Mediaboss Marketing

American sports leagues are no strangers to disputes over how teams, players, and upper level management can express themselves, whether those fights center on NFL players decision to protest during the national anthem or an NBA executives tweet expressing support for human rights in Hong Kong.

Now the NHL finds itself in the crosshairs of the latest free speech fight: How should it handle team-run Pride nights when five percent of its players hail from a country that aggressively criminalizes so-called propaganda about LGBTQ rights and communities?

Its a challenge facing teams across the league as theyre forced to weigh their intention to engage in certain forms of expression specifically having players wear Pride-themed jerseys during on-ice warm ups against valid fears that players and their families could face repercussions within Russia for partaking in Pride nights in the United States.

The NHLs Russian players have legitimate reason to be concerned, and this is not the first time the league has tangled with Russian politics. Two years ago, the New York Rangers stood by player Artemi Panarin after allegations surfaced that he assaulted a woman 10 years earlier. Team leaders claimed the accusations were false, and were in fact a retaliatory measure to punish Panarin for his open support of imprisoned Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny. Decades earlier, Alexander Mogilny made the dangerous decision to defect from the Soviet Union to the United States, the first player to do so, where he joined the Buffalo Sabres. Mogilny feared for his family, and later faced extortion threats.

Teams should not allow Russian law to determine how their organizations acknowledge Pride or any other movement.

In recent years, Russia has amped up its censorship and persecution of perceived LGBTQ activism, detaining advocates and banning books, film, and art with similar themes.

In response, teams including the Minnesota Wild, the New York Rangers, and most recently the Chicago Blackhawks have made the wrong calculations and decided to entirely abandon Pride warm-up jerseys from their programming out of fear of retaliation against their Russian players.

FIRE has long expressed concerns about the role foreign governments play in changing the parameters of free expression in the United States, frequently warning colleges that the Chinese government cannot be allowed to dictate what is said on the quad and in the classroom. Institutional self-censorship is not the way to protect foreign nationals at greater risk due to oppressive laws, nor is it a solution American organizations should look to as an easy-out when faced with complex cross-border free speech controversies.

The same principles apply here: Teams should not allow Russian law to determine how their organizations acknowledge Pride or any other movement.

Instead, players should be free to choose, as their consciences or personal circumstances dictate, whether they partake in team expressive activities.

Russian NHL players are not a monolith. And while they face different legal concerns than many of their teammates, they are not playing hockey in Russia. They are playing hockey in Canada and the United States, where Russian laws do not apply. They should be allowed the choice to take part in Pride night and some have decided to do so, like the Pittsburgh Penguins Evgeni Malkin or the San Jose Sharks Alexander Barabanov and Nikolai Knyzhov.

Thats what makes free expression meaningful in the first place: the ability to decide for oneself which values to espouse and which to reject, rather than having others choose for us.

Vladimir Putin and the Russian government should not make that choice for Russian players or their non-Russian peers in free countries.

Teams now weighing whether to allow foreign law to dictate organizational expression and decision making should look at how others, like the Philadelphia Flyers, handled this issue. In January, player Ivan Provorov abstained from wearing a Pride warm up jersey, citing his Russian Orthodox faith. Provorov is Russian, but its unclear if he maintained concerns about violating Russias laws governing pro-LGBTQ expression as well as his personal religious tenets.

Though it wont come without controversy, as the Flyers can attest, this is the best path to navigate these challenges in a free, pluralistic society where players will have a multitude of reasons from personal belief to foreign legal repercussions for wanting to speak or to stay silent.

Though Provorov did not join his teammates in skating in Pride jerseys, the rest of the Flyers team chose to partake. And that was the right outcome: Provorov chose for himself. Russian law didnt choose for his teammates.

Here is the original post:
Russian censorship laws should not dictate expression in the NHL - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Dont say, said Carla Kaplan, a Northeastern professor of womens, gender and sexuality studies. Dont say gay. Dont say trans. Dont say racism.

Dont say anything that could possibly cause the least discomfort to straight white men, Kaplan continued. Dont make them in any way uncomfortable with their massive unearned privileges. Indeed carry those privileged backpacks for them. Well, we say no way. We are through that.

The event, Dont Say: On Censorship and Organizing for Progressive/Feminist Speech, took place during the ninth annual Womens History Month Symposium at the John D. OBryant African American Institute Cabral Center on Friday.

The three panelists examined the implications of right-wing attacks on trans, gay, feminist, and racial justice initiatives and identities while outlining how feminists can push back.

The panelists, Paisley Currah, Martha Hickson and Karsonya Whitehead, have long histories of being on the front lines of exposing those privileges and analyzing attempts to silence minorities, Kaplan said. They are pushing back and refuse to be silenced, she said.

Kaplan quotes the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., saying, Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

Hickson, the North Hunterdon High School librarian in New Jersey, noted the recent rise in book bans across the country.

Attempted book bans in 2022 nearly doubled from 2021 nationally, hitting an unprecedented 20-year record, according to the American Library Association. There was also a major increase in Massachusetts, with 45% reporting challenges at schools and public libraries last year, targeting 57 titles. In 2021, the association reported nine cases with 10 titles targeted.

Books arent only being targeted in red states, Hickson said. In New Jersey, parents attended a Board of Education meeting to complain about two books: Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison and Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe.

The parents called Hickson a pedophile, pornographer and groomer of children for allowing these books in the library. But after rallying the community and students, the school board voted to keep the books.

They operate under the banner of what they call parental rights, which is an effort to restrict students exposure to only topics, authors and content that match their narrow worldview, Hickson said. But in the process, they are trampling on the First Amendment rights of children, parents and families who experience the world differently.

Hickson pointed to an old newspaper clipping of Robert Dalton, who was the paid censor in the city of Lowell, Massachusetts. It was his job to remove magazines, paperbacks and comic books from newsstands if he thought theyd lead to juvenile delinquency.

Hickson and Dalton are related.

Hes not just the city censor, Hickson said. Hes my great-grandfather.

We must not stop trying, she continued. I invite everyone listening to me today to please become an angelic troublemaker and join me in trying to end book banning.

Even though censorship has happened throughout history, for many it feels completely new, as if the country is in an unprecedented bad moment, Kaplan said.

Why is that, she asked?

Highly organized issues that werent discussed before are now being brought to the forefront of national discussion, the panelists agreed.

People feel like they need to take a stand, said Whitehead, a professor at Loyola University in Maryland and part of the National Womens Studies Association.

But, it is an anti-Black, racist, and sexist, transphobic and homophobic stance that this country has been since its very foundation, is where we are, Whitehead said. It is not new.

Beth Treffeisen is a Northeastern Global News reporter. Email her at b.treffeisen@northeastern.edu. Follow her on Twitter @beth_treffeisen.

Read more here:
Experts Weigh in on the Growing Censorship Movement in America - Northeastern University

Last week, I wrote about an unsuccessful challenge to the activities of the Office of Elections Cybersecurity within the California Secretary of State's office:Is The California Secretary of State Monitoring What You Publish Online? In that case,O'Handley v. Weber,2023 WL 2443073, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Secretary of State did not violate federal law when it notified Twitter of tweets containing false or misleading information that potentially violated the company's content-moderation policy.

More recently, Judge Terry A. Doughty, who sits in the Western District of Louisiana, refused to dismiss claims for "alleged coercion by the Biden Administration and various government agencies and officials of social-media companies, urging those companies to censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left". In thismemorandum ruling, Judge Doughty distinguishesO'Handleyas follows:

More recently, inO'Handley v. Weber, No. 22-15071, 2023 WL 2443073 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2023), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit clarified the distinction between government expression and government intimidation. There, the California Office of Elections Cybersecurity (OEC), headed by the California Secretary of States office, flagged posts on Facebook and Twitter as erroneous or misleading social media posts.Id. at 3. The companies removed most of the flagged posts, leading the plaintiff to file suit alleging, among other things, violation of the First Amendment.Id. at 2. Noting the distinction between attempts to convince and attempts to coerce, the court stated that government officials do not violate the First Amendment when they request that a private intermediary not carry a third partys speech so long as the officials do not threaten adverse consequences if the intermediary refuses to comply.Id. at 6 (citations omitted). Because the plaintiff failed to allege any threat or attempt at coercion aside from the takedown request, the court held that the plaintiff failed to allege state action through significant encouragement or coercion.

Here, Plaintiffs have clearly alleged that Defendants attempted to convince social-media companies to censor certain viewpoints. (Footnote omitted)

Judge Doughty gave the following examples of some of the alleged threats made by the defendants:

Further, the Complaint alleges threats, some thinly veiled and some blatant, made by Defendants in an attempt to effectuate its censorship program. One such alleged threat is that the Surgeon General issued a formal Request for Information to social-media platforms as an implied threat of future regulation to pressure them to increase censorship. Another alleged threat is the DHSs publishing of repeated terrorism advisory bulletins indicating that misinformation and disinformation on social-media platforms are domestic terror threats. While not a direct threat, equating failure to comply with censorship demands as enabling acts of domestic terrorism through repeated official advisory bulletins is certainly an action social-media companies would not lightly disregard. Moreover, the Complaint contains over 100 paragraphs of allegations detailing significant encouragement in private (i.e., covert) communications between Defendants and social-media platforms. (Footnotes omitted)

If the defendants ultimately lose, the outcome of this case may simply be that the government will continue to suppress disfavored speech but will do so with seven veils instead of one. It stands to reason that any request from a government agency might reasonably be perceived as including an implicit threat. If the government asks, however nicely, companies may feel the pressure to accede if for no other reason than to stay in the good graces of law makers and regulators.

Original post:
Ninth Circuit O'Handley v. Weber Government Censorship - The National Law Review

It was the Marcel production company, which has worked with the Palestinian Authoritys media for several years, which enabled the PBC to continue broadcasting in East Jerusalem despite an initial ban imposed by the Israeli authorities in November 2019. The order targeting Marcel could affect other media that benefit from its services.

Condemning the national security ministers closure order, the PBC said it exposed the falsehood that Israel is a democratic state and respects the work of the media [and] freedom of expression.

Marcels closure was made possible by a law adopted in 1995 as part of the implementation of the Oslo Accords that bans Palestinian Authority agencies from conducting activities within the city of Jerusalem. Dozens of events, press conferences and cultural gatherings have been banned over the years in East Jerusalem under this law.

This censorship of Palestine TV and Voice of Palestine has been preceded by constant attacks by Israel against Palestinian journalists and media. Since Shireen Abu Aklehs filmed murder in May 2022, RSF has compiled video and audio evidence of at least 11 other journalists being targeted or aggressed by Israeli security forces in the West Bank. Countless other attacks have taken place off camera.

See the original post here:
Indirect but effective censorship of two Palestinian Authority media ... - Reporters sans frontires

Bestselling author Anthony Horowitz has said he is against tampering with the works of dead writers, amid an ongoing row over sensitivity readers.

In recent months, texts by late authors such as Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie and James Bond creator Ian Fleming have been found to have been updated by their publishers and literary estates.

A number of prominent writers and public figures have spoken against the practice, with Sir Philip Pullman suggesting it would be better to let the books go out of print.

Appearing at Oxford Literary Festival, Horowitz, the bestselling author of books including the Alex Rider series as well as three Bond novels, reportedly said he believed it was better for children to read books that might be deemed offensive than none at all.

The Times also claimed he said Dahls publishers had shot themselves in the foot with the updates, which involved removing descriptions of characters as fat and ugly.

They really shot themselves in the foot with their attempts to bowdlerise it, he said, calling the changes sacrilege.

Im basically opposed to tampering with the work of dead writers, he said. They cant defend themselves. It seems to me that you should take the work, judge it and be aware of why we no longer share these opinions, or this view of the world. Rather than censor, cut and take out stuff.

He later added: Whatever your view of the book, even if it is something considered offensive or trivial or trite, it is better than not reading. As long as they read something.

(Getty Images)

Following a backlash, including unprecedented criticism from Queen Consort Camilla, Puffin said it would retain the new versions of Dahls books but also offer original editions.

An earlier statement had said the changes were made to ensure that the books could continue to be enjoyed by all today.

The Independent has contacted Horowitzs representatives and Puffin for comment.

Horowitz has previously complained about sensitivity readings of his own work.

Story continues

My publishers have been more nervous in the editing of my books, he claimed in an interview last year. Issues of levels of violence, language and attitudes do get more closely examined. Ive had some of my books read for sensitivity. But thats the 21st century. Peoples attitudes have changed and what didnt offend people 40 years ago does now.

Asked about how he approaches the character of 007, he remarked: When Im writing the books I always hear Sean Connery and see Daniel Craig. I am perfectly happy to defend Bond. My Bond is a man of the Fifties and Sixties, so he lives by a different moral code to the one we have now.

I refute the suggestion that he is chauvinistic or sexist or misogynistic. I think he treats women very well in the books and has great respect for them, yet I admit he has some of the attitudes that we now would not celebrate in the 21st century, but thats because the books were written in the 20th century. It was a different time.

Read more here:
Anthony Horowitz says Roald Dahl publishers shot themselves in the foot over censorship row - Yahoo News