Mediaboss Marketing

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Read the original here:
Letter to the editor: Censorship and respect - TribLIVE

According to information obtained exclusively by The Federalist, Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) introduced a bill to amend the Communications Decency Act so tech companies that restrict constitutionally protected speech may not retain liability protections. Under Section 230 of the CDA, big tech companies are generally shielded from liability for unlawful content on their platforms (such as posts engaging in trafficking or terrorism).

But Loefflers Stopping Big Tech Censorship Act would allow internet users to challenge those protections if the platform censors users free speech. It would also require tech companies to explain the practices and procedures they use to censor content, and provide an explanation to users when their content is taken down.

For too long, Big Tech has cloaked themselves in the protection of the First Amendment when convenient, while using their essentially monopolistic platforms to censor and suppress conservative speech, Loeffler said.

The bills introduction follows a similar executive order issued by President Trump last month. The Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship likewise states that companies engaging in online censorship should not receive immunity under Section 230.

In response to the executive order, the Department of Justice released recommendations for reform. The Justice Departments review included a suggestion to limit immunity for content moderation decisions to those done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation, except in certain exigent circumstances.

Loefflers bill follows a similar bill proposed by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri. Hawleys Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, of which Loeffler is a co-sponsor, would only grant Section 230 immunity to tech companies that operate in good faith toward speech on their platforms. Hawleys bill would also allow internet users to sue platforms that violate the good faith standard.

Elle Reynolds is an intern at the Federalist, and a senior at Patrick Henry College studying government and journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

The rest is here:
Exclusive: Bill Would Make Tech Companies Liable If They Squash Speech - The Federalist

A group of current and former employees of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) have criticized the museum for what they consider to be deep institutional inequities, citing recent layoffs and the censoring of a former staff member on social media. The open letter, which includes input from more than 12 former workers, calls for changes in leadership and an artist boycott.

Yesterday, some former SFMOMA staffers posted a letter to Instagram in support of Taylor Brandon, a Black staff member in the institutions communication department whose comment calling out SFMOMAs response to the recent Black Lives Matter protests on the museums Instagram page was censored. Her comment, which was posted last month, stated that museum leadership has a history of using black pain for their own financial gain. It was swiftly deleted by the museum.

SFMOMA director Neal Benezra has since made a public apology for the removal of Brandons comment. Benezra wrote in a statement quoted by ARTnews: The decision to limit comments was not consistent with our values as a museum. I take full responsibility for the museums actions. Brandon, the sole Black communications staff member at SFMOMA until April, recently launched an organization called No Neutral Alliance. Spurred in part by the current events at SFMOMA, Brandon started the alliance with the intention of holding museums responsible for their unjust treatment of Black employees, artists, and supporters.

This letter comes as cultural institutions across the country face demands from current and former employees for increased diversity and inclusion in the workplace, as well as long term commitments to examining their institutional role in perpetuating systemic racism. Earlier this week, curators at the Guggenheim Museum issued a letter to museum leadership demanding more equitable practices within the institution. Employees at the Jewish Museum in New York have also addressed a letter to museum director Claudia Gould making similar demands.

See original here:
SFMOMA employees accused the institution of racism and censorship in an open letter. - Artsy

Fox News host Tucker Carlson has blasted several big social media sites, saying their warning labels and other tactics amount to censorship of conservative voices. He warned of a slippery slope that could lead to erasing points of view from the landscape.

In his monologue Friday night on Tucker Carlson Tonight, the commentator issued a sarcastic apology about his airing of a parody travelogue video on the Seattle Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ)

I want to apologize if you found what you just saw, hateful, disgusting, [or] if you were traumatized by watching it, Carlson said. Twitters very concerned you might be. We posted that fake ad on Twitter. Twitter flagged it as potentially sensitive content and then they hid it from view.

What were they saying? They were saying, Beware, keep your kids from watching this. Whats the justification for warning people of that? We have no idea, Carlson said. Probably that its edited video. Of course, they never flag a clip from The Onion or The Daily Show. Obviously, you know why.

Carlson also talked about prior YouTube notes on his June 1 show, which discussed the widespread protests across America in the wake of George Floyds death.

It says this, The following content has been identified by the YouTube community, whatever that is, as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences, Carlson said. By offensive, they mean that the left doesnt like it. And that is the new standard. And theres only one response under that standard: Silence the person who disagrees with you. Thats why censorship is now everywhere. Its why the tech companies started censoring the president. Its why theyre getting more and more aggressive in silencing you.

Carlson then warned about the progression of such censorship.

Today, its offensive content labels, soon you know whats going to happen? Itll be erased. Its digital, its not hard to erase it, Carlson said. Well never give in, obviously. The lefts goal is to make dissent invisible and therefore irrelevant. Meanwhile, these same tech companies make it very easy for 12-year-olds to watch hardcore pornography. They have no problem with that at all.

But political views they disagree with?No, Carlson added. Gone with the Wind? Too scary. Tells you everything about what they care about and who they are.

Watch the video for the complete monologue.

Originally posted here:
Fox News Host Tucker Carlson Blasts Alleged Big Tech Censorship: By Offensive, They Mean The Left Doesnt Like It - Deadline

This letter is in reference to The Daily Oranges recent removal of a conservative columnist. Read our editor-in-chiefs response here.

Dear Editors,

I recently read on the Fox News website an article by Brian Flood about a student journalist, Adrianna San Marco, who was fired as a columnist at The Daily Orange for claiming in LifeZette that institutional racism is a myth. I know, of course, that Fox News is biased. But if the facts as stated are true, I find them very disturbing. It seems to me a clear example of censorship.

Although I believe that racism is systemic in America if by that is meant a phenomenon that is deeply rooted in American history and very widespread, San Marco is entitled to her opinion. Her firing by The Daily Orange, I understand, is not a violation of the First Amendment: The Daily Orange is not a government entity. I also know that a racially charged atmosphere has of late prevailed at Syracuse University (which, as an alumnus, saddens me) and that there are those who would be disturbed by San Marcos comments. Yet I believe that a university is a place where differing views should be open for reasoned debate because this facilitates learning.

To fire San Marco for her opinion implies that The Daily Orange is the guardian of truth or right, and that those who deviate from current orthodoxy as defined by the newspaper must be banned. To me, this seems anti-intellectual and is reminiscent of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

Would it not be better to have San Marco write a column for The Daily Orange in which she must present evidence in support of her thesis that institutional racism is not systemic in America, and an opposing column following hers that presents the evidence that institutional racism is systemic in America? This would be a learning experience for SU students. Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion on this issue.

James M. Donovan

Professor of History

Penn State Mont Alto

Syracuse University PhD, 1982

Published on June 22, 2020 at 1:23 pm

Here is the original post:
Opinion - The Daily Orange