Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

CROSSING THE LINE?: CENSORSHIP IN THE UK, Conor O’Shea … – This is Local London

Censorship is still a prevalent issue in modern society. UK civil servants, for example, are not permitted to have any contacts with the media unless authorised in advance by the relevant Minister. Even the general principle of free speech has exceptions. For example, it is a criminal offence to use threatening or abusive language intending to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Obviously, Linekers comments were not criminal in any way, however, as someone contracted by the BBC ( a public sector organisation) , should he refrain from direct comments on political matters? He is, after all, paid through a form of tax ( the BBC license fee). Regardless of your opinion, the suspension of Lineker by the BBC and the reaction that it provoked strongly indicates that issues surrounding free speech and censorship are highly controversial and ultimatley unresolved. However, the BBCs backing down after the boycott of sports programming across the network is suggestive of the fact that popular opinion is more in favour of openness rather than censorship, especially within the media.

We all hope for a sense of neutrality from the presenters and the BBC management, and perhaps the key to this is the separation of personal views and their professional roles. Agree with him or not, Lineker has at least kicked off an important discussion of freedom of speech.

See the rest here:
CROSSING THE LINE?: CENSORSHIP IN THE UK, Conor O'Shea ... - This is Local London

ALA Calls For National Day of Action to Protect the Freedom To … – LJ INFOdocket

Heres the Full Text of an ALA Release:

The American Library Association (ALA) today announced a national day of action to protect libraries and the freedom to read, designating April 24, the Monday of National Library Week, as Right to Read Day. Right to Read Day also marks the first anniversary of the ALA-founded Unite Against Book Bans campaign, a public-facing advocacy initiative to empower readers everywhere to stand together in the fight against censorship.

Right to Read Day is a national day of actionnot just acknowledgement, said ALA President Lessa Kananiopua Pelayo-Lozada. ALA calls on readers everywhere to show our commitment to the First Amendment by doing something concrete to preserve it.

The fight against censorship is too big for one person or library or organization to take on alone. And we dont have to. Thats why ALA created Unite Against Book Bans: to be a collective voice in defending the right to read.

Since the movement was launched in April 2022, Unite Against Book Bans has created and curated a set of free advocacy resources and provided direct support to community organizers. Local advocates have used and adapted these resources to fight censorship in communities like Llano County and League City, Texas, and in states like Missouri and Louisiana. ALA and its Unite Against Book Bans partnersindividuals, authors, publishers, educators, advocacy groups and library organizations of all stripesare calling on readers to take action on Right to Read Day and beyond.

Suggested Right to Read Day actions include:

Right to Read resources, including social media assets, are available athttps://uniteagainstbookbans.org/right-to-read-day/

Readers who think, this will never happen in our community, need to think again. More than half the states have legislation proposed or passed that would take library books off the shelves, punish library workers who dare to make books accessible and silence the voices of LGBTQ, BIPOC and other authors. Speaking up and raising our voices now can stop censorship where its happening and prevent censorship where its just getting started.

In addition to the call to action, Unite Against Book Bans partners will host Protecting Free Expression and the Right to Read, a virtual conversation with partners from ALA, PEN America and National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) prompted by Forever Judy Blume, the new documentary about renowned author and right to read advocate Judy Blume. ALA President Pelayo-Lozada, PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel and NCAC Executive Director Christopher Finan will sit down with the documentarys co-directors to discuss Judy Blumes trailblazing work and the unprecedented surge of censorship sweeping across the country.Registrationis required for the free virtual event, which will take placeMonday, April 24, at 7 p.m. ET / 4 p.m. PT.

The Monday of National Library Week also includes the release of ALAs annual State of Americas Libraries report, which includes a list of thetop 10 banned booksof 2022.

Source

Filed under: Associations and Organizations, Companies (Publishers/Vendors), Libraries, National Libraries, News

Follow this link:
ALA Calls For National Day of Action to Protect the Freedom To ... - LJ INFOdocket

College campuses are censoring speakers, and it’s taken a … – Los Angeles Times

America is experiencing two disturbing simultaneous trends: the rise of mob censorship to shut down speaking events on college campuses, and an attempt to justify it as merely the exercise of more speech.

At SUNY Albany last week, protesters stormed an event, formed an improvised conga line and prevented a lecture ironically, titled Free Speech on Campus from beginning.

In a now notorious incident at Stanford Law School last month, protesters shouted down a federal appellate judges speech.

And in November, hecklers drowned out conservative commentator Ann Coulter at Cornell, playing loud music, chanting, shouting at her and repeatedly preventing her from speaking. We dont want you here, your words are violence, screamed one heckler.

I have defended free speech on college campuses for over a decade. Weve seen waves of shout-downs before. But few defended the disruptions. In fact, they were usually met with near-universal condemnation.

Not so anymore. Some now argue that drowning out and shutting down speakers is an exercise of more speech, not an attempt to carry out a hecklers veto on the speaker. Depressingly, 62% of college students say that shouting down a speaker is acceptable to some degree.

Its called protest, one Stanford student remarked to Judge Kyle Duncan while the judge objected to being shouted down. Its under the 1st Amendment. I thought you knew about the 1st Amendment. Later, after the Stanford administration condemned the incident, a group of protesters papered Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinezs classroom with fliers reading, We have free speech rights too, and, Counter-speech is free speech.

Apparently, Americas future lawyers and future judges fundamentally misunderstand free speech rights. Shouting down speakers is just like any other form of censorship: Its the few deciding for the many what they can hear. Protesters have every right to engage in peaceful, nondisruptive protest. But they do not have the right to take over someone elses event and make it their own.

This is a basic point, and we understand it in almost every other context. Nobody argues that you have a free speech right to stand up during a Broadway musical and sing along with the actors or to scream at a public library book reading.

Just because the public is invited to attend an event and sometimes to speak during a Q&A period does not make it the publics event to disrupt or transform as it pleases. Your distaste for a speaker doesnt grant you a right to prevent a willing audience from listening to that speaker.

There must be places in a free and pluralistic society where groups can freely associate and share ideas without first seeking approval from a crowd of hecklers. Colleges are such spaces. Its the very reason they exist.

One increasingly common semantic game is to argue that hecklers veto is a legal term and that it applies only when the government steps in to shut down speech in anticipation of a disruptive response. But as a practical matter, the government or on college campuses, those in the administration can end up supporting a hecklers veto through its action or inaction. Besides, hecklers veto has long had a nonlegal, colloquial definition that tracks the plain meaning of the words: hecklers vetoing speech.

In either case, both the hecklers and those in authority who enable them will regret normalizing this sort of response to speech.

In December 1860, Frederick Douglass and a group of abolitionists assembled at a public meeting hall in Boston to discuss how to abolish slavery. No sooner had the meeting begun than it was overtaken by a pro-slavery mob. The police did nothing to prevent the heckling and disruption, and the meeting was eventually shut down. A few days later, Douglass gave an impassioned defense of free speech: To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

The heckling-is-free-speech crowd may argue that the pro-slavery mobs action was wrong because of its message, whereas those engaged in todays disruptions are morally right. But we cant hinge the validity of a hecklers veto on whether the hecklers feel justified in their actions. They always do. Thats why justifications for censorship shouldnt be allowed to outweigh principles of free speech.

While students may succeed today in shouting down speakers they oppose, they should realize that those same tactics could be used tomorrow against speakers they support.

Nico Perrino is executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and host of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast.

Read more:
College campuses are censoring speakers, and it's taken a ... - Los Angeles Times

A Disney meeting didn’t change this lawmaker’s mind on Chinese censorship – Los Angeles Times

The threat of Hollywood studios censoring movies to appease the Chinese Communist Party has long been a bipartisan talking point for U.S. lawmakers, including Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.).

Last week, Gallagher, chairman of the House Select Committee on China, took a tour of California, where he met with business leaders including Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Iger and Apples Tim Cook to discuss their business with China.

Those meetings which also included talks with movie producers and filmmakers whove worked in or with China did little to assuage Gallaghers worries, he told The Times in a Monday interview.

My concern about censorship remains as strong, if not stronger than ever, Gallagher said. Its unquestionably happening. Everyone was completely candid about that. Its a major problem.

Gallagher is pushing studios to be more transparent about their experiences with Beijing and censorship. Studios have long tweaked their movies in order to gain access to the worlds second-largest box office market, where the government keeps tight controls on what people there can see.

He was among the members of Congress who signed Sen. Marco Rubios (R-Fla.) 2020 letter to Disneys then-CEO Bob Chapek criticizing the Burbank company for cooperating with China to shoot part of the live-action Mulan despite the countrys persecution of Uyghurs.

The congressmans California tour occurred amid a push by Republicans and Democrats to either ban or force a sale of Chinese-owned video app TikTok, in order to ease worries that parent company ByteDance will have to share user data with the authoritarian regime.

Gallagher said his meetings with the entertainment and tech companies did not generate any specific policy proposals or recommendations to address concerns of censorship. However, he said he hopes the meetings would create more dialogue around the issue and provide insight into what he believes is an ideological competition with China.

Hollywood studios have faced criticism for altering movies for China over the years.

Top Gun: Maverick caught flak for a trailer that removed the Taiwanese and Japanese flags from Tom Cruises jacket. (The flags were later restored in the final cut.) In 2019, Universal-Dreamworks Abominable was pulled out of Vietnamese theaters because it portrayed a map that showed China having ownership over disputed territory in the South China Sea.

Studios have defended these practices in the past, arguing that such changes to movies are simply meant to expand their global reach. But censoring movies in China affects what stories are told because of the nations global power, Gallagher said.

It can promote anti-American messages, he said. What we dont want, but what the CCP ultimately wants, is for the CCP-approved version of the movie to become the only version and thats a bright red line that we should work to enforce.

Actors have also faced backlash when weighing in on China. In 2021, John Cena pledged his respect for China and apologized for calling Taiwan a country while promoting his film, F9.

In 2019, the star of Disneys Mulan remake expressed support for Hong Kong police who were cracking down on pro-democracy protests, which led to some consumers boycotting the film.

Controversy was fueled further when it was revealed that Disney filmed part of the movie in Xinjiang, where its estimated that more than 1 million Muslims have been forced into indoctrination camps.

Disney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some studio executives in recent years have started to rethink their self-censorship for China as U.S. movies struggle to reach the box office heights that they once did in the market. Chinas box office is increasingly dominated by productions from Chinese studios, with the support of the government.

Hollywood movies in China have recently represented a small portion of the box office in China. In 2021, U.S. movies and imports from other countries represented 15.5% of Chinas ticket sales, compared with 36% in 2019, according to advisory firm Artisan Gateway.

Even Disney has struggled to secure China release dates for its popular Marvel Studios movies. The Black Panther sequel, Wakanda Forever, and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, were the first Marvel Studios superhero movies to be released in China since 2019.

Still, Gallagher said hes concerned about changes studios are making at the early stages even before the content raises an issue with the CCP.

Youre obviously going to censor on the front end so you can get access to the market, and we heard story after story about how the CCP dangles market access in front of Hollywood moviemakers so that they self censor what movies already been made in the first place, Gallagher said. Theres virtually no CCP villains in any major American movie .

Gallagher said some Hollywood and Silicon Valley executives still hold onto the idea that more American engagement with China, with more Disney-branded theme parks and American movies, will encourage China to be less aggressive.

To me this idea that just somehow we engage harder, that somehow the relationship is going to improve, I think thats already been proven false, Gallagher said.

Gallagher did not provide policy proposals of his own to address the Hollywood-China relationship.

He said Congress doesnt want to dictate what types of movies the companies can or cant make. In the past, the House Armed Services Committee has considered denying studios access to Department of Defense resources in movies that agree to Chinese censorship, which Gallagher said seems fair to him.

In Silicon Valley, Gallagher said one area for potential legislation is to control American capital or investment in Chinese artificial intelligence, quantum and biotech companies. We dont want to be funding our own destruction, Gallagher said.

See the rest here:
A Disney meeting didn't change this lawmaker's mind on Chinese censorship - Los Angeles Times

The Folly of Censoring Joyland, a Sublime Film About Family – The New Yorker

Last year, a film called The Legend of Maula Jatt, based on a 1979 cult classic, became the most successful Pakistani film in history. The opening scene depicts the grisly murder of the Jatt family; young Maula survives, and vows to exact revenge against the perpetrators, namely Noori Natt. The two men spend the rest of the movie hacking up each others associates. When the film first came out in the U.K., some of the gore had to be edited out; the British Board of Film Classification warned potential viewers of frequent scenes of strong bloody violence, noting that, in one, a woman decapitates a man and holds up his bloody severed head.... In another scene a man buries a baby alive. Nonetheless, the uncut film cleared censorship boards in Pakistan. It attracted hordes of moviegoers, some of whom presumably couldnt even understand the Punjabi dialogue. Everyone who spoke to me about the film deemed it too much fun to resist.

Also last year, an indie film about a middle-class Punjabi family sent Pakistan into a moral panic. Joyland, a film directed by Saim Sadiq that won awards at Cannes and the Film Independent Spirit Awards, and which Pakistan submitted to the 2023 Oscars, had to be cleared by the countrys three censor boards in order to be screened in Pakistan. After a series of edits, the censor boards certified the film. Then, just before its release, it was banned. After lobbying by supporters of the film, Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif assembled a review committee, which recommended more changes. The carefully edited film was screened in the province of Sindh, but remained banned in Punjab, Pakistans most populated province and the films primary setting.

What was it about Joyland that made the arbiters of our social order so fearful? In the film, Haider (Ali Junejo), a young man, lives in his family home with his wife, Mumtaz (Rasti Farooq), who works in a beauty parlor. Like millions of Pakistanis, surely, Haider is confused about his sexuality. Also like millions of Pakistanis, he is unemployed. His father (Salmaan Peerzada) is a garden-variety patriarch who wants his son to get a job and give him a grandson. When Haider finally finds a job at an erotic-dance theatre, he tells his family that he is the theatre manager; in fact, hes learning to be a backup dancer for an ambitious trans performer named Biba (Alina Khan). In time, Haider falls in love with Biba. (When I watched the film in London, the audience fell in love with her, too.)

Maybe Joyland was banned because it depicts a queer love story, but I dont think so. I think the ban was a misguided attempt to defend families, because, at the films heart, that is what Joyland is about: a family that is struggling, a family in which love and abuse intertwine so tightly that its difficult to tell them apart, a family much like any other in the world. The members of this family are constantly judging one another. But the film itself does not judge the lovers, and it does not judge the family.

About three-quarters of the way through the film, Haider and Biba share a subtle and intimate scene that was censored in Pakistan. When I talked to people who had seen the film, whether edited or unedited, they all seemed to ask the same question: Who was trying to fuck whom? The question seemed to come from a kind of voyeurism about queer and trans love. Maybe they missed the answer thats underlined in many places in the film: its your own family that fucks you, with its preconceived gender roles. As Philip Larkin wrote:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.They may not mean to, but they do.They fill you with the faults they hadAnd add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn...

Joyland manages to feel as familiar as our families are to usloving, ugly, full of secrets and laughter and false promises. When Haiders father spends an evening with a widow who lives in the neighborhood, he is vilified and seems as hapless as his son. When Haider helps with the chores and lives off his wifes earnings, his father and brother look down on him. Whereas the fantasy families of Maula Jatt hack each other to pieces, this family feels real. It suffers a thousand invisible cuts. These characters are normal, and we cant stand to watch.

We never meet the family that Biba was born intoonly the family of trans women that she chooses for herself. And, in this family, murder is on everyones mind. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province alone, at least seventy transgender people have reportedly been killed in the past five years. Biba seems to know this. She knows that she could be shot, because she has seen it.

Westerners are sometimes surprised to learn that many Pakistanis are openly trans. In 2017, Pakistan issued its first passport that recognized a third gender, X, and the following year the government passed a mildly progressive transgender-rights law. In 2022, Sindh required the hiring of trans employees for one in every two hundred public-sector jobs in the province. But transgender Pakistanis are also some of the most oppressed in our society. Trans entertainers often perform at private parties, such as weddings and baby showers, but their families may refuse to accept them; they may be groped on roadsides or refused jobs as domestic workers, let alone in offices and shops. No legislation has been able to stop the kind of violence depicted in Joyland.

A few years ago, one of the producers of Joyland, Sarmad Sultan Khoosat, directed a sublime film, Zindagi Tamasha (Circus of Life). It, too, tells a family story. Rahat (Arif Hassan) is a bearded man who tends to household chores and cares for his bedridden wife. In one scene, this good-enough Muslim shakes his bum at a wedding ceremony, and the video goes viral. Some Pakistani mullahs who watched the trailer, however, concluded that the film was an assault on their image. They claimed that it maligned religious scholars and hence our religion. Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan, a far-right party whose members are known for chanting Death to blasphemers, accused Khoosat of blasphemy.

Making an independent film in Pakistan means choosing your family. Khoosat is a national icon, having produced some of the nations most popular mainstream TV shows. For Zindagi Tamasha, however, he hired a first-time screenwriter and editor, a relatively unknown group of musicians, and no bankable stars. He didnt seek out any outside finance and instead sold a plot of land, his life savings, to fund the movie. It cleared the censors three times; the films release was halted after the blasphemy accusations; the government referred the film to the Council of Islamic Ideology, a constitutional body tasked with weeding the impurities out of public life. Khoosats producer and father, Irfan, went on live TV, practically begging that his sons life be spared. Then a senate committee watched the film and cleared it for release. (There is still a ban in Punjab.) But, to this day, cinema owners in Pakistan are too scared to show Zindagi Tamasha.

This month, Americans will be able to watch the unedited version of Joyland in theatres. Maybe they will see the film for what it is: a sympathetic, even forgiving, depiction of family. Families are often anchored by people who go about their business quietly. In one scene, Mumtaz looks out a window at a neighbor who is touching himself, and she starts to pleasure herself, too. She is quiet enough that, at first, nobody in her household notices. She is a sexually frustrated woman satisfying herself in the most discreet way possible. What could be more family-friendly?

One place where Joyland finds joy is in self-reliant communities that serve as surrogates for family. When the power goes out during one of Mumtazs makeup jobs, her colleagues put their mobile phones on flashlight mode. The moment she finishes the job, they burst into applause. Later, in a beautiful theatre scene, a blackout interrupts one of Bibas dances. The theatre manager wants to cancel the performance. Instead, Haider gets the audience to light up the stage with their phones, and the show goes on.

Three years ago, I learned from my publishers in Karachi that their office had been raided by people who claimed to work for Pakistani intelligence. They seized the Urdu translation of my novel A Case of Exploding Mangoes. The novel had been in circulation for a decade and there had been no official objections to its contents. Although an official from Pakistans best-known intelligence organization, the I.S.I., denied my publishers account to the Associated Press, I attended a meeting with one of the agencys junior generals, during which he tried to clear the air. He said some vaguely nice things about the book and told me that he was only carrying out his orders. It was obvious that he had not read it in any language.

There is that scene in your book in which a Saudi prince is buggering our President, the junior general told me. This struck me as odd, given that the novel is about the alleged assassination of a President who, at least in the book, does not have any kind of sex. (In one scene, he has his rear end checked for worms by a Saudi doctor.) In English, it was funny, the junior general told me. In Urdu, it sounds very disturbing. I didnt have the heart to tell him that no Saudi prince buggers our President in my novel. The protectors of our family values, it seemed to me, had more filth in their heads than any writer or director could come up with.

Read more:
The Folly of Censoring Joyland, a Sublime Film About Family - The New Yorker