Mediaboss Marketing

(NEW YORK) A sweeping legislative proposal in Ohio that takes aim at gender studies, critical race theory, diversity and inclusion initiatives, tenure, and faculty hiring review amounts to the most draconian and censorious restrictions on public colleges and universities in the country, PEN America said today.

The latest version of SB 83 at 94 pages, the longest educational gag order ever proposed contains a dizzying array of censorious restrictions on public universities and their faculty and staff. Among its provisions, the bill would ban universities from taking a position on any of a series of controversial and specified concepts, including diversity, equity and inclusion, foreign policy, climate policies, allyship, social justice, or even marriage. It would forbid professors to inculcate in students any socialpoint of view language far broader and more restrictive than the typical gag order around the country. It would weaken faculty tenure protections and ban trainings on so-called divisive concepts relating to race and gender. It would require broad guarantees of intellectual diversity in all aspects of coursework and curricula, with faculty and staff subject to mandatory discipline if an administrator determines their exercise of professional judgment has been misused to constrict intellectual diversity. And it would impose mandatory discipline on students found to have interfered with intellectual diversity rights.

SB 83 would not only legalize censorship in Ohios public universities, but would mandate it, said Jeremy C. Young, Freedom to Learn program director. SB 83 is the longest and most complicated educational gag order ever proposed, and one of the most censorious. It contains a rogues gallery of censorship aimed at faculty, administrators, and for the first time in an educational gag order explicitly at students. And it represents an extraordinary and unnecessary level of micromanagement of a universitys affairs.

The reach of this proposed legislation is breathtaking. It could be used to punish a university hospitality program for advertising itself as a wedding venue for same-sex couples. A professor could be disciplined for misusing their professional judgment by recommending a course reading an administrator dislikes, or for suggesting to students the point of view that racism is wrong. Even students could be punished for expressing their beliefs in a way that an administrator decides interferes with someone elses view. Such a law would interfere with every aspect of university life and create a pervasive chilling effect across the entire campus community. Ohio legislators rejected two far less draconian educational gag orders last year. They should make it three in a row.

About PEN America

PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide. We champion the freedom to write, recognizing the power of the word to transform the world. Our mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible. Learn more at pen.org.

Contact: Suzanne Trimel, [emailprotected], 201-247-5057

See the rest here:
"Breathtaking" Ohio Bill Would Mandate Censorship in State ... - PEN America

The CRTC has raised some hackles with an innocuous-looking Myths and Facts explainer on the Online Streaming Act (formerly Bill C-11), which recently received Royal Assent after a bumpy two-year road to enactment. The CRTC explainers copy could have been lifted from one of Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguezs press conferences, casually eliding some of the real sticking points of the bill, which even domain experts are confused about.

One allegation that the government still has yet to answer to it is how tasking the CRTC with a mandate to regulate platforms does not amount to regulating the creators who rely on those platforms to disseminate their content. (It doesnt help that an amendment intended to shield user-generated content from regulation proposed by the Senate was promptly scrubbed out when the bill returned to the House of Commons.) Yet, right in the first myth addressed the CRTC repeats this doublespeak: We will only regulate broadcasters, including providers of both traditional broadcasting services and online streaming services. But you cant regulate platforms without also regulating the content creators who publish on them. One way or another, C-11 empowers the government to wield a direct hand in the content we consume.

The future of what life looks like under the Online Streaming Act is a question of how the CRTC will conduct itself since all of the nuts and bolts of implementation have been left to the regulating body and Cabinet, which will create a policy framework to guide it. The bill delegates the ability to define what Canadian and Indigenous content is, conditions of service for online services, and to host consultations on who should contribute, how much, and how. Suffice it to say that there will be a long and tedious path ahead before we have a sense of how C-11 will actually function.

Broadly, there are two possible futures under C-11 that we can imagine, one humdrum and probable and the other disquieting and less likely.

The first is that the CRTCs projected timeline of nine rounds of consultations over the next three years will be dominated by legacy media groups who possess both the budget and organizational heft to dedicate to multiple trips sitting in stuffy committee rooms in Gatineau, with occasional piping-in of smaller creators. They will conclude with milquetoast platitudes about the importance of diversity, representation, and accessibility. Sensitive to the controversy surrounding the bill and accusations of ideological bias, the CRTC will regulate with a light touch.

Still, by 2026 your YouTube home feed will become peppered with glossy yet suspiciously on-the-nose campaigns promoting diversity, intersectionality, and whatever other zeitgeisty terms du jour fit into the Canadian bureaucratic apparatus self-concept. Individual creators will occasionally get some attention for pointing out suspicious irregularities in their stats and views, but because big tech platforms Google and Facebook opt to mostly play ball with the CRTC, C-11 will live as something like maple-leaf red tinted glasses on an otherwise normal digital landscape.

The second, admittedly less likely but certainly not impossible scenario, is more ominous. The same legacy-media-dominated consultations take place. The CRTC is energized and influenced by its expanded mandate as well as the governments clear vendetta against Big Tech and zest for regulation in the name of combatting misinformation. It opts to flex its muscle with a thick conception of Canadian content that clearly prioritizes government-friendly messages and sets out to enhance the discoverability of only that content that fits within its ideological priors. Edgier Canadian creators like Gad Saad and Jordan Peterson are effectively shadow-banned. After all, discoverability is a zero-sum game, and content can only be prioritized at the expense of demoting other content. Even less polarizing figures like Hub Dialogues guest J.J. McCullough become harder and harder for new audiences to find.

Unfortunately, there is some evidence that the CRTC decision-makers bear some heavy-handed impulses, beyond their evasive communiqu.

Take, for example, the CRTCs decision to consider a complaint from EGALE that has asked that Fox News be removed from a list of foreign broadcasters approved for carriage on cable. In its open letter, the LGBTQ advocacy group cited inflammatory and offensive comments made by the now-departed Tucker Carlson on his famously incendiary program.

And since the CRTC takes its directives, formally and informally, from the government, the Liberals posture and increasing proclivity for censorship are relevant to consider as well. On this front, a recent Parliamentary Question asked by Conservative MP Dean Allison reveals a distinctly muzzled modus operandi. Over the last three years, government has made over 200 attempts to silence social media, including one centred on Sun columnist Lorne Gunters reporting on a new proposal at the Immigration and Refugee Board to allow refugee claims based on grounds of intersectionality. Gunter was critical of the proposal, arguing that it would allow a wooly and lax standard for would-be refugees. Whatever you think of that argument, its undeniably creepy to read that as a result of it, the IRB approached Facebook and Twitter, demanding that the column be taken down because it risked undermining public confidence in the independence of the Board.

Neither are concomitant with innovation and growth in the Canadian digital landscape. As we wait and see what C-11 reality we are entering into, be vigilant about what you see in your timelines.

Go here to see the original:
Joanna Baron: More myths than facts: Unpacking the government's ... - The Hub

Its been a long two decades of dwindling freedoms in Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan. But his control is teetering on a ledge. The election couldnt have come at a worse time for Erdogan, with his questionable response to the earthquakes and soaring inflation winning him a fresh batch of critics. Last Sunday Turkey headed to the polls. And the winner was nobody. With neither former Index Tyrant of the Year Erdogan nor opposition leader Kemal Kldarolu reaching the 50% threshold needed to win the presidency, its back to the voting booths again.In the week before the election, PEN Norways Turkey adviser shared a stack of interviews with Index, which made for sombre bedtime reading. Eleven representatives from the countrys major political parties discussed the state of free expression or lack thereof whichJemimah Steinfeld wrote about.In one interview, Zeynep Esmeray zadikti,who is a candidate for MP from Turkeys Worker Party, wrote about the silencing of the LGBTQ+ community, hoping that if she as a trans woman is elected, it will be an important step: In Turkey, the LGBTI+ community cannot use their freedom of expression in any way and are criminalised. Rainbow-themed products are banned, rainbow flags are seized in protests, Pride parades and indoor meetings are banned. Associations and organisations working for LGBTI+ rights are targeted and threatened.We could fill a whole magazine with stories about Turkeys rocky relationship with free expression, starting with the repression of LGBTQ+ rights and Kurdish communities, and moving onto the scores of journalists who have been locked up. In our latest issue, our Turkey contributing editor Kaya Gen took a deep dive into one example of a newsroom going against the propaganda-led mainstream,Medyascope. If you want up-to-the-minute news on whats going on in Turkey, their website isa good place to start(thank goodness for Google translate for those of us who havent yet set our Duolingo to Turkish).In the run-up to the election, Turkish youth have beenscouring YouTube for informationthat doesnt come with a side-helping of propaganda, and the Turkish government has pulled out all the stops insilencing journalists reporting on the earthquakes, rather than focusing on well disaster relief. They havent shied away fromblocking social media platformseither.What happens next is important. If Erdogan wins, what will such a close call do to the state of Turkeys freedoms? The first-round vote landed at 49.51% for Erdogan and 44.88% for Kldarolu, and lets remember whos got the media on their side. The second round of voting is set for 28 May, and while Index would absolutely never ever back a specific candidate, we are hoping to see democracy prevail over autocracy.Further east, and another country is undergoing a seismic change at the hands of an election held last Sunday. Where Turkey is in political limbo, Thailand is out the other side. Or is it? The country has had a military-backed government since the 2014 coup, but Sundays vote sent Thailand spinning off in a new direction, with the progressive Move Forward Partys Pita Limjaroenrat likely to take the driving seat of a coalition. The party is breaking Thailands big taboo with plans to reform the monarchy, which is all the more poignant considering the democracy protests that started in 2020, when demonstrators asked for exactly that to happen. Under the currentlese-majestelaw, criticising the monarchy usually comes with a stint behind bars of up to 15 years. Thais asked for democracy. They asked for progression. They asked for the right to insult the king without spending over a decade in jail. And if all goes smoothly from here, thats exactly what theyll get.But it is a big if. Not only will the House of Representatives (members of which were given their places through Sundays election) vote on who will be prime minister, so too will members of the Senate, who were selected by the military. And thats where the story of Thailands democracy could come unstuck.

See the original post:
Turkey and Thailand: Two elections, different outcomes - Index on Censorship

The Red Bank Public Library offered a program about the concerning rise in book banning, book challenging and censorship. Sunayana Prabhu

By Sunayana Prabhu

RED BANK Whether its potty humor for children or classic literature, book bans are rising at an unprecedented pace across the country, with record-high demands to remove books from schools and libraries.

The Red Bank Public Library (RBPL) led a discussion, Banning Books Silences Stories, last week about the phenomenon to bring attention to how it negatively impacts a community.

Gender Queer, The Wizard of Oz, The Hate You Give, The Grapes of Wrath and Captain Underpants. What do these titles have in common? Theyve all been banned somewhere in the United States, said Eleni Glykis, RBPL director, addressing a packed meeting room at the library May 10.

A lot of people say, Oh, banning books is not a problem in New Jersey. It happens in Florida, Oklahoma or Texas. That is not the case, said Linda Hewitt, the librarys circulation supervisor and outreach and programming coordinator, as she introduced attendees to the growing trend of book censorship. Banning books is a problem across the country, Hewitt said. We have had incidences in New Jersey where books have been banned.

And unfortunately, getting a book banned doesnt require a lot.

It really only can take one voice to create a problem for a library, she said.

A sampling of banned books some young adult books that are considered too sexually explicit, or ones that discuss racial and LGBTQ+ issues were displayed at the meeting, including Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, Harper Lees To Kill A Mocking- bird, Flamer by Mike Curato, Ernest Hemingways For Whom The Bell Tolls, and many more.

Hewitt asked the audience if they knew why books like The Great Gatsby, The Lorax and Captain Underpants are challenged and then explained that many of the people who want to ban books claim they are doing it to protect our citizens.

But whatever their reasons may be, book banning is censorship, Hewitt said.

She emphasized that good libraries must provide books and materials for everyone in the community and encouraged patrons to use their voices to empower readers everywhere to stand together in the fight against censorship.

The American Library Association (ALA) released new data on its website March 22 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 challenges to books nearly doubled from 729 in 2021.

Censorship of books silences voices, marginalizes communities, and causes people to hold back their artistic expression, Glykis said, explaining that book banning is a form of censorship that occurs when private individuals, government officials or organizations remove books from libraries, school curricula or bookstore shelves because they object to their content, ideas or themes.

Challenged books are materials that someone has attempted to remove, but was unsuccessful, Glykis said. Both book bans and challenges are the most widespread form of censorship in the United States, with childrens literature and young adult literature being the primary target.

From the first reported book ban in the United States, Thomas Mortons The New English Canaan or New Canaan, published in 1637, to Gender Queer, a memoir by Maia Kobabe that topped banned book lists last year, censorship on books is an old practice. But its growth is concerning to many, especially within school libraries, the only place many young readers can access books. The most recent update on book bans released by PEN America for the 2022-23 school year shows expanded censorship of themes centered on race, history, sexual orientation and gender.

Glykis included in her presentation a recent poll by the ALA that showed strong opposition to removing books from public libraries 71% of Americans are against banning books. The poll also showed that this stance is nonpartisan 75% of Democrats, 58% of Independents and 70% of Republicans were opposed to banning books from public libraries.

What is going on lately? Glykis asked. Who is coming for the books and why?

Glykis said both ALA and PEN America and other anti-censorship groups have seen an increase in the significant role of the right-wing advocacy groups in organizing parents (to) challenge books that contain characters or references to LGBTQIA and people of color. But Glykis noted book censorship is happening across party lines. To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn, two of the most challenged books of our time, she said, have been banned on both sides of the aisle for their language. In 2022 both were removed from required reading lists in a school district in Burbank, California.

While Florida and Texas are strongholds of book banning, Glykis said, New Jersey is catching up to censorship methods. Celebrated author and New Jersey native Judy Blume made the list of esteemed writers like Mark Twain, William Shakespeare and Harriet Beecher Stowe whose books are banned from classrooms for content that is deemed controversial or obscene. According to Glykis, Glen Ridge, Westfield, Wayne Township, North Hunterdon, Old Tappan, Lower Township and Sparta Township are among those municipalities and school districts in New Jersey that have battled book banning attempts or have banned books.

Im interested in the root causes of this, the rise in this now, said Ed Butler, a program attendee who wanted to know if political extremism is at the center of the issue. Glykis attributed many of the bans to fear, noting that when people are uncomfortable they get scared.

Rev. John Mack from Holy Trinity Church, Red Bank, was curious if there was any type of overarching group that determines, or makes a decision on what books are banned? Or is it just a group of individuals in a closet whore just doing it all willy-nilly?

Theyre coordinated efforts, Glykis said, by certain right-wing advocacy groups and one of them, a big one, is the Moms For Liberty.

Considering most banned books fall in the young adult category, Blake Wattenbarger of Fair Haven said, It seems to me that to get a teenager to read a book, the best thing you could do is to ban it.

Something else all these banned books have in common?

Theyre all available for checkout, either digitally or in person, at the Red Bank Public Library, Glykis said. One of the great tenets of librarianship is supporting intellectual freedom and all librarians know great libraries contain something to offend everyone, noting There is a shelf of Patterson here that I cant stand.

The article originally appeared in the May 18 24, 2023 print edition of The Two River Times.

More:
As Book Bannings Increase, Red Bank Library Hosts Discussion - The Two River Times

Chinese web and AI giant Baidu has suggested its long experience of working with local regulators means it, unlike others, is ideally positioned to bring artificial intelligence services to the Middle Kingdom.

Speaking on the conglomerate's Q1 earnings call, CEO and co-founder Robin Li told investors the recently-released Ernie generative AI chatbot has been well received by customers and regulators alike.

"To comply with regulatory requirements any new technology, product or service must undergo government review and approval before large scale deployment," Li explained.

"During our testing of Ernie Bot, we have engaged in close discussions with regulators [and] found that the principles of content review or generative AI are quite similar to those applied to search."

Along the way, Baidu learned that "For important and sensitive topics, we have to make sure AI will not hallucinate" a term used for chatbots frequently presenting falsehoods.

China recently announced regulations for generative AI that include a requirement for its output to reflect the party line. Li embraced that approach. "We believe that regulators are actively engaged in generative AI in the early stage while raising the bar to entry and we are well positioned for that," he said.

"Baidu has been operating search in China for more than 20 years and has extensive experience with Chinese culture and regulatory environment, which we believe will help us navigate the regulatory landscape," he added.

"Overall, we are thrilled about the prospects that lie ahead with Ernie Bot," he enthused.

But good luck to any of you hoping to use non-Chinese AI in apps to serve users behind the Great Firewall. Google and Bing neither of which is accessible in China can also shelve any plans for an AI-inspired comeback. OpenAI can probably forget China entirely for the forseeable future.

Li was also happy to report that Baidu's cloud which is named "AI Cloud" even though it also offers vanilla IaaS and PaaS turned its first profit. The CIO explained that "phasing out low-quality projects and businesses" helped to make that possible the same route rival Tencent took when trying to turn around its cloud.

Tencent does not detail the performance of its cloud business but has reported that increased sales of some cloud services contributed to a return to positive growth for its business services unit.

Both companies are in rude health. Baidu reported Q1 revenue of $4.5 billion, up ten percent, and net income of $848 million compared to an $885 million loss in the same period of 2022.

Tencent posted quarterly revenue of $21.1 billion, and operating profit of $7 billion year-on-year growth of 11 percent and 32 percent respectively. The giant's key WeChat service topped 1.3 billion monthly active users, and its QQ.com messaging service recorded 597 million users. Growth was slow for both, so Tencent is a long way behind Meta's combined audience. But Tencent's products are more deeply interwoven into commercial services.

See original here:
Baidu boss says good luck talking AI to Beijing if you don't understand censorship - The Register