Mediaboss Marketing

Censors always have the best of intentions.

John Krull, publisher,TheStatehouseFile.com

They see themselves as our protectors, a shield that prevents harmful or dangerous ideas or pieces of art from finding their way through our moral and ethical defenses. They keep books and music and paintings away from us for our own good.

Because they consider their hearts and their motives to be pure, they take umbrage when we suggest that maybe, just maybe, we can be trusted to make up our own minds.

Or parent our own children.

Or develop our own tastes.

How, how, how can we be so ungrateful? How can we not appreciate the good they have done for us by making books and songs and art harder for us to find?

Thats what is behind the dustup with the Hamilton East Public Library, which has made national news by moving many popular young adultor YAbooks to the adult section. The library did so at the direction of the Hamilton East Public Library Board, which considered the works inappropriate for young people.

Among the books moved was John Greens The Fault in Our Stars, a novel that has proved to be a touchstone for young readers since the day it was published. Green, who makes his home in Indianapolis, protested when he heard about the move.

He said he wouldnt be caught alive or dead in Fishers until the policy was changed.

I know John Greennot well but well enough to realize he is one of the most decent guys around.

Once, I asked a favor of him. He just had been a guest on a radio show I hosted.

One of my daughters friends had been diagnosed with cancer. Cancer figures prominently in the narrative of The Fault in Our Stars.

I asked Green to sign a copy of the book for my daughters friend. He did more than that. He wrote a note to her inside the book, one filled with compassion and encouragement.

After that, I learned that such graciousness and generosity were common for him. He was, and is, devoted to young people, particularly those who read his books. He takes both their lives and their troubles seriously, which may be the reason that The Fault in Our Stars has sold, at last counting, nearly 25 million copies worldwide.

But because Green acknowledges in his work that teenagers think about and occasionally even have sex, the board membersnot the librarians, who are trained to guide readers of all ages, but the board members, who are notdecided his work was not appropriate.

And now those same board members cannot understand why Green has raised a ruckus about their policy.

They cannot figure out why a man who has devoted his career and his art to writing for and helping young people might take offense at the accusation that his books were bad for those same young people.

A few of the board members supporters even have suggested that Green took issue with the library boards policy just so he could sell some more books.

Yeah, right.

A guy who has sold more than 40 million books worldwide and has had several of his novels turned into successful movies really desperately needs the help of a public library in central Indiana so his work can find an audience.

No, what it comes down to is this.

Because the board members of the Hamilton East Public Library are pure of heart, they know better than John Green what young need.

They also know better than the 40 million young people who bought Greens books.

Or their parents.

Or their teachers, who have devoted years of training to understanding how young people think and live.

Or the librarians, who have undergone rigorous schooling and preparation to help them serve readers.

The library board members, untutored and untrained though they may be, are better suited to make decisions about what we read and what our children read than we or anyone else could be.

Because they are pure of heart and have nothing but the best of intentions.

As censors always do.

Go here to read the rest:
Censors, not father nor mother, know best | Commentary ... - The Statehouse File

Over the last few days, a lot of the discourse surrounding Christopher Nolans latest has been about Oppenheimers box office and other internet momentum surrounding the Barbenheimer double feature phenomenon. But theres another discourse going around online about the movie, and it has to do with Florence Pughs nude scenes.

The actress has been a huge advocate of body positivity even before choosing to go nude in order to play Jean Tatlock in Nolans latest historical epic, but her scenes in the movie, which do feature lovemaking and intimate moments where the two characters have candid conversations while undressed, have faced backlash and even censorship in some countries.

In the movie, Pugh plays Jean Tatlock, a woman whom J. Robert Oppenheimer was intimately involved with before his marriage. the two met at the University of California Berkeley, where shed been taking courses toward her psychology degree and the scientist was in his thirties and on the faculty. Oppenheimer reportedly proposed to her more than once while they were dating, but the situation didnt work out.

As portrayed in the timeline of Christopher Nolans Oppenheimer, he was allegedly Jeans rock in times of emotional turmoil, but after he married Kitty Puening, she became more of an occasional mistress. In the movie, it is shown the two had one final meeting as the Manhattan Project was amping up at Los Alamos (and historical records confirm the real-life man visited her up until 1943). In the film, he said he needed to cut back on contact. She subsequently died by suicide in 1944.

Pugh's part in the movie is a small one, but it has made a large impact.

Pugh has been candid about being asked to lose weight for roles in the past, but she has not spoken out about people commenting on her body in the movie. However, Cillian Murphy was asked about filming the emotionally raw moments with the actress. He told the Sydney Morning Herald that the scenes where Pugh chose to go topless landed the movie its R-rating (for sexuality, nudity and language), but that they made so much sense in context.

Those scenes were written deliberately. He knew that those scenes would get the movie the rating that it got. And I think when you see it, its so fucking powerful. And theyre not gratuitous. Theyre perfect. And Florence is just amazing.

After the movie premiered, a lot of discourse has surrounded these scenes. On TikTok, various videos have dissected and upacked the nudity. Elsewhere, on Twitter some people have made critical comments about Florence Pughs body appearing in the movie unclothed. Other tweets have defended the actress, but its clear the topic has become a point of conversation thats spiraled a bit out of proportion.

This isnt the first time the actress has faced backlash for her body. Last year, she chose to wear a sheer Valentino dress that subsequently went viral because she freed the nipple. While the moment will likely live for a long time in fashion history, it prompted a lot of Internet comments. Pugh later responded to the Valentino backlash, noting:

I was comfortable with my small breasts. And showing them like thatit aggravated [people] that I was comfortable.

The comment from the actress was about the pink dress she wore to the fashion show, but it would be applicable in this situation as well. Yet the conversation around the nude scenes has only grown after varying countries began censoring it.

In some countries, Florence Pughs nude scenes dont exist at all. Instead, CGI was used to cover her up in a black slip in countries like India. Theatergoers in other locations, including Bangladesh and Indonesia, also reported attending Oppenheimer screenings in which the character of Jean Tatlock was fully clothed thanks to a slip that was created to appeal to the censors in those countries.

This strategy has allowed the movie to retain ratings closer to PG-13 (or whatever the countrys rating equivalent is, U/A in India, for example) rather than the R-rating the movie received in the U.S, and it has allowed the film to screen in certain countries with higher cultural sensitivities.

But between this and the online discourse, Pughs body has taken front and center in the Oppenheimer conversation, when really its her performance that should be highlighted. In fact, a lot of performances from the Oppenheimer cast should be highlighted, from Emily Blunt's quiet struggles and inner determination and strength, to Robert Downey Jr. chewing up scenes, to Cillian Murphy's deliberate and haunted presence. It's a movie that will stick with you for long after viewing, and there are a lot of themes and philosophical conversations that are more interesting to talk about.

This backlash is just the sideshow.

See the original post here:
Florence Pugh's Oppenheimer Nude Scenes: The R-Rating, The ... - CinemaBlend

A judge on Tuesday prohibited several federal agencies and officials of the Biden administration from working with social media companies about "protected speech," a decision called "a blow to censorship" by one of the Republican officials whose lawsuit prompted the ruling, the AP reports. US District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana granted the injunction in response to a 2022 lawsuit brought by attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri. Their lawsuit alleged that the federal government overstepped in its efforts to convince social media companies to address postings that could result in vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic or affect elections. (Doughty's injunction allows several exceptions, such as informing social media companies of postings involving criminal activity, conspiracies, or threats.)

Doughty cited "substantial evidence" of a far-reaching censorship campaign. He wrote that the "evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth.' " Republican US Sen. Eric Schmitt, who was the Missouri attorney general when the lawsuit was filed, said on Twitter that the ruling was "a huge win for the First Amendment and a blow to censorship." Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said the injunction prevents the administration "from censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans" on social media.

The lawsuit accused the administration of using the possibility of favorable or unfavorable regulatory action to coerce social media platforms to squelch what it considered misinformation. The Justice Department is reviewing the injunction "and will evaluate its options in this case," said a White House official who was not authorized to discuss the case publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. "This administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections," the official said. "Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people, but make independent choices about the information they present."

Read more:
Judge Delivers What Republicans Say Is a 'Blow to Censorship' - Newser

The Pentagon updated its rules for working with filmmakers after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) inserted language into the fiscal 2023 defense policy bill. Cruz has pushed back on Beijings censorship of films.

What does it say to the world when Maverick is scared of the Chinese communists? he said in a floor speech at the time.

According to a new Defense Department document obtained by POLITICO, filmmakers who want the U.S. military to help with their projects must now pledge that they wont let Beijing alter those films.

The DOD will not provide production assistance when there is demonstrable evidence that the production has complied or is likely to comply with a demand from the Government of the Peoples Republic of China to censor the content of the project in a material manner to advance the national interest of the Peoples Republic of China, the document reads.

Hollywood and the Defense Department have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship for decades. The Pentagon has allowed filmmakers to shoot their projects on military bases, Navy ships, or other locations, and weighs in on filmmaking processes. The military benefits from positive portrayals of service members, and moviemakers benefit from authentic settings and technical expertise.

But as Chinas ruling Communist Party has developed increasingly advanced censorship and surveillance tools, countless American companies including Hollywood studios have sought to comply with Beijings demands while attempting to dodge stateside pushback.

Chinese government censors can be unpredictable and demanding. They pushed the producers of Spider-man: No Way Home to remove the Statue of Liberty, according to Puck. And they wanted the filmmakers of Lightyear to cut a short same-sex kiss, according to CNN. Neither of the studios complied, and neither film was released in mainland China.

In its new rule, the department will also weigh any verifiable information from people who arent connected to the production who indicate that the film could comply with a censorship demand.

Once DOD greenlights cooperation on a project, the agency assigns an officer to work with the filmmakers. From now on, the production company must notify that person in writing of such a censorship demand, including the terms of such demand, and whether the project has complied or is likely to comply with a demand for such censorship.

Cruz said he was pleased with the new rule.

The Chinese Communist Party spends billions on propaganda and censorship, he said. For years Hollywood helped them by censoring movies so they could be screened in China, while still working with the U.S. government to get those very same movies developed.

This new guidance implementing the legislation I authored in the SCRIPT Act will force studios to choose one or the other, and Im cautiously optimistic that theyll make the right choice and reject Chinas blackmailing.

Continue reading here:
Pentagon to filmmakers: We won't help you if you kowtow To China - POLITICO

Last year, Twitter sued India over orders to block content within the country, saying the government had applied its 2021 IT laws "arbitrarily and disproportionately." Now, India's Karnataka High Court has dismissed the plea, with a judge saying Twitter had failed to explain why it delayed complying with the new laws in the first place, TechCrunch has reported. The court also imposed a 5 million rupee ($61,000 fine) on the Elon Musk-owned firm.

"Your client (Twitter) was given notices and your client did not comply. Punishment for non-compliance is seven years imprisonment and unlimited fine. That also did not deter your client," the judge told Twitter's legal representation. "So you have not given any reason why you delayed compliance, more than a year of delay then all of sudden you comply and approach the Court. You are not a farmer but a billon dollar company."

Twitters relationship with India was fraught for much of 2021. In February, the government threatened to jail Twitter employees unless the company removed content related to protests by farmers held that year. Shortly after that, India ordered Twitter to pull tweets criticizing the countrys response to the COVID-19 pandemic. More recently, the government ordered Twitter to block tweets from Freedom House, a nonprofit organization that claimed India was an example of a country where freedom of the press is on the decline.

Those incidents put Twitter in a compromising situation. It either had to comply with government orders to block content (and face censorship criticism inside and outside the country), or ignore them and risk losing its legal immunity. In August, it complied with the orders and took down content as ordered.

The court order follows recent comments from Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, saying that India threatened to raid employees homes if it didn't comply with orders to remove posts and accounts. In a tweet, India's deputy minister for information technique called that "an outright lie" saying Twitter was "in non-compliance with the law."

Twitter filed the suit around the same time that Elon Musk started trying to wiggle out of buying Twitter. Since then, Twitter has often complied with government takedown requests most recently in Turkey, where it limited access to some tweets ahead of a tightly contested election won by incumbent president Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

See the article here:
Twitter's lawsuit over censorship in India has been dismissed - Engadget