me very tangibly is if I walk out of here right now and I get in an accident, my next of kin is my partner. And if they cant come and make decisions for me in the hospital when I cant make them for myself that impacts our family. Our ability to start a family is impacted by this kind of stuff like where you can give doctors exemptions for being able to support queer families who want to start a family because of their own personal beliefs. And then of course, there is a war on Black America and when I sit anywhere I am, I am conscious of the fact that I can be and have been a survivor of racially charged violence. So its not a theoretical thing is what Im trying to say. Its the things that impact our daily lives are why I personally am a part of this and why I feel like its so necessary for us to have space where people can come together from various experiences and have each others back. And whats at stake is very tangible things like our right to be in community, our right to love who we want to love, our right to sit in a room like this together, you know what I mean? Like people could literally change the rules and say Actually, we dont want you all in a room together. Yall go over here, yall go over here and yall go over there. And theres already a way in which theyre trying to divide us, right? So the plan for Black America around jobs revolves around us being a wedge in terms of the immigration reform fight, which is not acceptable. Not only because there are Black immigrants but because the ways in which theyre trying to divide us from each other, like people that have a lot at stake, has the potential to take the humanity out of this country if that makes sense. So thats what it is for me. Thats what I got.

100 years from now, looking back on Black Lives Matter, whats the one word you would want people to reflect and describe it as?

Alicia: Power.

Patrisse: Yes.

Power. And same for you?

Patrisse: Mhm.

Originally posted here:
A sit-down with #BlackLivesMatter co-founders Alicia Garza and Patrisse Cullors - Highlander Newspaper

After Lady Gagas Super Bowl Halftime Show last night, an inevitable flood of think pieces emerged online, all debating whether or not her performance provided a strong enough political message for Trumps divided America. Some say yes, but many say no.

The Hillary Clinton supporter has been unusually quiet since the Presidential Inauguration, notably ignoring the Womens March in D.C. and Trumps recent immigration laws, despite being a vocal feminist and longtime advocate for inclusion. This left many Little Monsters to assume Gagas big message was waiting to be unveiled on the Halftime Show stage, though her statement in the end was too subtle for critics: an opening rendition of This Land Is Your Land, and her mentioning LGBT people with Born This Way. Nothing more.

Related |Lady Gaga's Big, Queer, High-Flying, Mic-Dropping Halftime Show

Gagas setlist was designed first for entertainmentnot protestspanning all her biggest hits, from Poker Face to Bad Romance. When performing these in the past, Gagas always infused her chart-toppers with challenging showmanshipbleeding on stage during Paparazzi or emerging from a vessel for Born This Way. This daring drama has elevated her radio singles, giving Gaga the reputation of being a pop provocateur who never plays it safe. Last nights spectacle, however, was noticeably tame, which made Gaga's message depend entirely on a setlist that lyrically overlooked pressing political problems.

Related |Lady Gaga AnnouncesJoanneWorld Tour in Wake of Super Bowl Slay

Had Mother Monster dove deeper into her discography to include "Angel Down," "Americano" and "Til It Happens to You," her Super Bowl performance wouldve offered a much stronger social statement on the world's biggest stage. An unfortunate missed opportunity, Gaga could've, and should've, bravely addressed relevant issues like racial inequality, immigration and sexual assault through these three tracks.

"Angel Down"

Lifted off Lady Gaga's last studio album, Joanne, "Angel Down" is a solemn piano ballad about Trayvon Martin,the unarmed Florida teen who was fatally shot by George Zimmerman. "Angel down, angel down, why do people just stand around?" she sings, referencing her qualms with America's Judicial system. "I was overwhelmed by the fact that people just stood around and didnt do anything about [Trayvon] and that the justice system continues to over and over again not seek justice for these families, Gaga said in an interview withBeats 1s Zane Lowe.

"Americano"

The mariachiBorn This Way cut was Lady Gaga's response to Arizona's anti-immigration law,SB 1070, which requires police to determine the immigration status of someone arrested when there is "reasonable suspicion" they are in the U.S. illegally. "Mis canciones son de la re-revolucin," Gaga sings on the acid-house track, aiming to empower disenfranchised communities in our country. "Mi corazn me duele por mi generacin." When the singer performed at Arizona's US Airways Center in 2010,she had the message, "Stop SB 1070," written on her arm, and told the crowd, "We have to be active, we have to protest."

"Til It Happens To You"

Co-written with Diane Warren for the 2015 documentary The Hunting Ground, "Til It Happens to You" highlights the pain of sexual assault. The song, which was nominated for an Emmy, Grammy and Oscar in the same year, sees Lady Gaga remembering her own experience being raped at age 19 by someone she knew. "Its something that changed me forever," she told Hollywood Reporter.In a nation where Trump's "pussy grabbing" rhetoric is passable, "Til It Happens to You" would've been a powerful option for Gaga's stripped-down piano moment.

Read more here:
Three Lady Gaga Songs That Would've Made Her Super Bowl Performance a Protest - Out Magazine