Mediaboss Marketing

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s presence on social media and in the presidential race is set to challenge platforms' policies regarding speech and elevate the topic of censorship due to his vaccine skepticism and conspiracy theorizing.

His candidacy has already created a number of difficult situations for media outlets and tech platforms that feel pressure not to air his more controversial statements but also do not want to censor a politician.

GLAAD CEO SAYS TWITTER IS NOW 'A WEAPON AGAINST LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY'

"The tech companies are being more careful with their censorship now that Mr. Kennedy is running for office," a representative for Kennedy's campaign told the Washington Examiner. "However, he is still being censored by YouTube and perhaps more subtly on other platforms, though it is hard to tell since their algorithms are not transparent."

The representative specifically noted YouTube taking down an interview between psychologist Jordan Peterson and Kennedy. Google, which owns YouTube, said the interview had been removed for violated its rules against alleging that vaccines cause chronic side effects beyond those acknowledged by health authorities. Other interviews with Kennedy are still available on the video hosting platform.

Kennedy has long faced censorship on multiple platforms because of his commentary on vaccines. But his new candidacy has made it more complicated for social media to ban him or remove his content.

Most notably, Kennedy had been banned from Instagram in 2021 for spreading vaccine misinformation. But when he declared his candidacy in May, his account was reinstated in May, because Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, maintains a policy of not fact-checking political candidates and allowing candidates an equal platform. This policy became relevant earlier this year when former President Donald Trump was reinstated to Facebook after being banned for inciting violence at the Jan. 6 riots.

At the same time, Kennedy has found a welcome on Twitter, now owned by Elon Musk, who has sought to portray himself as a defender of free speech. The billionaire hosted a Twitter Space on June 5 with Kennedy.

Still, Kennedy has faced censorship as a candidate, especially for his views on vaccines.

ABC News, for example, took the unusual step of cutting out several segments of an interview with Kennedy in which he discussed his views on vaccines, citing "editorial judgment."

Controversy over Kennedy's commentary on vaccines exploded over the weekend after he appeared on the podcast of Joe Rogan, the popular interviewer who frequently criticizes the public health establishment. Amid the debate, Dr. Peter Hotez, a vaccine scientist, was pressured by Rogan to debate Kennedy on his podcast. Hotez declined, arguing that his appearance alongside Kennedy would legitimize his views.

"Anti-vaccine disinformation ... is now a lethal force in the United States. I offered to go on Joe Rogan but not to turn it into the Jerry Springer show with having RFK Jr. on," Hotez told MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan.

As Kennedy has clashed with social media and the news media, he has found an embrace among some conservatives who also have long complained about censorship and bias.

"Never before has a Kennedy been treated with such disrespect by media outlets, including when Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter in the 1980 primary," Dan Schneider, the vice president of the Media Research Center's Free Speech America, told the Washington Examiner. "Today's liberal-dominated platforms are working overtime to help Joe Biden secure a second term."

The media's representation of Kennedy is "superficial and lazy, resorting to easy slanders like 'conspiracy theorist,'" Kennedy's representative said.

Kennedy has consistently promoted anti-vaccine arguments through his organization Children's Health Defense, which publishes articles and newsletters against vaccination and was accused by researchers at the Observatory on Social Media at Indiana University of being the most prominent source of vaccine misinformation.

"Having a presidential candidate that's basically anti-vaccination and that's putting out potential misinformation could do a lot of damage," Dr. Davidson Hamer, a professor of global health at Boston University, told the Washington Examiner. "And not just to programs like COVID control but to routine childhood and adult immunizations."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Hamer said Kennedy's claims need to be "handled cautiously" and that social media and news outlets need to provide context to Kennedy's claims while covering him.

Kennedy, in contrast, said his knowledge gives him an edge over those covering him. "It's almost impossible for anyone to interview me on vaccines," he claimed in an interview with CNN host Michael Smerconish, noting that he has spent many years writing and researching the subject compared to the reporters who may cover him.

Original Location: RFK Jr. campaign tests limits of speech and censorship in 2024 elections

Washington Examiner Videos

Read more from the original source:
RFK Jr. campaign tests limits of speech and censorship in 2024 ... - Colorado Springs Gazette

What are we skinning? Our duty to unabashedly, and without fail, praise every man of god who comes our way. Be it from the side, the front, but most especially from the rear.

Why are we skinning it? Because it appears that many are harbouring under the illusion that 'freedom of speech' is more than just an abstract, ornamental idea. They heretically assume that it should have practical and legal implications on our social fabric.

Oh, no. Oh, yes. Some people have nothing to do with the precious time God gave them to spend on this earth.

Speaking of which, how are YOU spending your time today? I'm peeling potatoes right now, actually.

What will do with them after that's done? I'm gonna gently but firmly rub them down with some lucious, stickly olive oil. After doing that for around 20-40 minutes, I will sprinkle some salt over their shiny golden contours and pop them into the oven with a hard, determined shove.

Sounds delectable. Yes, but it doesn't stop there.

Go on... I will crouch down in a supplicating position and gaze at the golden balls of goodness as they grow into softer yet strangely, also firmer versions of themselves, glistening gloriously under the oven bulb, as if to tease me with the juicy promise of the deliciousness that's yet to come.

And then? Then, after they're ready, I'll pop them out of the oven and shove a viscous, grey-white gloop made from a blend of butter, sour cream, shredded cheddar cheese, cooked bacon bits, chopped green onions, salt, and pepper. The effort would leave me feeling exhausted, yet strangely calm...

I can imagine. Alas, I would then have to return them for the over for the final phase of their Glorious Hardening.

Then you'll eat them, right? Yes. Sharing it only with myself and the spirit who watches over me.

Michael Jackson? Don't be absurd. I'm talking about Frans Il-Budaj, of course.

Ah yes. As patriotic as your pious devotion to the Maltese potato. I bow down in deference to the majestic spud that rises up from the soil to sweeten our mouths with its honeyed glory.

Is that all you're doing today, then? It's Sunday. The day of rest. Pounding those potatoes in and out of the oven takes it out of you, you know?

Do say: "The measure of any society's democratic credentials is surely rooted in its ability to secure freedom of express-- actually wait. No. Don't say anything. Ever."

Don't say: "This censorship thing sure delivers quite the nostalgic kick, huh?"

See the original post:
This censorship thing sure delivers quite the nostalgic kick, huh? - MaltaToday

Quietly published in the government gazette on April 6th by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the new regulation amended a law whose full title is the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. It is usually referred to as the Information Technology Rules 2021 or IT Rules 2021 for short.

Clear censorship

It is clear from the amendment that this ministry has a very one-sided view of digital media ethics because it creates a fact check unit of the central government with the arbitrary power to block or suppress any information that it deems to be false.

This amendment is a draconian one and is a clear censorship, said Dhanya Rajendran, the editor-in-chief of The News Minute and chairperson of Digipup, a consortium of Indian digital news outlets. Why should the government be the judge, the jury and the executioner?

Rajendran, who closely follows the central governments attempts to control news and information, was the author of a petition against the IT Rules 2021 that was filed with the Delhi High Court.

The IT Rules 2021 is already under legal purview, she said. Several cases have been filed against it in various courts saying that the rules are unconstitutional and that they are against freedom of expression. While these cases are still pending in the supreme court, the government is now trying to sneak in this new draconian amendment.

No checks and balances

Rajendran cites last Januarys use of the IT Rules to censor a BBC documentary entitled India: The Modi Question, describing how Modi used his power base in Gujarat to become prime minister. As soon as the documentary was released, the government invoked an emergency provision in Rule 16, Part III of the IT Rules 2021 to block access to the documentary on the grounds that it lacked in objectivity.

The IT Rules 2021 has already given the government emergency blocking powers, so why did it have to bring in a new amendment? she asked. To make online censorship even easier, many observers responded.

Overzealous intermediaries

The government has created grievance appellate committees to hear appeals against takedowns of content including journalistic content by social media intermediaries, as the big social media platforms are called. But no provisions ensure that these committees are independent, says Prateek Waghre, the policy director at the Internet Freedom Foundation, a New Delhi-based NGO that defends online freedoms in India.

There is also inadequate representation of civil society and members with expertise in areas such as online trust and safety [which] will affect their ability to engage with complex issues and questions that are bound to surface, Waghre told RSF.

In Waghres view, the new amendment simply enshrines government officials as arbiters of online free speech with no checks or balances. He is also concerned about an excess of zeal on the part of the platforms.

Given the lack of clarity and prevalence of an environment which has low tolerance for dissent, intermediaries may be overzealous in their interpretation of these additional due diligence requirements from the government, Waghre said.

Geeta Seshu, the founding editor of the Free Speech Collective, an online publication aimed at promoting free speech and the right to dissent, called the amendment part of the larger attempt to chip away at the freedom of online news media sites and social media platforms, which began with the IT Rules, 2021.

Arbitrary process

Seshu told RSF: It not only seeks to falsify published news that goes through a rigorous process of verification but also debunks and discredits it in the eyes of the public. Moreover, the process to determine this is arbitrary and opaque. The censor who stands over the shoulder of news sites and arbitrarily decides what is fake and what is bona fide will have a devastating chilling effect on press freedom.

Rajendran hopes the amendment will be struck down. This amendment has no place in a democracy, she said. As Orwell said, The really frightening thing about totalitarianism is not that it commits atrocities but that it attacks the concept of objective truth.

See the original post here:
As Modi visits Washington, DC, the Indian government is preparing ... - Reporters sans frontires

June 21,2023

Washington, D.C.U.S. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Chair Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) today called for President Biden to push Indias Prime Minister Narendra Modi to eliminate major barriers to U.S. trade and investment during the upcoming state visit this week.

The United States and India share a close partnership, grounded in shared democratic values and strong people-to-people ties. At the same time, while Indian businesses continue to benefit from access to the U.S. market, India maintains numerous trade and investment barriers that harm U.S. producers across many sectors of our economy, including agriculture, manufacturing, and services, Crapo and Wyden wrote, in a letter to President Biden.

Among the challenges the senators highlighted were Indias barriers to U.S. agricultural goods, including apples, blueberries, cherries, chickpeas, lentils, potatoes, wheat and dairy products, censorship of online speech and data, and disregard for the protection of American intellectual property.

Read the full letter here or below:

Dear President Biden:

We write to you ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modis official state visit to urge you to prioritize the elimination of Indias significant barriers to U.S. trade and investment on the Indian subcontinent.

The United States and India share close partnership, grounded in shared democratic values and strong people-to-people ties. At the same time, while Indian businesses continue to benefit from access to the U.S. market, India maintains numerous trade and investment barriers that harm U.S. producers across many sectors of our economy, including agriculture, manufacturing, and services.

In particular, India unreasonably maintains extremely high tariffs and burdensome licensing requirements; administers purported agricultural safety measures that lack any scientific justification; and consistently fails to provide adequate protection to intellectual property (IP) rights. As a result, bilateral trade remains limited, particularly relative to the size of our economies and populations, and American farmers, workers, and businesses are denied opportunities that we extend to Indian interests.

We support your Administrations efforts to strengthen our economic engagement with India, including through the U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum (TPF) and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). Yet these high-level discussions have not resulted in the elimination of major distortive trade and investment barriers or even deterred India from imposing new barriers. Your meetings with Prime Minister Modi provide an opportunity to press India for results.

To that end, we are highlighting ongoing trade challenges in the following areas, which need to be resolved in order to make progress in the U.S.-India economic relationship:

In addition to high tariff rates, U.S. farmers face a number of significant headwinds in the Indian market. For instance, U.S. wheat farmers exporting to India and third markets are negatively impacted by Indias domestic subsidies. We appreciate the steps that the Administration has taken to quantify and hold India accountable for its level of distorting subsidies, including working with allies to file counter-notifications at the World Trade Organization (WTO) that will bring much-needed transparency to the scope and negative impacts of Indias domestic price supports for certain programs. We note that these distortive price support practices are ongoing and longstanding, and we urge you to consider pursuing a formal dispute settlement case against India.

We also remain concerned about Indias regulatory practices. India has, in a number of instances, imposed sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) trade restrictions, which are not based on science and discriminate against U.S. growers. India also utilizes licensing regimes and technical regulatory practices and labeling requirements to hamper U.S. agricultural trade. For instance, Indias onerous regulatory requirements on dairy imports that prevent dairy farmers and processors from fully accessing the Indian market. For over two decades, India has limited imports of dairy products through a number of non-science based restrictions, including feed restrictions. India imposes a series of animal dietary restrictions, certification requirements, and facility registration obstacles that act together to limit access to the Indian market. Separately, Indias restrictions on biotechnology, and their slow and opaque approval processes, must also be addressed.

The U.S.-India trade and investment relationship holds significant potential for Americans and Indians alike. But unlocking this potential requires diligent and concrete actions to resolve these persistent trade and investment challenges. We urge you to raise these issues with Prime Minister Modi this week and work urgently to achieve progress in the U.S.-India trade relationship.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We stand ready to assist as needed.

Sincerely,

The rest is here:
Ranking Member's News | Newsroom | The United States Senate ... - Hearing | Hearings | The United States Senate Committee on Finance

The claim that college students censor viewpoints with which they disagree is now common. Versions of this claim include the falsehoods that students shut down most invited speakers to campuses, reject challenging ideas and oppose conservative views.

Such cynical distortions dominate discussions of higher education today, misinform the public and threaten both democracy and higher education.

Indeed, politicians in states such as Florida, Texas and Ohio argue that a so-called free speech crisis on college campuses justifies stronger government control over what gets taught in universities.

Since 2020, numerous state legislatures have attempted to censor forms of speech on campuses by citing exaggerations about students and their studies. Passing laws to ban certain kinds of speech or ideas from college campuses is no way to promote true free speech and intellectual diversity. The most common targets of such censorship are programs that discuss race, gender, sexuality and other forms of multiculturalism.

My concerns over public discourse about higher education extend from my book on popular misinformation about universities and why it threatens democracy. In it, I show that many negative perceptions of students and universities rest on factual distortions and exaggerations.

The character of public debates about higher education is important. Millions of Americans rely on a healthy system of university education for professional and personal success. Rampant cynicism about higher education, leading to declines in public support for it, only undermines their pursuits.

Based on my research, I offer alternative ways to frame debates about higher education. They can lead to discussions that are more constructive and accurate while better protecting fundamental American values such as free speech and democracy.

The idea that college students are hostile to opposing viewpoints is false. Pundits and media personalities have promoted this falsehood aggressively. Such figures have benefited, politically or financially, from sensationalism about a college free speech crisis.

In opinion polls, college students typically express stronger support for free speech and diverse viewpoints than other groups. Partisan organizations often cherry-pick that data to make it seem otherwise. But poll results tell only part of the story about college campuses today.

Several thousand institutions make up U.S. higher education. The system includes hundreds of thousands of students from different backgrounds. College campuses are often more demographically and intellectually diverse than surrounding communities.

Judgments about higher education based on sweeping generalizations about college students conflict with the full realities of campus life. A wider range of perspectives, including from students themselves, can enrich debates about university education.

Universities protect free speech more effectively than do other parts of society. They dont do so perfectly, but more effectively.

Universities are major centers for the study of the First Amendment, the free press, human rights, cultural differences, international diplomacy, conflict resolution and more. Many institutions require students to take basic speech and writing courses that enhance their skill in argument and debate.

Manufactured outrage about college students who protest invited speakers fuels sensationalism about free speech on campuses. Despite occasional disruptions over bigoted speakers, universities offer numerous forums for free speech, open debate and intellectual diversity.

Just one large university holds thousands of classes, meetings, performances and other events on a daily basis. People freely express their views and pursue new ideas in those settings. Now multiply that reality by several thousand different institutions.

Debates over free speech in higher education can be improved by acknowledging the many forums in which people speak freely every day.

For the past several years, many state legislatures have promoted the falsehood that universities are hostile to various ideas. The most commonly cited examples are conservative ideas, traditional expressions of patriotism and great works of Western literature.

The notion of hostility to such ideas on college campuses has surfaced in numerous bills that create new forms of state interference in education. Thirty-five pieces of legislation banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs in colleges have been introduced in state legislatures. So far, three of them have been signed into law, while four are pending final legislative approval.

Tenure for faculty members, which protects independent thought, is also under assault in states such as Florida and Texas. Politicians in those states justify ending tenure protections by claiming that professors teach students to censor free speech.

Such rising government interference creates a genuine threat to free speech on college campuses and in society beyond. A historic increase in state censorship, which began with higher education, has spilled over into censorship of materials about race, gender, sexuality and multiculturalism in K-12 schools and public libraries.

Advocacy organizations like the ACLU and the American Association of University Professors have condemned this censorship. So have numerous conservative leaders.

Informed scrutiny of university policies and what faculty members teach is always welcome. But cynical distortions have fueled anti-democratic censorship of universities, not constructive efforts to improve them.

The ability of citizens to exercise academic freedom is not only vital in education. Its also training for democracy.

Academic freedom includes the freedom to attend a university of ones choice. The freedom to learn what one chooses in that university. The freedom of an institution to offer a wide range of subject matters to students. And the freedom to teach or conduct research without political interference.

These freedoms are not reserved for Ivy League universities. U.S. higher education includes state schools and community colleges that serve middle- and working-class communities. Those institutions are the backbone of many professions, from health care and technology to engineering and education.

The quality of public debate over free speech in higher education matters. Government interference with colleges does not punish elites. It rewards deeply cynical views of higher education and restricts a freedom that should be available to all Americans.

Follow this link:
Saying that students embrace censorship on college campuses is incorrect -- here's how to discuss the issue more ... - The Conversation