Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Why Middle East scholars are self-censoring in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war – NPR

Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli supporters converge at a demonstration of New York University students in November. Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images hide caption

Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli supporters converge at a demonstration of New York University students in November.

The conflict between Israel and Hamas is testing the limits of free speech across college campuses. And it's also affecting those who study the Middle East.

Who are they? They are the scholars who research and teach about the Middle East on college campuses in the U.S.

What did it find? Notably, it found that a clear majority of U.S.-based scholars (69%) didn't just feel the need to self-censor when speaking about the Middle East in general, but specifically in academic and professional settings.

Want to learn more on this conflict? Listen to Consider This on whether Biden's unconditional support of Israel is nearing its limit.

Members of Columbia University's faculty hold a protest in support of free speech on the Columbia University campus in November. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption

What are people saying? The poll was conducted by Shibley Telhami a professor of government and politics and the director of the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll and Marc Lynch a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Telhami spoke to All Things Considered host Ari Shapiro about the findings and how the academic climate has shifted.

On the motivations for scholars choosing to self-censor:

The key is that most of it was actually fear rather than sensitivity. And so that was fascinating.

There are many who self-censor because they got advice from senior colleagues or from administrators not to say anything that might be interpreted offensively by people, and it wouldn't be good for their careers, particularly assistant professors and graduate students.

So that's not exactly self-censorship because you're sensitive. It's more about worried about the consequences. We had a lot of colleagues who said they were not invited when the university held events on their very issue of expertise because they were worried that their views may not conform to what is needed on campus.

There were some who were told by administrators to watch out what they say publicly. So we were struck by the kind of atmosphere that a lot of our colleagues across U.S. campuses faced on this issue, much more than I would have expected.

On how it is playing out:

I think the universities are facing different pressures. One of the pressures, obviously, we do have real, genuine increases in antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian, anti-Israeli sentiment.

And universities have to manage all that, and make sure that all their people feel safe. A lot of it is genuine there's nothing un-genuine about it it has to be taken seriously.

But there are a lot of groups that act disproportionately on some of the issues. And undoubtedly a lot of the scholars who follow the issue feel that the public space does not conform to their own professional interpretations of Israel-Palestine. So they're concerned about criticizing Israel publicly.

On the importance of gauging the experiences of scholars:

When you explain violence, you are not embracing violence. This is something that we as social scientists all, of course, understand. We never have to repeat to ourselves.

But society around us does not get it all the time because they think you're taking side when you're explaining why things happen. But if you don't explain why things happen, you're going to repeat the same mistake over and over and over again.

Learn more:

The interview with Shibley Telhami was conducted by Ari Shapiro, produced by Karen Zamora and edited by Tinbete Ermyas.

See the rest here:
Why Middle East scholars are self-censoring in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war - NPR

Tags:

Students from several colleges hold protest at the University of Rochester fighting ‘anti-Palestinian censorship’ – 13WHAM-TV

Students from several colleges hold protest at the University of Rochester fighting 'anti-Palestinian censorship'  13WHAM-TV

Go here to see the original:
Students from several colleges hold protest at the University of Rochester fighting 'anti-Palestinian censorship' - 13WHAM-TV

Tags:

Robert Mapplethorpe and Cincinnati: The Perfect Moment and the fight over censorship and obscenity. – Slate

Robert Mapplethorpe was one of the most famous photographers in the worldand one of the most controversial. When his work came to Cincinnati in 1990, it would be at the center of a vicious fight over obscenity and the First Amendment, one that threatened the future of art in America.

This episode of One Year was written by Evan Chung, One Years senior producer. It was produced by Kelly Jones and Evan Chung, with additional production by Olivia Briley.

It was edited by Josh Levin, One Years editorial director, with Joel Meyer and Derek John, Slates executive producer of narrative podcasts. Merritt Jacob is our senior technical director.

JoinSlate Plusto get a special behind-the-scenes conversation at the end of our season about how we put together our 1990 stories. Slate Plus members also get to listen to all Slate podcasts without any ads.

Sources for This Episode

Books

Bolton, Richard. Culture Wars: Documents from the Recent Controversies in the Arts, New Press, 1992.

Carr, C. On Edge: Performance at the End of the Twentieth Century, Wesleyan University Press, 2008.

De Grazia, Edward. Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law of Obscenity and the Assault on Genius, Vintage, 1993.

Marshall, Richard. Robert Mapplethorpe, Whitney Museum of Art, 1988.

Meyer, Richard. Outlaw Representation: Censorship and Homosexuality in Twentieth-Century American Art, Oxford University Press, 2002.

Smith, Patti. Just Kids, Ecco, 2010.

Articles

Adams, Henry. Thirty Years After The Perfect Moment, CAN Journal, November 2020.

Adler, Amy. The Shifting Law of Sexual Speech: Rethinking Robert Mapplethorpe, University of Chicago Legal Forum, December 2020.

Andry, Al. Arts Case Strategy Perplexes Experts, Cincinnati Post, Oct. 3, 1990.

Andry, Al. Police Will Review Mapplethorpe, Cincinnati Post, March 23, 1990.

Anti-Mapplethorpe Strategy Began at March 7 Meeting, Cincinnati Post, March 28, 1990.

Barrie, Dennis. The Scene of the Crime, Art Journal, Autumn 1991.

Batson, Larry. Cincinnati Museum Still Under Siege From Keep-It-Clean Forces, Star Tribune, June 17, 1990.

Bermudez, Frederick. CAC Supporters to Face Charges, Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 25, 1990.

Bolton, Douglas and Sharon Moloney. Will Art Fury Hurt the City?, Cincinnati Post, March 30, 1990.

Burns, Michael. Cincinnati: Anti-Porn Capital, UPI, Oct. 19, 1986.

Dunne, Dominick. Robert Mapplethorpes Proud Finale, Vanity Fair, February 1989.

Cembalest, Robin. The Obscenity Trial: How They Voted to Acquit, ARTnews, December 1990.

City of the Year: Cincinnati, Sports Illustrated, Dec. 31, 1990.

Dennis, Debra. Art Critic Goes to Bat for Photos in Court, Cincinnati Post, Oct. 3, 1990.

Dennis, Debra. Photo Show Verdict: Not Guilty, Cincinnati Post, Oct. 6, 1990.

Dobush, Grace. 25 Years Later: Cincinnati and the Obscenity Trial Over Mapplethorpe Art, Washington Post, Oct. 24, 2015.

Faherty, John and Carol Motsinger. Pornography or Art? Cincinnati Decided, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 28, 2015.

Findsen, Owen. Controversy Brought Crowds, Cincinnati Enquirer, May 26, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Group Wants Center to Cancel Photo Show, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 21, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Museum Chief Prepares for Mapplethorpe, Cincinnati Enquirer, Feb. 13, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Perfect Moments Time Arrives, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 6, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Police to View Mapplethorpe Exhibit, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 24, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Ruling that CAC Is Not a Museum Jolts Art World, Cincinnati Enquirer, June 21, 1990.

Fox, John. Then and Now: Mapplethorpe CAC, Cincinnati CityBeat, March 30, 2000.

Gamarekian, Barbara. Mapplethorpe Backers Picket the Corcoran and Plan New Shows, New York Times, June 17, 1989.

Glueck, Grace. Publicity Is Enriching Mapplethorpe Estate, New York Times, April 6, 1990.

Grundberg, Andy. The Allure of Mapplethorpes Photographs, New York Times, July 31, 1988.

Harrison, Eric. Sides Square Off for Mapplethorpe Photo Trial, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 23, 1990.

Hartigan, Patti. The Picture of Innocence, Boston Globe, Aug. 3, 1990.

Honan, William H. Congressional Anger Threatens Arts Endowments Budget, New York Times, June 20, 1989.

Horn, Dan. Post Poll: 59% Say Let Show Go On, Cincinnati Post, April 13, 1990.

Kastor, Elizabeth. Funding Art That Offends, Washington Post, June 7, 1989.

Kaufman, Ben L. Judge Refuses to Dismiss Indictments, Cincinnati Enquirer, June 20, 1990.

Kaufman, Ben L. Judge to Police: Keep Hands Off Exhibit, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 9, 1990.

Lobb, Monty, Jr. The Side of Virtue and Dignity, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 30, 1990.

Mapplethorpe: One Year Later, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 6, 1991.

Masters, Kim. Art Gallery Not Guilty of Obscenity, Washington Post, Oct. 6, 1990.

Masters, Kim. Defense Rests in Mapplethorpe Art Trial, Washington Post, Oct. 4, 1990.

Masters, Kim. Jurors View Photos of Children, Washington Post, Oct. 3, 1990.

McLeod, Douglas M. and Jill A. MacKenzie. Print Media and Public Reaction to the Controversy Over NEA Funding for Robert Mapplethorpes The Perfect Moment Exhibit, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, June 1998.

Merrill, Elizabeth M. Zaha Hadids Center for Contemporary Art and the Perils of New Museum Architecture, Criticism, 2019.

Mezibov, Marc. The Mapplethorpe Obscenity Trial, Litigation, Summer 1992.

Moloney, Sharon. As Show Leaves, Debate Rages On, Cincinnati Post, May 26, 1990.

Moloney, Sharon. Perfect Image Clashes with Citys, Foes Say, Cincinnati Post, March 29, 1990.

Moloney, Sharon and Al Salvato. Police View Mapplethorpe, Cincinnati Post, April 2, 1990.

Moore, Kevin. Whipping Up a Storm: How Robert Mapplethorpe Shocked America, the Guardian, Nov. 17, 2015.

Moores, Lew. Photos Condone Behavior, Witness Says, Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 5, 1990.

ONeill, Cliff. The Mapplethorpe Mess, OutWeek, July 3, 1989.

Palmer, Alex. When Art Fought the Law and the Art Won, Smithsonian Magazine, Oct. 2, 2015.

Prendergast, Jane. 4,000 Pack Photo Exhibit, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 7, 1990.

Prendergast, Jane. Arts Center, Director Indicted, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 8, 1990.

Prendergast, Jane. Funding Given Up by CAC, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 26, 1990.

Siebert, Mark and Lew Moores. Lewd, But Art, Jurors Say, Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 7, 1990.

Sischy, Ingrid. White and Black, the New Yorker, Nov. 5, 1989.

Span, Paula. The Childrens Portraits: Innocence or Pornography?, Washington Post, May 3, 1990.

Stein, Jerry. High Noon for Mapplethorpe Show, Cincinnati Post, April 6, 1990.

Sturmon, Sarah and Sharon Moloney. Mapplethorpe Suit Jolts City, County, Cincinnati Post, March 29, 1990.

Uzelac, Ellen. Mapplethorpe Trial Puts Cincinnati on Art MapBut Town Talks About Baseball, Baltimore Sun, Sept. 27, 1990.

Vaccariello, Linda. A Lion in Winter, Cincinnati Magazine, February 1997.

Vester, John W., William J. Gerhardt, and Mark Snyder. Mapplethorpe in Cincinnati, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 24, 1990.

Wilkerson, Isabel. Cincinnati Art Gallery and Director to Stand Trial, New York Times, June 20, 1990.

Wilkerson, Isabel. When a Crusade Is a Career, New York Times, April 14, 1990.

Audiovisual

Damned in the U.S.A, dir. Paul Yule, 1993.

Perversion for Profit, Citizens for Decent Literature, 1963.

Robert Mapplethorpe, dir. Nigel Finch, Arena, BBC, 1988.

Footage of the visitor reactions at the Contemporary Arts Center on April 8, 1990 was filmed by Bart Everson and Michael Northam.

Excerpt from:
Robert Mapplethorpe and Cincinnati: The Perfect Moment and the fight over censorship and obscenity. - Slate

Tags:

New Report From PEN America: Two Years of Book Banning: Cumulative Data Set and Censorship Trends – LJ INFOdocket

From PEN America:

In a cumulative data summary released today, PEN America reflects on the nearly 6,000 book bans in public schools documented from July 2021 to June 2023. Spineless Shelves: Two Years of Book Banning illustrates the spread of copycat book bans and an apparent Scarlet Letter effect, where several works from an authors catalog were subsequently targeted after at least one of their works was banned.

Over the 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years, the sweeping attack on the freedom to read in public schools impacted 247 school districts across 41 states, affecting millions of students, the century-old free expression and literary group said. The data summary pulls together data from PEN Americas July 2021 to June 2023 School Book Ban Indexes for the first time and provides new insight into the movement to censor books nationwide.

[Clip]

In the new data summary, PEN America reflects on two phenomena: copycat bans and a Scarlet Letter effect.

Books that are banned in one district are frequently banned in others, with such copycat bans proliferating in school districts across state lines. A useful example is the work of Sarah J. Maas. In the 2021-2022 school year, her work was banned 18 times across 10 districts; but in 2022-23, that exploded to 158 bans across 36 districts a 778% increase. As PEN America explored in Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Censor Books in Schools, groups pushing for book bans frequently share lists of titles to target, which has inflamed this copycat effect.

Several authors have also experienced a Scarlet Letter effect, where several works from their collection were subsequently targeted after at least one of their works was banned. This is again illustrated by author Sarah J. Maas. In the 2021-2022 school year, eight of her titles were banned. This doubled to sixteen titles in 2022-23. A similar effect has impacted bestselling authors Ellen Hopkins, Jodi Picoult, Alice Oseman, Laurie Halse Anderson, and Rupi Kaur, among others, all of whom saw more of their catalogs scrutinized after one of their works was initially targeted for banning.

[Clip]

From July 2021 to June 2023, PEN Americas Index of School Book Bans recorded 5,894 instances of book bans. Florida and Texas lead the country in number of bans, but the crisis has spread to 41 states. A significant increase in the number of books banned from both school libraries and classrooms indicates not only an increase in the number of books banned, but that more of the bans are being enacted as permanent removals.

[Clip]

PEN America defines a school book ban as any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a previously accessible book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished.

Direct to Complete News Release

Direct to Full Text Report: Spineless Shelves: Two Years of Book Banning

Filed under: Data Files, Libraries, News, School Libraries

Read more from the original source:
New Report From PEN America: Two Years of Book Banning: Cumulative Data Set and Censorship Trends - LJ INFOdocket

Tags:

House GOP Highlights The Feds’ Censorship-Industrial Complex – The Federalist

The federal governments censorship-industrial complex is an existential threat to Americans First Amendment rights, several witnesses testified during a House subcommittee hearing on Wednesday.

The federal government not just participated, but led this creation of a mass flagging and censorship operation that was coordinated with a broader effort to pressure [Big Tech] platforms to do more censorship, independent reporter Michael Shellenberger said.

Titled Censorship Laundering Part II: Preventing the Department of Homeland Securitys Silencing of Dissent, Wednesdays hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability analyzed federal agencies extensive efforts to collude with Big Tech platforms to silence Americans online for questioning claims made by the government. During his opening statement, subcommittee chair Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., underscored the role of the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a subagency within the Department of Homeland Security, in coordinating this censorship operation.

What is stopping DHS from overreaching its jurisdiction beyond elections to censor more Americans to protect whatever government-deployed orthodox notions it deems critical infrastructure? Bishop asked. The answer is: nothing.

Often called the nerve center of the federal governments censorship complex, CISA facilitates meetings between Big Tech companies, and national security and law enforcement agencies to address mis-, dis-, and mal-information on social media platforms. Ahead of the 2020 election, for example, the agency upped its censorship efforts by flagging posts for Big Tech companies it claimed were worthy of being censored, some of which called into question the security of voting practices such as mass, unsupervised mail-in voting.

An interim report released by House Republicans last month revealed that CISAs censorship enterprise was more extensive than previously known. According to that analysis, CISA along with the State Departments Global Engagement Center (GEC) colluded with Stanford University to pressure Big Tech companies into censoring what they claimed to be disinformation during the 2020 election. At the heart of this operation was theElection Integrity Partnership (EIP), a consortium of disinformation academics spearheaded by the Stanford Internet Observatory that coordinated with DHS and GEC to monitor and censor Americans online speech ahead of the 2020 contest.

Created at the request of CISA, EIP allowed federal officials to launder [their] censorship activities in hopes of bypassing both the First Amendment and public scrutiny. As documented in the interim report, this operation aimed to censor true information, jokes and satire, and political opinions and submitted flagged posts from prominent conservative figures to Big Tech companies for censorship. Among those targeted were The Federalists Mollie Hemingway and Sean Davis.

[RELATED: State Of Texas Joins The Federalist, Daily Wire In Suing The Federal Censorship-Industrial Complex]

Also highlighted during Wednesdays hearing was Missouri v. Biden, an ongoing court case to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that documents efforts by the Biden administration to coerce Big Tech platforms to engage in similar censorship activities. In his testimony, Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), noted how the federal government pressured social media platforms into censoring Americans who dared to express rational and scientifically accurate views about the Covid-19 virus and the vaccines and in doing so, violated their First Amendment rights. NCLA is representing the individual plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden.

Indeed, I daresay there are some in this roomon both sides of the aislewho brush away the monumental efforts of the Biden Administration to squelch speech on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other social media sites as merely the actions of private companies. Not so, Chenoweth said. When the government coerces or pressures a company with inducements or threats and the company responds by crushing private individuals, that is state action, and the First Amendment forbids it.

Meanwhile, CISA officials testifying during Wednesdays hearing avoided answering questions from Republicans about how the agencys efforts to combat so-called disinformation have changed in recent years. When pressed by Bishop on how CISAs practices have evolved since the 2020 election, for example, agency official Iranga Kahangama declined to provide a straightforward answer.

Despite evidence showing otherwise, House Democrats attempted to defend the federal governments censorship activities by pretending they never occurred. In his opening statement, for example, ranking member and Maryland Democrat Rep. Glenn Ivey claimed the evidence showing CISAs role in the censorship-industrial complex completely misses the mark and further cited a quote from a CISA official asserting the agency doesnt censor speech as evidence that it doesnt engage in such behavior.

Meanwhile, Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., similarly attempted to convince Americans the myriad communications documenting government-compelled censorship do not exist, falsely claiming there is no evidence CISA has engaged in any nefarious or unconstitutional activity.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

More here:
House GOP Highlights The Feds' Censorship-Industrial Complex - The Federalist

Tags: