Mediaboss Marketing

Submitted July 14, 2021

Several weeks ago, I had the opportunity to speak in front of our local county commissioners about their efforts to censor a display of books in the James V. Brown Library. The efforts that lead to this moment surrounded a particular set of books that represented themes of Pride Month. These books were simple stories that deal with friendships, families, and individualism.

Two of the commissioners, Scott Metzger and Tony Mussare paid a visit to the library to investigate what they said was a complaint by some constituents about the display and they wanted to make a request with the director to have the books removed.

Prior to this visit, Metzger posted a message on social media that he thought the books should be removed from the display and placed back on the shelves. He also went on to espouse his rather misinformed opinions about what people should or should not be allowed to read.

When word began to spread about the visit to the library by the two commissioners, a friend of mine contacted me to see what sort of challenges they may be facing. The first thing I said is that your director will have a plan of action for this. Censorship efforts like this happen all too often around the country and the library world is prepared. But with that, I immediately reached out to friends in organizations like the Library of Congress, American Library Association, The American Civil Liberties Union, EveryLibrary.Org, Banned Books Week, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund--all of whom are on constant watch for these moments.

The responses came from those offices within the hour: What do you need? What resources do you have? How can we help? Every one of these organizations were on standby.

Not surprisingly, Barbara McGary, Director of the library along with her staff and the board of directors calmly stood firm in defense of the idea that a library represents everyone in the community. And the commissioners backed down from their requests to have the books removed.

So how does this tie in with the rise of Hitler?

At this moment I am researching and editing a graphic novel about the holocaust and one of the (many) elements that stands out in the years prior to Hitler taking power is how much of a role censorship, along with propaganda, played a critical role in the rise of the Nazi party.

They burned hundreds of thousands of books--any book that did not reflect the Nationalist ideals of the Nazi Party and the Third Reich. They burned books of history, poetry, science

They also used simple yet powerful words to belittle and demean anyone who did not fit their ideals of what a true German was. These words fed rumors which led to hysteria: Jews are not worthy, homosexuals are not worthy, mentally disabled are not worthy, gypsies are not worthy. In the eyes of the Nazis, this meant these people were not worthy of food, clothing, homesthey were not really even humans, they were all seen as a drain on the nations resources. They were disposable.

The words progressed: pogrom, relocation, labor camp, death camp, extermination. The words led to the creation of an industrial extermination process that killed over six million people.

I am not writing this to convince those two commissioners that censorship can lead to horrible things. They dont realize they are already part of the problem that allows for genocide to become possible.

I am writing this as a call to you, your children, your friends, and anyone who understands that these tiny forms of censorship can and do lead to horrible events in societies around the world.

Any time a book is removed from the library or classroom because it goes against the opinions of an elected official or any nonelected administrator or a parent who declares the book offends their sensibilities, we all need to stand up and defend that book.

Even if it is just one book.

The extermination of millions of Jews, gays, disabled, and other people happened only a generation ago. The words that made Hitler possible started two decades prior to that.

When I spoke in front of the commissioners that day, I looked directly at Metzger and Mussare and I pointed out that their words can and do cause harm. Their words make it ok for people to get hurt, beaten, or even killed. They enable hatred in people who simply cannot accept any one who is different.

Those words are no different than the ones that led to the industrial extermination of over six million human beings. If you visit the library today, you can find incredible stories about the Holocaust, and you will see how devastating those words can be.

We need to make sure this never happens again, and the fight will always start with someone wanting a book removed from the library.

--

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed in this letter to the editor do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints ofNorthcentralPa.com.

Our content is free, but our journalists work hard. 100% of your contribution to NorthcentralPa.com goes directly toward helping us cover the important news and events in our region. Thank you for saying that local news matters!

Read more here:
Letter to the editor: Your library, censorship, and the rise of Hitler - NorthcentralPa.com

If [Donald] Trump and [Bernie] Sanders take the same position on Big Tech censorship, David Catron writes at The American Spectator, the issue deserves serious attention.

Hes right, but in pretty much the opposite of the way he intends. When the mainstream right and left agree on anything, thats almost always a blazing neon sign warning us that our freedoms are under threat.

Catron (and Trump and Sanders) want the U.S. government to seize control of social media platforms and dictate which users those platforms must accept and what kind of content those platforms must permit publication of. They dont put it quite that baldly, of course, but who would? Their cause is implicit in their criticisms of Big Tech as a monopoly, which requires government regulation to promote competition in the marketplace of ideas.

Social media platforms arent monopolies. If you dont like Facebook or Twitter, you can go to Minds, MeWe, Diaspora, Mastodon, Gab, Discord, et al.

The U.S. government, however, is a monopoly. Everyones forced to do business with it, and in many areas it forcibly forbids or limits competition with its own offerings.

Arguments in favor of government regulation of social media platforms arent arguments against monopolies. Theyre arguments in favor of extending the government monopolys reach into new markets.

In this case, markets constitutionally protected by the First Amendment and by that amendments codification in statute vis a vis the Internet, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Social media platforms banning and content moderation decisions arent censorship.

Censorship is you cant say that.

You cant use out platform to say that isnt censorship.

If you tell me I cant sing my favorite Irish ballad and that if I do youll have me arrested (assuming you have the power to do so), thats censorship.

If you tell me I cant sing Foggy Dew on your front porch at midnight, thats not censorship. Im free to sing it on my own front porch, or on the sidewalk, or at karaoke night at the local bar.

By way of arguing the point, some of my friends point out that politicians bully major internet platforms into censoring by proxy. The popular example is Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, successfully leaning on Amazon Prime Video to remove anti-vaccine documentaries.

My friends are right. Its a problem. Politicians attempting to compel platforms to host speech they dont want to host is the flip side of the same problem, not a different problem.

Whatever the solution to that problem may be, repeal of the First Amendment or reform of Section 230 arent part of it.

Ideally, bad actors like Schiff, Trump and Sanders would be impeached and removed from office, or charged with conspiracy against rights (18 US Code 241), or both.

Barring that, we should work to ensure that these evil-doers lose in Congress, in the courts and at the ballot box. We mustnt sacrifice internet freedom, or freedom of speech and press in general, to politicians and their schemes.

THOMAS L. KNAPP is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism. Email him at media@thegarrisoncenter.org. Follow @thomaslknapp on Twitter.

View original post here:
THOMAS L. KNAPP: Internet censorship is the real monopoly threat - Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal

The federal government has launched a campaign to flag Facebook posts it deems "misinformation" on COVID-19, a decision which Sen. Josh Hawley, R-MO., described as "really scary" on "Special Report" Thursday.

Hawley: I think it's scary. I think it's really scary to have the federal government of the United States, the White House, compiling lists of people, organizations, whatever, and then going to a private company that, by the way, is a monopoly, Facebook, and saying you need to censor, you need to do something about this, you need to tell these users, these private users at a private company what they can or cannot say. I mean, I just think that this kind of coordination between big government and the big monopoly corporation, boy, that is scary stuff. And it really is censorship.

At this point, you really have to wonder how private of companies they are. I mean, if you're taking direction from the federal government, openly coordinating with the federal government, you've got the government saying, we think that this speech ought to be censored, and big tech, they carry out those instructions. I mean, that looks like they're starting to operate as a public utility. And there are many people out there who say we ought to just treat them as public utilities. We ought to just regulate these private companies as such. My view is we ought to break them up and restore competition. But I have to tell you, their status as independent private companies looks more and more endangered here. They're acting like arms of the government. And when they're monopolies, that's a big problem.

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW BELOW:

Continued here:
Hawley hammers White House as really scary for pushing Facebook to 'censor' COVID posts - Fox News

Chinese censors have approved Denis Villeneuves sci-fi spectacular Dune for release in the worlds largest film market. The film has officially announced that it will hit local screens this year, although it has not yet set a release date.

In late June, Warner Bros. shifted the films U.S. release date back from Oct. 1 to Oct. 22 amidst a larger scheduling reshuffle by the company. In China, the film is distributed by Wanda subsidiary Legendary Pictures.

A big consideration for the timing change may have been that the planned Oct. 1 release would have coincided with Chinas Oct. 1 National Day holiday and the subsequent weeks-long protectionist period during which there is an unofficial blackout on foreign titles to boost sales for local propaganda films. Other types of blockbusters, local and imported alike, should be returning to theaters around the Oct. 22 date.

The later date also bolsters its Chinese box office prospects. Should Dune have released Oct. 1 on HBO Max before a Chinese theatrical release, its China sales would likely have been significantly impacted by piracy, particularly since HBO Max is unavailable in the mainland.

The film has made casting choices that will appeal to a Chinese viewership, selecting Taiwan-born actor Chang Chen to play Dr. Wellington Yueh, a role previously taken up in past film adaptations by white actors Dean Stockwell (1984s Dune) and Robert Russell (Frank Herberts Dune miniseries). Chang is known for his roles in Wong Kar-wais Happy Together and 2046, Ang Lees Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hou Hsiao-hsiens Three Times and The Assassin.

Passing censorship more than three months before its North America debut will hopefully help smooth the way for Dune to secure a day-and-date release for China alongside domestic, although that is not always the case. Marvels Black Widow, for instance, passed censorship back in March, but has yet to announce a China release date despite opening July 9 stateside.

The news of the greenlight for the China Dune outing was met with an outpouring of excitement from Chinese viewers, many of whom are already dubbing it one of the major movie events of the year.

Villeneuves past films have had strong, though not smashing success, at the Chinese box office. China was the top overseas territory for both Arrival and Blade Runner 2049, which grossed $15.9 million and $11.7 million in the country, respectively.

Continue reading here:
Dune Passes Chinese Censorship, to the Relief of Fans - Variety

Texas teachers and students denounced a more strict anti-critical race theory bill as censorship and anti-civics education at a Senate committee hearing.

The bill will likely reach the full Senate for a vote soon after gaining committee approval Thursday afternoon.

The special session proposal builds off of a bill Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law last month that seeks to ban critical race theory from the classroom. Abbott insisted more could be done to abolish the theory from being taught to Texas public school students.

But educators insist critical race theory an academic framework that probes the way policies and laws uphold systemic racism in areas like education or housing is not part of curriculum. They worry the new law and any efforts to make teaching more restrictive will have a chilling effect on conversations about race and current events in the classroom. Representatives from major teacher groups complained that they were not consulted in the crafting of the proposal.

Gabriella Gonzalez, a student teacher in Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD, told lawmakers that she did not know how to teach about the diversity of Texas student population with the bill in place and that it didnt offer sufficient directions to new teachers like herself.

I deserve to know my place in Texas history and so does every fourth and seventh grader looking at [their curriculum] in the state, Gonzalez said. I should feel no fear when teaching the experience to Hispanic populations during social studies or any content area.

A group of roughly 50 opponents who included teachers, students and education advocates crowded the balcony of the Texas Senate on Thursday to oppose the legislation, even though it has little chance of passing anytime soon. House Democrats broke quorum earlier this week, effectively halting their chamber from taking any action to advance the bill.

Every student should learn about our countrys history, good and bad, said Ana Ramn, the deputy director of advocacy with the Intercultural Development Research Association. This [bill] is attacking our opportunity to help people and students understand systemic racism in our state.

Neither the new law nor the proposal authored by Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, mentions the theory explicitly.

Instead, the law Abbott signed last month prohibits schools from compelling social studies teachers to discuss a particular current event or widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs and mandates that teachers discussing such topics not give deference to any one perspective.

Hughes version goes a step further, extending the prohibition to teachers in all subject areas and eliminating a number of required teachings including the history of Native Americans, the Chicano movement and womens suffrage.

It also strikes a required curriculum on the history of white supremacy and the ways in which it is morally wrong. Each of the eliminated lessons were added into the law by House Democrats at the end of the last regular session.

The Mineola Republican explained Thursday that his legislation slashes many of the required teachings because it is the State Board of Educations role to determine what is taught.

We are not saying those things cant be taught, Hughes said. This bill is about ... broad concepts.

State Board of Education Chairman Keven Ellis, R-Lufkin, noted at the committee meeting that much of the required teachings listed within the law signed by Abbott were already included in Texas required curriculum. Ellis oversees the board charged with interpreting the legislation into curriculum standards that all schools will have to follow.

The strikethroughs are not being taken as a signal to the state board to limit those topics, Ellis said.

Hughes bill also establishes a civics training program that would prepare educators to guide discussion of current events and teach media literacy, including instruction on verifying information and sources. The proposal also forbids schools from awarding course credit or making part of a course work for organizations that lobby for legislation at the federal, state or local levels.

Responding to concerns about enforcement, Hughes said he was open to exploring mechanisms and suggested that schools could use existing systems to track who is following the guidelines in the legislation and who is not.

Some proponents suggested penalties for breaking the tenets of the bill. The group of about a dozen commenters who voiced support for the legislation Thursday were mostly parents alleging their schools were teaching the academic theory.

One mother claimed that her son, who recently graduated from a high school near Houston, did not know how to write a sentence or what a semicolon was because schools have been focusing on the wrong things, including critical race theory.

You were hired to teach facts and skills [and] equip students for a successful life, not to hate their parents, the police or their country, said Ruth York, a representative of the Tea Party Patriots, addressing teachers.

Texas is one of several states that have been drawn into the turbulent cultural debate over whether critical race theory is being taught in K-12 classrooms. The mere insinuation that the concept is present in curriculum has drawn dozens to school board meetings and legislative hearings. It even became a focal point of several trustee races in Texas.

The definition of the theory is often in contention. Sen. Bob Hall, R-Rockwall, described the theory as teaching our kids to hate and activist training while a critic of the bill said it was not teaching kids that white people are bad, but that white supremacy is bad.

Hughes bill passed out of committee with only Republicans voting to forward it to the Senate floor. The bills author said it would likely come up for consideration by the full chamber fairly quickly with some potential amendments, including one that would clarify that eliminating required teachings wont prevent instructors from teaching the full curriculum.

The DMN Education Lab deepens the coverage and conversation about urgent education issues critical to the future of North Texas.

The DMN Education Lab is a community-funded journalism initiative, with support from The Beck Group, Bobby and Lottye Lyle, Communities Foundation of Texas, The Dallas Foundation, Dallas Regional Chamber, Deedie Rose, The Meadows Foundation, Solutions Journalism Network, Southern Methodist University and Todd A. Williams Family Foundation. The Dallas Morning News retains full editorial control of the Education Labs journalism.

See the original post:
Anti-critical race theory bill heads to Senate after teachers assail it as censorship - The Dallas Morning News