Mediaboss Marketing

A history of the transformation of American liberalism over the past half-century could well be told with just a focus on free speech and censorship. But this story of changed attitudes toward censorship yields lessons far beyond just the liberal attitude toward free speech.

Aside from the inevitability of death and taxes, there is another immutable rule: history repeats itself. Its repetitions may come in different ways, but history seems inevitably prone to recycle itself.

The censorship impulse reflects one such way in which history repeats itself.

In the 1950s and 1960s, censorship campaigns arose in response to the Cold War and the danger of communist infiltration and influence. These high-profile campaigns were followed in the 1970s and 1980s by efforts to control the burgeoning flood of violent and sexually explicit media speech available to children. Generally speaking, these censorship efforts were acquiesced in or supported by conservatives. Behind the banner of the Free Speech Movement that began in California in the 1960s, liberals stood as staunch allies of free speech, regardless of how repulsive or destructive that speech.

Liberals continued that solid free speech defense through the 1990s and 2000s, although with cracks beginning to appear as they began succumbing to political correctness. It was liberals who strongly resisted a congressional attempt to regulate Internet pornography accessed by children, as well as state attempts to protect children from graphically violent video games. This probably marked the apex of the liberal defense of speech. For at least the past decade or two, the liberal position on free speech has eroded considerably, to the point where the political left has become the primary advocate for censorship across an array of speech issues.

Censorship, in fact, is really no longer a speech issue. It has become a tool within the political weaponry arsenal.

The instances of political speech censorship appear across the spectrum of contemporary life. A belief in election fraud can disqualify you from a job. A position on pro-life can subject you to FBI harassment. A skepticism on lockdowns or mandated vaccines can brand you as a social outcast. An adherence to certain religious views can subject you to innumerable sanctions.

The recent release of the Twitter files reveals an astonishing attempt by the federal government to control the speech content of Twitter users. And most recently, because of a fear that a public panic might threaten the banking industry, there have been liberal calls to censor social media reports of bank failures. Censorship has become a forefront tool for the achievement of political objectives, much like tax cuts or spending promises.

A history of the transformation of American liberalism over the past half-century could well be told with just a focus on free speech and censorship. But this story of changed attitudes toward censorship yields lessons far beyond just the liberal attitude toward free speech.

To the left, the purpose of government is no longer the protection of liberty. The lefts indifference toward freedom of speech is but one example. Another appears in how quickly the left has turned away from religious liberty. Indeed, freedom has disappeared from the list of principles and values believed in by the left. In the place of freedom now comes the amorphous term equity. But equity is not a natural right or individual liberty; it is instead a label for a political agenda.

The prevalence of censorship advocacy also demonstrates how the left continually sponsors the growth of government in all areas of life. Twenty-five years ago, liberals vehemently opposed any content regulation of the Internet, warning that government interference could stunt the growth of the Internet. Since then, and true to prediction, the Internet has grown, to the point of becoming a mainstay of the American economy. The way in which American business has converted the Internet into a growth engine that has reshaped culture and society should be cause for celebration. Instead, the left sees this triumph in private entrepreneurship as a prompt for greater government control and activism. Indeed, now that the Internet has prospered, the left seeks to use it to further promote the reach of government into our lives.

An age-old justification for free speech, even speech that is unwanted, holds that if a democratic people want to address unwanted conduct in society it must certainly protect the speech concerning that unwanted conduct. Because only through that speech will a democracy be able to know the existence and extent of the underlying unwanted conduct. In this context, speech is always the tip of the iceberg. And if the iceberg is to be avoided, the tip needs to be seen.

Likewise, censorship has become the tip of the lefts political iceberg.

The Imaginative Conservativeapplies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics as we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please considerdonating now.

The featured image is courtesy of Pixabay.

Go here to read the rest:
Censorship: The Tip of the Iceberg - The Imaginative Conservative

Last month, I noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had repeatedly exaggerated the scientific evidence supporting face mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Facebook attached a warning to that column, which it said was missing context and could mislead people.

According to an alliance of social media platforms, government-funded organizations and federal officials that journalist Michael Shellenberger calls the censorship-industrial complex, I had committed the offense of malinformation. Unlike disinformation, which is intentionally misleading, or misinformation, which is erroneous, malinformation is true but inconvenient.

As illustrated by internal Twitter communications that journalist Matt Taibbi highlighted last week, malinformation can include emails from government officials that undermine their credibility and true content which might promote vaccine hesitancy.

The latter category encompasses accurate reports of breakthrough infections among people vaccinated against COVID-19, accounts of true vaccine side effects, objections to vaccine mandates, criticism of politicians, and citations of peer-reviewed research on naturally acquired immunity.

Disinformation and misinformation have always been contested categories, defined by the fallible and frequently subjective judgments of public officials and other government-endorsed experts. But malinformation is even more clearly in the eye of the beholder, since it is defined not by its alleged inaccuracy but by its perceived threat to public health, democracy or national security, which often amounts to nothing more than questioning the wisdom, honesty or authority of those experts.

Taibbis recent revelations focused on the work of the Virality Project, which the taxpayer-subsidized Stanford Internet Observatory launched in 2020. Although Renee DiResta, the Observatorys research manager, concedes that misinformation is ultimately speech, meaning the government cannot directly suppress it, she says the threat it poses require[s] that social media platforms, independent researchers and the government work together as partners in the fight.

That sort of collaboration raises obvious free speech concerns. If platforms like Twitter and Facebook were independently making these assessments, their editorial discretion would be protected by the First Amendment. But the picture looks different when government officials including the president, the surgeon general, members of Congress, and representatives of public health and law enforcement agencies publicly and privately chastise social media companies for not doing enough to suppress speech they view as dangerous.

Such meddling is especially alarming when it includes specific requests to remove content, make it less accessible or banish particular users. Even without explicit extortion, those requests are tantamount to commands because they are made against a backdrop of threats to punish recalcitrant platforms.

The threats include antitrust action, increased liability for user-posted content and other legal and regulatory measures. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said such measures might be necessary when he demanded a whole-of-society effort to combat the urgent threat posed by health misinformation.

In a federal lawsuit filed last year, the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, joined by scientists who ran afoul of the ever-expanding crusade against disinformation, misinformation and malinformation, argue that such pressure violates the First Amendment. This week, Terry A. Doughty, a federal judge in Louisiana, allowed that lawsuit to proceed, saying the plaintiffs had adequately alleged significant encouragement and coercion that converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action.

Doughty added that the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged state action under the theories of joint participation, entwinement, and the combining of factors such as subsidization, authorization, and encouragement. Based on that analysis, he ruled that the plaintiffs plausibly state a claim for violation of the First Amendment via government-induced censorship.

Whatever the ultimate outcome of that case, Congress can take steps to discourage censorship by proxy. Shellenberger argues that it should stop funding groups like the Observatory and mandate instant reporting of all communications between government officials and contractors with social media executives relating to content moderation.

The interference that Shellenberger describes should not be a partisan issue. It should trouble anyone who prefers open inquiry and debate to covert government manipulation of online speech.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds.See our guidelines.

Continued here:
Fight against 'malinformation' is censorship by government proxy - Chicago Sun-Times

Censorship in the United States is nothing new, though its targets have shifted over time. The earliest book bans in the United States were started by religious leaders. In 1650, a Massachusetts Bay colonist named William Pynchon published his pamphlet The Meritorious Price of Our Redemption in which he argued that people who followed Christian teachings would go to heaven. Puritan leaders did not favor the pamphlet and proceeded to denounce him as a heretic, burned his pamphlet and banned it.

This continued throughout history; during slavery and the Civil War, many states outlawed literature that expressed anti-slavery sentiments, one very famous novel being Uncle Toms Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe. Similar bans continued throughout history, with the Comstock Act of 1873 deeming it illegal to send obscene, lewd or lascivious, immoral or indecent publications through the mail, while also targeting those who possessed some form of literature or art deemed obscene. It aimed to prohibit discussing birth control and sexuality. Some books were banned and subsequently burned, including Walt Whitmans Leaves of Grass and James Joyces Ulysses.

Books continue to be banned and challenged, with the most recent occurrences happening in states aiming to eliminate literature surrounding queer studies, people of color and ultimately young people. Some states include Indiana, Florida, Texas and Tennessee, among others.

As such, in honor of the marginalized groups represented in the books that are facing challenges, here is a list of books from Floridas most recent book ban that you need to read.

1. The Handmaids Tale by Margaret Atwood:

This novel argues that legally controlling womens reproductive freedom is morally and politically wrong. This is depicted through the suffering of Offred and the other Handmaids. Handmaids are servants whose only purpose is to have children. From the dystopian perspective they lose all value once they no longer are able to carry children. It is banned in many states due to its profanity, sexual tones and being anti-Christian, among other reasons. The story is a powerful yet disturbing dystopian satirical piece of literature that shows a future U.S. a where women have been stripped of all their civil rights. Not ironically, this comes less than a year from when Roe v. Wade was overturned, an event which signifies a complete disregard for womens health and rights by the Supreme Court.

2. The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas:

An award-winning bestselling young adult novel, The Hate U Give is about the shooting of a young unarmed Black man by a white police officer. The Hate U Give, despite being important to the African American plight, was banned. When looking at Gov. Ron DeSantiss efforts to eliminate African American studies in the Advanced Placement curriculum, it is unsurprising that a book that gives a vivid image of what its like to be a Black man in the U.S. would be banned.

3. I Am Not Your Perfect Mexican Daughter by Erika Snchez:

This chilling New York Times bestseller follows a young woman named Julia, who navigates her grief following an accident that involved her sister and details the trauma she faces when her mother compares her two daughters.

It was important for me, for young people of color, to feel seen by the book, said author Erika Snchez in an interview with NBC News.

The book, due to its strong language and negative portrayal of religious faith, was unpopular among parents. The book is banned for its strong language and negative portrayal of religious faith. Unfortunately, while it is a rather grim topic, the stigma of depression wreaks havoc in many communities. By writing about suicidal ideation, Snchez raises awareness in young Latine individuals. The fact remains that Hispanic teens, especially females, have higher rates of suicide compared to white or black teens, according to the CDC.

4. Dreaming in Cubanby Cristina Garca:

This novel, which was originally banned in 2020, outlines the heroines journey of Celia del Pino and her family, who is forced to cope with their ever-changing Cuba in light of the Cuban Revolution and the emotional trauma that ensued. There is a tremendous overemphasized theme of family relationships and the divisiveness of politics. It sheds a unique light on Cuban history and culture by including critical historical events and elements of Santera, a popular religion in Cuba. Dreaming in Cuban was condemned for containing obscene and pornographic material and is no longer circulated.

5. The Female of the Species by Mindy McGinnis:

This is a genuinely heartbreaking novel that takes readers on a harrowing but compelling journey regarding our societys rape culture and violence against women. It focuses on Alex Craft, who had an older sister that was raped, killed and mutilated. The book ultimately is a feminist book that highlights the struggle of consistently trying to be the best while talking about the genuine and scary reality of what it is like to be a woman in the U.S.

6. Nineteen Minutes by Jodi Picoult:

Picoults novel features two timelines: flashbacks and the present moment. It follows Peter Houghtons life, with flashbacks showing the years of brutal bullying he endured to the present moment: when he decides to commit a mass shooting at his high school. This novel is controversial for its violence, sexual references and profanity. Something interesting to note is that 20 of Picoults titles were banned in Florida.

Jodi Picoult, in an interview with The Hill, warned, Weve seen, historically, what the next chapter looks like when we dont speak out against book challenges and that story does not end well.

Challenging and banning books has a tremendously negative impact on a society, often leading to a spread of xenophobia and overall ignorance. Young people should have access to unsensitized versions of history and books that expose them to new cultures and experiences because it allows them to think critically about the world.

Follow this link:
Read banned books, defy literary censorship - Daily Trojan Online

Image by Freddy Kearney via Unsplash.

From William Shakespeare to Margaret Atwood, censoring literature has a long history. Books, publications, and media are censored for a variety of reasons, including profanity, sexual content, and, most commonly, for opposing dominant ideological beliefs.

Many works we now regard as classics were at one time challenged, banned, or burned. King Lear was banned during the reign of King George III, who experienced periods of madness. In 1931, the Chinese province of Hunan banned Alice in Wonderland because animals should not use human language and [because] it was disastrous to put animals and humans on the same level. In 2019, Americans demanded that Atwoods The Handmaids Tale which has its own long history of controversy and censorship be removed from public libraries due to profane language and sexual overtones.

A more visceral form of censorship is found in book burnings. In 1932, James Joyce told an American publisher that some very kind person bought and subsequently burned a first edition of Dubliners. The following year, one of the most infamous book burnings in history occurred in Nazi Germany. A variety of un-German books from Germans such as communist founder Karl Marx and social critic Thomas Mann, along with undesirable foreign influences, including Ernest Hemingway and Helen Keller, were burned to bring German arts and culture in line with Nazi goals.

Dr. Pearce Carefoot contends that the first serious efforts at censoring printed materials in Canada happened during World War I. The War Measures Act (1914) enabled the government to censor, control, and suppress certain publications, writings, maps, plans, photographs, communications, and means of communication. It was likely an attempt to limit pro-German propaganda.

Despite societal advancements in human rights and liberties, over 100 years later we are still faced with attempted censorship. Banning and censoring literature, publications, and media fosters ignorance and hostility in society and creates a skewed education for new generations by restricting certain ideas, identities, and beliefs.

In summer 2022, heated debates arose regarding the banning of books from the Chilliwack School District. Several board of education trustees advocated for the removal of books with inappropriate content. One of the books in question was All Boys Arent Blue by George M. Johnson, an award-winning Black non-binary author, writer, and activist. The book is a series of personal essays detailing their experiences growing up as a Black queer youth in America, discussing a wide range of topics including gender identity, consent, and toxic masculinity.

In an interview with the Gay and Lesbian Association Against Defamation, Johnson explained that they knew the book could be controversial. I told my team very early on that I knew that this book at some point would get banned simply because I knew that the content that was in the book was something that we hadnt seen much of [which is] what the Black queer experience looked like.

As public debate continued, Trustee Darrell Furgason sent a letter to the Chilliwack Progress in response to the controversy. He stated that no trustee, teacher, administrator or librarian should have the freedom to place books in our district school libraries that contain depictions of sex acts. He then continued to argue that fellow-Trustee Willow Reichelt has no right to promote any sexual practices whatsoever in the school district, even if they are practised by the LGBTQ community.

A similar attempt at censorship occurred this January when protestors gathered outside the Coquitlam Public Library during Conni Smudges Drag Queen Story Time. Smudge has been holding these events at libraries in British Columbia for over a decade. While one protestor in a Global News video yelled that the story time was child abuse, hundreds of people came to support Smudge and the story time. For Smudge, these events are intended to help children embrace themselves and each other. I think this lights up the world to let everybody know they can be exactly who they wanna be, Smudge said. Similar events across North America have also been met with heavy protest.

Whether it is removing books from libraries or canceling Drag Queen Story Times, censoring certain perspectives, identities, and beliefs creates an ignorant and uneducated society that negatively affects ourselves and future generations. These acts of censorship are attempts to shelter people, often children and youth, from certain ideas and ways of life, which often comes at the expense of the LGBTQ+ community. It is as if critics believe that banning certain books will somehow eliminate them from society. As George M. Johnson said, There is a great fear of what happens if this new generation actually operates with the truth.

See original here:
It's time to stop fostering ignorance and silencing voices - The Martlet

Amid the fierce debate surrounding what should and should not be taught in classrooms, some far-right-leaning lawmakers have introduced legislation and taken significant steps to limit educators ability to discuss race, gender, and sexuality in the classroom.

Florida is spearheading culture wars in the classroom with discussions surrounding so-called CRT and anti-woke legislation such as the recent decision by the College Board to exclude important topics from the Advanced Placement (AP) African American Studies curriculum. Floridas Dont Say Gay laws restrict classroom instruction and discussion on sexual orientation, gender identity and transgender issues. Despite an imbalance in media coverage, higher education is also affected. The Stop Woke Act was designed to limit how Florida professors could teach race and sex threatening tens of millions of dollars in funding restrictions to colleges and universities that dared to teach things like the effects of colonialism, Reconstruction, and social movements like Black Lives Matter.

Thanks to the hard work of civic groups, advocacy organizations and freedom fighters, a federal appeals court has halted enforcement of Stop Woke in Florida universities. Anti-equity bills and legislation, like what is emerging in Florida, deny students the opportunity to learn about our complex history in the context of current events.

I recently had a conversation with Florida state senator Shevrin D. Jones about the so-called critical race theory debate. In this discussion, Its About Power, Not People, we unpacked the impact of the increased censorship of Black history and LGBTQ+ topics in schools and what advocates can do to stop the aggressive legislation that we are seeing come forth. Watch the full conversation below.

At Ed Trust, we are focused on taking a stand against the threats waged on schools and educators with our campaign, Cant Be Erased (#CantBeErased). Without an accurate understanding of the past, it is difficult to recognize and address the root causes of systemic issues such as racism, inequality, and injustice that continue to affect this country today.

Read more from the original source:
Censorship is About Power, Not People - The Education Trust