Mediaboss Marketing

The Week in Patriarchy

A principal was fired after a Renaissance art class was shown David in the latest example of the states censorship crusade

Sat 25 Mar 2023 09.00 EDT

Ah, the Renaissance. A period that saw the growth of intellectual reason, the flowering of art and culture, and a lot of very hardcore pornography.

Such is the opinion of aggrieved parents of kids at Tallahassee classical school in Florida, anyway. Their sixth-graders (who are aged around 11-12) were shown a picture of Michelangelos sculpture of David during a Renaissance art class. Fairly normal, one might think particularly for a school that advertises itself as providing a classical education. Nope: a firing offence. One parent called the sculpture pornographic and so much outrage ensued that the principal of the school, Hope Carrasquilla, was forced out.

This may seem completely bonkers to many of us but, Carrasquilla, the former principal, told the Huffington Post that she wasnt entirely surprised by the reaction. Every once in a while you get a parent who gets upset about Renaissance art. Indeed, normally, a letter is sent out to parents of students warning them that their kiddos are going to see a picture of one of the worlds most famous sculptures. (I believe this is known as a trigger warning, something I thought the right were vehemently against.) This year, however, due to a series of miscommunications, the letter wasnt sent out, exacerbating parental anger.

According to Slate, who interviewed Barney Bishop III, the school board chair responsible for forcing Carrasquilla out of her job, three parents were behind the bulk of the David-related outrage. Three parents. Three! But the number of angry parents doesnt matter, because, according to Bishop, parents are always right. Parental rights are supreme, and that means protecting the interests of all parents, whether its one, 10, 20 or 50, Bishop said to the Tallahassee Democrat.

Bishop, by the way, denies that Carrasquilla was solely forced out because she showed the kids Michelangelos David. He wasnt able to fully explain why she was forced out, however, but in his interview with Slate he reiterated his idea that the parents are always right. The rights of parents, that trumps the rights of kids, he told Slate. Teachers are the experts? Teachers have all the knowledge? Are you kidding me? I know lots of teachers that are very good, but to suggest they are the authorities, youre on better drugs than me. Which raises the question: what kind of drugs is Bishop on?

This David-related drama might be mildly amusing if it were restricted to one dysfunctional school. Alas, its just the latest example of a terrifying lurch towards censorship and authoritarianism in Florida. Governor Ron DeSantis, who has been described as the Education Governor is on a censorship crusade and his first major battleground has been schools. DeSantis wants to completely reshape K-12 and higher education in the state and, so far, hes been getting his way. Floridas Republican-dominated legislature has already passed a number of laws limiting how gender, sexuality and race can be taught. Now the state is trying to limit sex education with a draft law that would ban schools teaching about menstrual cycles before the sixth grade. Give it a few years and showing a child a picture of Michelangelos David will be a criminal offence, punishable by firing squad.

Im only half-joking about that last bit. Because DeSantis isnt as erratic as Donald Trump, because hes well spoken and went to Yale and Harvard, I think there has been a tendency in some quarters to minimize the dangers he poses, to think hes not as scary as Trump. Think this at your peril. DeSantis shouldnt be compared to Trump he should be compared to Hungarys far-right leader, Viktor Orbn, who is much beloved by US conservatives. Orbn has put an authoritarian playbook in place that DeSantis appears to be following: its widely thought, for example, that Floridas dont say gay law was modeled on Hungarys anti-LGBTQ+ laws. If you want to see where this leads, Hungary has a lot to teach us, the New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote in a recent piece. Those lessons are not pleasant.

A police station in Kent, England, is facing backlash after posting a sign which listed a number of non-emergency inquiries theyd prefer people to report online. Among those? Domestic abuse and rape. Theyve now taken it down and made a lot of noise about how they take investigations of domestic abuse, rape and sexual assault extremely seriously. This doesnt come at a great time for Londons Metropolitan police: a landmark report that came out this week concluded that the Met is guilty of institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia.

One online review describes it as feeling like a warm pacifier.

In other China-based news, a city in Jiangxi has launched a matchmaking platform as part of a province-wide initiative to boost the marriage rate.

A rare bit of good news.

But dont panic too much. The Guardian reports that Claire Knight of Cancer Research UK, which funded the study, said the risk was small and should not discourage most people from taking the pill.

Another 25% of Black women aged 25-34 also said they were sent home from work because of their hair. The survey was commissioned by LinkedIn and Dove.

A new ad campaign featured slogans like show us your Regina.

Is peanut butter a liquid? The correct answer to this is: No! well, technically speaking, maybe but nobody normal would consider it a liquid so, no, it isnt. The USs TSAs answer is: Yes so dont you dare bring it on a plane unless its 3.4 oz or less. What a country, eh? Peanut butter on planes is strictly policed and yet, in many states, you can bring a gun into a grocery store. Absolutely nuts.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

View original post here:
In Florida, parents are always right even when they think a Michelangelo is porn - The Guardian

Bestselling author Anthony Horowitz has said he is against tampering with the works of dead writers, amid an ongoing row over sensitivity readers.

In recent months, texts by late authors such as Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie and James Bond creator Ian Fleming have been found to have been updated by their publishers and literary estates.

A number of prominent writers and public figures have spoken against the practice, with Sir Philip Pullman suggesting it would be better to let the books go out of print.

Appearing at Oxford Literary Festival, Horowitz, the bestselling author of books including the Alex Rider series as well as three Bond novels, reportedly said he believed it was better for children to read books that might be deemed offensive than none at all.

The Times also claimed he said Dahls publishers had shot themselves in the foot with the updates, which involved removing descriptions of characters as fat and ugly.

They really shot themselves in the foot with their attempts to bowdlerise it, he said, calling the changes sacrilege.

Im basically opposed to tampering with the work of dead writers, he said. They cant defend themselves. It seems to me that you should take the work, judge it and be aware of why we no longer share these opinions, or this view of the world. Rather than censor, cut and take out stuff.

He later added: Whatever your view of the book, even if it is something considered offensive or trivial or trite, it is better than not reading. As long as they read something.

(Getty Images)

Following a backlash, including unprecedented criticism from Queen Consort Camilla, Puffin said it would retain the new versions of Dahls books but also offer original editions.

An earlier statement had said the changes were made to ensure that the books could continue to be enjoyed by all today.

The Independent has contacted Horowitzs representatives and Puffin for comment.

Horowitz has previously complained about sensitivity readings of his own work.

My publishers have been more nervous in the editing of my books, he claimed in an interview last year. Issues of levels of violence, language and attitudes do get more closely examined. Ive had some of my books read for sensitivity. But thats the 21st century. Peoples attitudes have changed and what didnt offend people 40 years ago does now.

Asked about how he approaches the character of 007, he remarked: When Im writing the books I always hear Sean Connery and see Daniel Craig. I am perfectly happy to defend Bond. My Bond is a man of the Fifties and Sixties, so he lives by a different moral code to the one we have now.

I refute the suggestion that he is chauvinistic or sexist or misogynistic. I think he treats women very well in the books and has great respect for them, yet I admit he has some of the attitudes that we now would not celebrate in the 21st century, but thats because the books were written in the 20th century. It was a different time.

More here:
Anthony Horowitz says Roald Dahl publishers shot themselves in the foot over censorship row - The Independent

From the America Library Association:

CHICAGO The American Library Association (ALA) today released new data documenting*1,269 demands to censor library books and resources in 2022, the highest number of attempted book bans since ALA began compiling data about censorship in libraries more than 20 years ago. The unparalleled number of reported book challenges in 2022 nearly doubles the 729 challenges reported in 2021.

A record2,571 unique titles were targeted for censorship, a 38% increase from the 1,858 unique titles targeted for censorship in 2021. Of those titles, the vast majority were written by or about members of the LGBTQIA+ community and people of color.

Of the reported book challenges, 58% targeted books and materials in school libraries, classroom libraries or school curricula; 41% of book challenges targeted materials in public libraries.

The prevalent use of lists of books compiled by organized censorship groups contributed significantly to the skyrocketing number of challenges and the frequency with which each title was challenged. Of the overall number of books challenged,90% were part of attempts to censor multiple titles. Of the books challenged, 40% were in cases involving 100 or more books

Prior to 2021, the vast majority of challenges to library resources only sought to remove or restrict access to a single book.

A book challenge is a demand to remove a book from a librarys collection so that no one else can read it. Overwhelmingly, were seeing these challenges come from organized censorship groups that target local library board meetings to demand removal of a long list of books they share on social media, said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of ALAs Office for Intellectual Freedom. Their aim is to suppress the voices of those traditionally excluded from our nations conversations, such as people in the LGBTQIA+ community or people of color.

Each attempt to ban a book by one of these groups represents a direct attack on every persons constitutionally protected right to freely choose what books to read and what ideas to explore, said Caldwell-Stone. "The choice of what to read must be left to the reader or, in the case of children, to parents. That choice does not belong to self-appointed book police.

ALA will unveil its highly anticipated list of the top 10 most challenged books in the U.S. on Monday, April 24 during National Library Week, along with its full State of America's Libraries Report. The theme ofNational Library Week 2023,There's More to the Story, focuses on the essential services and programming that libraries offer through and beyond books.

ALA President Lessa Kanani'opua Pelayo-Lozada said, Every day professional librarians sit down with parents to thoughtfully determine what reading material is best suited for their childs needs. Now, many library workers face threats to their employment, their personal safety, and in some cases, threats of prosecution for providing books to youth they and their parents want to read.

ALA began documenting the book challenges reported to us over two decades ago because we want to shine a light on the threat of censorship facing readers and entire communities. Book challenges distract from the core mission of libraries: to provide access to information. That includes access to information and services for learners of all ages, homeschooling parents, job seekers, new computer users, budding readers, entrepreneurs, veterans, tax filers and amateur genealogists just to name a few.

While a vocal minority stokes the flames of controversy around books, the vast majority of people across the nation are using life-changing services that public and school libraries offer. Our nation cannot afford to lose the library workers who lift up their communities and safeguard our First Amendment freedom to read.

Polling conducted by bipartisan research firms in 2022 showed that voters across the political spectrum oppose efforts to remove books from libraries and have confidence in libraries to make good decisions about their collections. To galvanize support for libraries and respond to the surge in book challenges and other efforts to suppress access to information, in 2022 ALA launchedUnite Against Book Bans, a national initiative to empower readers everywhere to stand together in the fight against censorship.The coalition will mark its first anniversary during National Library Week.

* ALA compiles data on book challenges from reports filed with its Office for Intellectual Freedom by library professionals in the field and from news stories published throughout the United States. Because many book challenges are not reported to the ALA or covered by the press, the 2022 data compiled by ALA represents only a snapshot of book censorship throughout the year. A challenge to a book may be resolved in favor of retaining the book in the collection, or it can result in a book being restricted or withdrawn from the library.

Originally posted here:
'You have the right to choose what you read': Demands to censor library books reach record high, librarians push back - KHQ Right Now

A divided House on Friday approved legislation that would mandate that schools make library catalogs and curriculums public, and that they obtain parental consent before honoring a students request to change their gender-identifying pronouns, part of a Republican effort to wring political advantage from a raging debate over contentious social issues. New York Times

- - -

I support the passage of the Parents Bill of Rights because I believe every parent should have the right to be involved in their childs school, whether through censoring curriculum, banning books, or blocking kids from choosing their own pronouns.

The Parents Bill of Rights will mandate that teachers post their full curriculum online so parents can root out the harmful content corrupting our childrens young mindslike sex ed, the scientific method, and the Civil Rights Movement. This is also the only way to stop teachers from carrying out their insidious fixation on hiding LGBTQ+ propaganda in school. A French teacher has no business telling kids that its normal and acceptable for adjectives to be gender-fluid.

Its shocking what the schools are trying to force-feed our children, even the youngest ones. In my district, kindergarteners spent a whole morning studying spelling by having a wedding for the letters Q and U. Newsflash: some of us believe that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, not between a consonant and a vowel. Some of us dont want our kids to see Q in a wedding dress and get the idea that its okay for letters to dress in drag.

The Parents Bill of Rights will force public schools to offer at least two parent-teacher conferences a year. Sure, most schools already provide that, but this law is really going to snap the few stragglers back in line. In addition to the conferences, this bill will grant parents full access to the whole school at anytime. (This proviso was put in place because I was once denied entry to a locked janitors closet when I simply wanted to inspect it for hidden books about Kwanzaa.)

Perhaps most importantly, the Parents Bill of Rights says that schools must make their detailed budget available because, for all we know, our schools could be spending money on diversity, equity, and inclusion, when what most parents want are homogeny, inequity, and exclusion. Schools could be spending money on making safe spaces when what we actually want for our kids are spaces filled with sharp objects, spiders, and disrespect for personal pronouns.

You may say, Wait, arent school budgets already regularly posted online, as well as emailed to parents, reported on in the local newspaper, and discussed at length in board meetings that are open to the public and can be attended in person, via Zoom, or by CB radio? Yes, they are, but its not my fault that I like to attend only the part of the meeting when parents yell in unison about critical race theory, something I do not understand but am definitely against.

The Parents Bill of Rights additionally guarantees that schools must provide parents with a list of all the books in the library, which will be extremely helpful to me because I have yet to figure out how to use the schools already available online card catalog. I need that list so I can demand that the librarian remove and burn all the books with authors whose last names I cant pronounce and also because I know they must be hiding those Kwanzaa books somewhere.

Look, schools are locking us parents out, and not just because of that scene some of us made at the Scholastic Book Fair about the lack of fair and balanced science books that present the flat earth theory. The truth is, even though we can schedule parent-teacher meetings anytime we want, even though schools are constantly begging for parent volunteers to come to campus and get involved, and even though I personally have received so many texts, emails, newsletters, parent portal messages, and Remind App push notifications from my kids school last week that my phone melted, we have absolutely no idea what is happening in our kids classrooms.

Our only choice is to support the Parents Bill of Rights so that we can move forward, forget about the schools, and start needlessly targeting a different public institution once it is passed.

Read the original here:
We Need the Parents BIll of Rights Act So We Can Censor Curriculum and Ban Books - McSweeney's Internet Tendency

Last December, Elon Musk, with the help of Matt Taibbi, Lee Fang and several other journalists, began releasing a series of internal documents from Twitters operations during the 2020 election and pandemic. The documents confirmed what many conservatives already knew deep down: that Twitter was actively suppressing free speech on behalf of the federal government.

Matt Taibbis two latest Twitter Files drops revealed that Stanford played a direct role in this gross violation of online free speech. Emails revealed that the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) actively collaborated with Twitter to suppress information they knew was factually true. Taibbis investigation revealed that Stanfords Virality Project recommends that multiple platforms take action even against stories of true vaccine side effects and true posts which could fuel hesitancy.

The project succeeded in getting big tech companies to take down about 35% of the content they flagged. They reviewed content en masse from almost every major social media company: Twitter, Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Medium, TikTok, and Pinterest were all monitored by SIO. The questionable censorship decisions by the group all seemed to go in one directionshutting down the now-vindicated Dr. Scott Atlas and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, while taking direct guidance from Anthony Fauci about the supposed falsehood of the lab leak theory.

Snippets of the Stanford-related parts of Taibbis thread are below:

In short, the Stanford Internet Observatorys Virality Project had countless peoplemostly Stanford studentsreporting millions of Twitter posts that didn't comply with their standards. Even posts that were factually true faced censorship if they didnt conform to the subjective whims of SIO officials.

The evidence points to a para-governmental fusion of universities, social media companies, and the federal government, all working to censor free speech. We at the Review take Stanfords actions to suppress speech very seriously. Stanford cannot be allowed to sweep this gross violation of fundamental freedoms under the rug. The University must answer for their actions.

Taibbi called the SIO-Twitter relationship, the ultimate example of the absolute fusion of state, corporate, and civil society organizations and dubbed it the Censorship Industrial Complex. Others refer to this phenomenon as the cathedral. With the rules of online discourse being nebulous at best, without a serious investigation into what happened at Stanford, it is doubtless that a sinister combination of universities, media and government can and will take advantage of the confusion and flippantly restrict speech again if given the chance.

It appears Stanfords Virality Project took issues with anyone who was an enemy of the states, and more explicitly Faucis, narrative about the coronavirus and subsequent vaccines. Any posts that brought up the lab leak theory (now the primary COVID origin thesis), were dubbed by SIO as keen to foment distrust in Faucis expert guidance and in American public health officials and institutions. People who dared question the Fauci-manufactured status quo narrative were censored. SIO even branded reports of vaccinated individuals contracting Covid-19 anyway and natural immunity, as troublesome violations of disinformation policies.

If this is truly what the term disinformation means, perhaps we should no longer define it in terms of what is and isnt true. Instead when we hear the word we should think of it as anything that isnt in the federal governments formal narrative: thought crime. The Virality Project stated that because the post-vaccine death of a Virginia woman named Drene Keyes inspired anti-vaccine comments, it became a disinformation event. They warned against people asking questions, alleging it was a tactic commonly used by spreaders of misinformation. Doubting, or even just examining, the prevailing narratives on COVID got citizens repressed by a para-governmental entity.

However, this is not about Stanfords attempt to combat falsity, misinformation, disinformation or whatever word you want to use to describe harmful lies. This is about Stanford suppressing free speech by preventing any views other than their own from being sharedeven when they knew, by their own admission, that they were true. People did get sick from vaccine side-effects. Young and healthy people did die from myocarditis after being vaccinated.

The Stanford Internet Observatory and Project Virality wanted to cover that upnot because it wasnt true it was and they knew it. They covered up the truth because they wanted to preserve their narrative. The truth would exacerbate distrust in Dr. Fauci, too much for SIO. When given the choice between truth and Fauci, Stanford chose Fauci.

These projects operate with seemingly super-government authority, and yet, even in the cases of supposed NGO status, they undoubtedly find their way back to some government branch. Renee DiResta, through SIO, has done work with DARPA (the Department of Defenses Research center) and Global Engagement Center (a state department disinformation research center).

During a Stanford Cyber Policy Center lecture in 2019, she was introduced by Alex Stamos as having worked for the CIA. Hailed as a warrior against Russian misinformation, it would appear that DiResta and Stanford are in fact working with the federal government to censor American citizens. Of course, in the style of a totalitarian, the SIO encouraged the targeting of specific individuals, not posts.

English rugby player and former Cambridge Captain Rod Bishop was flagged by a DiResta-adjacent project, Hamilton 68, for Russian Influence in one of the projects more glaring blunders. Nonsense, he replied, Im supporting Ukraine.

Nonetheless, projects like SIOs project Virality are deeply insidious and set a dangerous precedent for the future of online discourse. Stanfords hand in them and the extent to which they censored important, relevant and true information is deeply disappointing and troubling. When an extra-governmental institution acts with impunity against the First Amendment rights of Americans and suppresses information that resulted in the deaths of American citizens, one might expect a dark and shady underground alliance of evil to be behind it. In 2023, it seems all roads lead to Palo Alto.

With free speech on campus recently under attack at the law school, the university censoring faculty that wouldnt go along with the lockdown narrative, and now their role in censorship on social media, it is fair to question if the winds of freedom still blow at Stanford. It is up to the University to take concrete steps to reassert that freedom of speech is a bedrock principle.

Follow this link:
Stanford's Dark Hand in Twitter Censorship - Stanford Review