Mediaboss Marketing

spikeds annual Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) was released last week, to the usual cacophony of irritation from those on the receiving end of a Red ranking. Chief among the perpetually ticked-off, of course, was president of the National Union of Students (NUS), Malia Bouattia.

The NUS always frets about the FSUR, because it collects in one place all the bans and regulations students unions inflict upon their members. Not only did Bouattia pen a ripsote to the FSUR in the Huffington Post the day before its 2017 findings came out, she also attempted another take-down in the Independent a few days later.

In the latter, Bouattia claims that she can demonstrate expertly that the project is flawed, suggesting that what spiked doesnt understand is that students want to extend, not suppress, free expression. Free speech is universal, she says, but it is not limitless. To extend it to everyone means sacrificing some of our rights, preventing those who would suppress some peoples free expression from having theirs. In other words, you need to ban your way to free speech.

This is pretty mind-bending logic, even if it is by now sadly familiar. It speaks volumes that the NUS and universities feel it is their right to decide who should and shouldnt have their universal rights suspended. Whats more, the NUSs ban on those it deems to be fascist under its longstanding No Platform policy is really an expression of contempt for students, not far-right speakers.

What the NUS doesnt understand is that allowing your opponents the right to speak doesnt render you mute. One person speaking doesnt prevent the other from answering. This is what is so important about free speech. Believing in free speech means trusting people to defeat backward ideas in open debate. The NUS simply doesnt think students are up to it.

Read the original here:
Campus censorship is a big deal - Spiked

Censorship is the act or practice of suppressing the speech or public communication which is considered objectionable, harmful and sensitive, by a government, media outlet or other controlling bodies. This public content is censored for many reasons that the active bodies believe are immoral. Some reasons include: controlling obscenities, pornography, hate speeches, protecting young children, to promote or restrict political or religious views or even to protect the national security of a country.

Types of Censorship:

Almost everything at some point could be placed underneath a category of censorship. Depending on where people[E1] are located and who or what is going on in your nation or even community, your public media on the television, Internet, radio, music, movies and books could be censored. There are dozens of different forms of censorship implemented everyday, including all the following:

Moral Censorship- the removal of materials that is considered obscene or morally unacceptable. For example, pornography is usually censored from the public and even prosecuted if it involves young minors.

Political Censorship- This is a form of censorship by the government that occurs when information is [E2]withhold from their citizens[E3], mostly used to prevent hateful expressions.

Book Censorship- The censorship of novels is either implicated nationally or by state[E4]. So, if a community finds a book to be inappropriate, they can have the book removed from public and school libraries. Such books include The Harry Potter series, Animal Farm, the Goosebumps series, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and To Kill A Mockingbird[E5].

Films- All movies released for public viewing in theaters are censored in some way or another. The usual censored items include pornography and obscenities, up to a certain age. Other movies are censored due to racial or political correctness.

Music- Moral authorities are determined to find what behavior is acceptable for individuals in todays society. Most cases of musical censorship involve lyrics which deal with drugs, violence and sexual topics.

Internet- The extent of Internet censorship varies from country to country. Many countries, like the Untied States have little to no Internet censorship, while others limit basic new information from their citizens. Many times the Internet[E6] in these countries will be censored after elections, protests and riots.

Effects of Censorship

Many people agree that some things need to be censored. While others are outraged at the thought of any individuals work being censored. Many times things that are being viewed or heard by larger masses of people should be censored for the sole fact that you do not know who is in that group of people.

I think it is fine to censor T.V. because it is something that all the public can use, including kids, and parents cant always control what shows come up, grade Kalie Jurries said.

Exposing underage children to inappropriate and vulgar content can have negative effects on a child. Adults have a much easier time choosing what to watch, and are able to work around inappropriate work.

I filter[E7] by choosing not to watch television at certain times or certain channels, librarian Joanne Willis said.

Their ways of thinking and understanding are not always able to understand adult content.

While many believe television should be censored, many feel the complete opposite about the Internet and printable material like books.

No, I do not think the Internet should be censored. If[E8] people cant handle the content of the Internet[E9], maybe they should not be on it. Everyone on the Internet should be old enough to deal with those things, Jurries said.

The Internet is a very useful tool in todays society, and just like any other great tools in life, there will be people who abuse it.

Access at certain age levels or times should be controlled. Example[E10]: access to sexually explicit internet materials should not be allowed at the high school level or in an office environment where it would/could be offensive to coworkers, said Willis.

Pros and Cons of Censorship

Censorship is all about perspective. Whether you are the over the top strict parent or the care free, young kid who wants to know everyone. Censorship will always be a heated debate, both sides have their pros and cons. Religious conflicts often times can be avoided by the censorship of certain material that people deem insulting or offensive. Censorship can be used to prevent politically motivated propaganda. Plagiarism can be prevented. It prevents companies from spreading inaccurate or exaggerated claims about their products or other companies.

Freedom of speech is compromised. Media giants can push their agendas under the censorship. it hinders upon the freedom of the press. It shelters people from things that they need to know about. Censorship in books, plays, and movies may effect the overall feeling and meaning of the writing.

Go here to see the original:
Censorship does both harm, good - waterloo.k12.ia.us

View of Scott Daniel Williamss Storefront Sign for the Ungovernable City (2016) partially installed at the Loisaida Center (image courtesy the artist)

Ifyou visitthe Loisaida Centerin the next month, the firstthing youll notice is the sound of running water and voices some in English, some in Spanish telling stories about the Rio Grande river. Then youll see the rest of El Paso-based artist Zeke Peas collaboration with local musicianEureka The Butcher,River Border, a large graphite drawing on cloth that maps the stretch of the MexicoUS border where a military wallruns along the banks of the Rio Grande in the El Paso del Norte region. The combined effect of the Peas drawing and Eurekas recordingsis powerfully evocative, transporting the visitor to the rivers edge.

The next sound you mightve heard would have come from Albuquerque-based artistScott Daniel Williamss interactive sculpture, Storefront Sign for the Ungovernable City which, behind a sign that reads Police Not Welcome, can be toggledby pulling a chainto simultaneously play a recording of Ornette Colemans The Artist in America and audio ofthe killing ofJames Boyd byAlbuquerque Police Department officers in 2014. That workwas originally installed near Loisaidas main entrance by the curators ofFuture Now // Futura Ahora, Atomic Culture(the duo of Matthew and Malinda Galindo), but was removed on February 3, the day before the exhibitions opening. The decision, taken unilaterally by one of Loisaidas directors, was spurred by a fear that the centers CEO, Raul Russi a former Buffalo police officer who was injured in the line of duty would object to the work.This act of censorship repeatedly threatened to undo Atomic Culturesvital exhibition.

Its a very difficult situation for us as artists because this is a community center, and its a Latin Americancommunity center specifically, thats done a lot of really, really incredible work and we want to stand as allies with the center, Williams told Hyperallergic. It was a difficult decision to even take any sort of stand, but at the same time I think we [the artists in the show]feel like thats where we have to start. If were going to talk about expression and social justice we have to start at home, in these places where we should all be most accountable.

Russi who only became aware of the situation after Williams had issued a public statement and protested the exhibition opening, and negotiations between the artist, curators, and Loisaida directors had reached an impasse finally saw Storefront Sign for the Ungovernable City and the rest ofFuture Now // Futura Ahoraduring a visit to the center on Saturday. Today, he releaseda public statement about and apologyfor the works removal, paving the way for the reinstallation of Williamss work in a different space at Loisaida tomorrow.

Unfortunately, our team jumped to the wrong conclusion that I would object to the exhibition of one of the pieces without consulting with me in advance, Russis statement reads. I had the opportunity over the weekend to have a dialogue with the Atomic Culture organizers, to clarify all of this and to offer my apologies on behalf of Loisaida, Inc. As CEO, I let Atomic Culture know that the piece can be part of their ongoing exhibit.

Indeed, Williamss work seems especially relevant for an exhibition about social justice at a community center that represents a historically over-policed community and is located directly next to a major NYPDstation. Add to this the fact that all the featured artists in Future Now // Futura Ahoraare based in the southwestern United States, an area poised to become an intensified zoneof activity for the USs militarized border patrols under President Trump, and the show takes on an added sense of urgency.

In addition to Williamss piece, several other works in the exhibition condemn the excessive use of force and systemic abuses of agents paid to uphold the law. For instance, the mural On Both Sides of the Border Women Are Still Being Murdered (2016) a collaboration between Albuquerque-based artist Nani Chacon and author Tanaya Winder highlights the vulnerability of women in both Mexico and the US. And Peas aforementioned map of the Rio Grande and border wall includes a drawing of a threatening US Border Control vehicle alongside the words: You have the right to remain silent.In one of the exhibitions main rooms, a row of small, vintage-looking cell phones emits poetry and displays compass faces that seem to point the viewer north. The work, Transborder Immigrant Tool, is a safety systemdeveloped by San Diego-based artistsRicardo Dominguez and Brett Stalbaumto help disoriented travelers in any desert setting to find their way. The program offers tips for desert survival in the form of poetry recited in several different languages, and logs the coordinatesof known water caches, offering a vital tool for people crossing, for instance, the MexicoUS border in southern California, where the artists developed and tested it between 2009 and 2012.

Atomic Culturehas brought together a powerful group of artists from the southwestern US, many of whom are making work at theconfluence of art and activism, and most of whom are too rarely exhibitedin New York. Fortunately, Loisaida has rectifiedthe earliercensorship of one work and, in doing so, avoided jeopardizing the telling of all the other featured artistsimportant stories. Indeed, the reinstallation of Williamss piece will provide a crucial link between the issues of migrant safety and anti-immigrant infrastructure along the MexicoUS border that many of these artists are addressing. Police brutality often targets the most vulnerable residents in the country, and some US cities situated near the Mexican border are particularly prone to this type of institutionalized violence. The fact that many of the artists here are from Albuquerque is particularly poignant, since the citys police department is under investigation for use of force by the Department of Justice.Future Now // Futura Ahora is a testament to the works artists make not only to cope with such conditions, but to combat them.

Future Now // Futura Ahora continues at the Loisaida Center (710 East 9th Street, Lower East Side, Manhattan) through March 18.

See more here:
Despite Censorship Row, a Show Connecting Immigrant Rights and Police Brutality Goes On - Hyperallergic

Nick Cannon announced his abrupt resignation from NBCs America's Got Talent Monday, accusing the network of trampling on his free speech rights and trying to censor him following a racial joke he made on his recent Showtime stand-up special.

The comedian announced his unexpected exit on Facebook, saying he was deeply saddened about being threatened with termination after his controversial joke on Stand Up, Dont Shoot reportedly irked NBC executives.

I find myself in a dark place having to make a decision that I wish I didnt have to, but as a man, an artist, and a voice for my community I will not be silenced, controlled or treated like a piece of property, Mr. Cannon wrote. There is no amount of money worth my dignity or my integrity.

My moral principles will easily walk away from the millions of dollars they hang over my head, he added. Its never been about the money for me, what is difficult to walk away from is the fans, the people who love me on the show. This hurts tremendously.

Mr. Cannons resignation came after rumors swirled that NBC executives were considering terminating his contract following a racial joke he made about America's Got Talent on his comedy special that aired on Showtime Friday night.

Sometimes I wish I could say the stuff that I really want to say, Mr. Cannon said on stage, according to a clip posted by TMZ. Cause yall see my face on America's Got Talent? Like, This next crazy motherfer coming to the stage gonna be juggling blindfolded with knives and shit, so nas be careful! But I cant say that. I cant talk like that. Cause that would mess up the white money.

Sources familiar with the situation told TMZ that NBC executives thought Mr. Cannon was disparaging the network. Sources said NBC considered terminating Mr. Cannons contract but ultimately decided to keep him after determining the joke was a passing comment, TMZ reported.

Still, Mr. Cannon said his decision to resign was based on a moral duty to stand up for what he believes is right.

I have fought many battles in my career and have never been afraid to go up against the system. I have mulled over my process for days and felt it was best to once again speak my mind about an unjust infrastructure that treat talent like they own them, he wrote Monday. So I wish AGT and NBC the best in its upcoming season but I can not see myself returning. As of lately I have even questioned if I want to even be apart of an industry who ultimately treats artists in this manner.

Production on season 12 of America's Got Talent is scheduled to begin next month. A replacement for Mr. Cannon, who served as the host since 2009, has not been named.

Visit link:
Nick Cannon accuses NBC of censorship, leaves 'America's Got Talent' after 8 years - Washington Times

As of late, a wave of censorship has swept over this campus. Those who would silence the free speech of UCSB students are not authorities but private individuals. The College Republicans have set up signs around campus in an effort to advertise for their Ben Shapiro event on the topic of Black Lives Matter. They have followed all of the correct procedure. They have been met with vandalism. Their wood signs have been repeatedly painted over and their fliers ripped from sight.

Those who have repeatedly defaced the College Republicans signs are unwilling to reason. This would be obvious to any outsider looking in to the enclosed environment of this UC campus. In a place where one-sided classes on political issues are taught as fact, it is a wonder that there are any students at the university who would challenge the doctrines imposed on them at all.

Art by Sierra Deak / Daily Nexus

When knowledge is transmitted in such a way as it is in the university system, there is little hope for dialogue. I hear those on the left clamoring for a national dialogue, yet they offer nothing but the destruction of property, both private and public. Observe the force employed by the individuals at UC Berkeley in response to the Milo Yiannopoulos event scheduled there. And now, in a small act of what is perhaps imitation of their more violent comrades at Berkeley, leftists of UC Santa Barbara have destroyed the signs advertising the Ben Shapiro event. Nothing else could be expected from those who consider speech violence.

To equivocate speech and violence is to obliterate the distinction between reason and force. Free speech is a principle of this liberal society for one reason: so that thinking individuals may partake in a discussion of their ideas with other individuals. It is the political prerequisite to freedom of the mind that is, the freedom to reason. As humans are thinking, rational animals, such an ability as reasoning is essential for our existence within a society.

Reason is exactly the means that humans use to avoid predation on each other. In the personal sphere, reasoning is absolutely essential. Consider sex, the most personal and intimate of all human relations. Any good persons intuition regarding sex would prescribe a consensual basis for it. Consent requires a state of consciousness and agency. Such a state is the state of reason. Reason demands conscious awareness and the ability to exercise ones volitional faculties, and so it is the heart of consent. When consent is not given by all parties involved, when force is substituted for reason, the interaction becomes rape or sexual assault. Voluntary, willful consent is required in the realm of sex. It is considered most vital in this context but abandoned in others.

If the free expression of our ideas is not protected by a just government, then where is justice in our law?

The person who forces another person to be his or her friend has nothing to offer. Friends help each other. Friends do good to their friends. This is common sense. If force is used, real value and worth is absent. Just as this applies to friendship, so it applies to politics. Particularly, freedom of speech. It is a truth that no one wants something that must be forced on them. Furthermore, no one wants what is theirs to be taken away by force. Ideas are the most intimate kind of possession. They make up our minds and ourselves. If the free expression of our ideas is not protected by a just government, then where is justice in our law? Are we to apply principles of freedom to one area of our life and not the other? I would say the freedom to speak and not necessarily to be heard is more valuable than a friendship. What friendship could survive without being grounded on a firm slab of truth? What truth can be arrived at except by the free expression and exploration of ideas?

When we apply the principle of reason to economic and political relationships, we get a free market. When we apply it to academics, we should get a free market of ideas. If there is any place in the nation to glorify free speech, it should be the university. Knowledge is the business of the university. Knowledge requires truth. Truth is not easy to obtain. To obtain truth, there is only one principle that can be brought to bear. This is reason and its corollary, freedom of speech.

I am an individualist, so I do not believe everyone on the left condones the savage actions of those students who defaced the College Republicans signs. I do not believe even the majority of those on the left are gripped by a fundamentally irrational Marxist ideology that denies the premises of reason and freedom. In the coming weeks, there will be events which promote unpopular ideas. If for no other reason than to affirm that it is okay to hold an unpopular idea, these events are a blessing. With regards to the administration of this university, the vandals who ruined the College Republicans signs should be found and punished. Their punishment should not be minimal. They should serve as an example so the university can assure its students that freedom of speech will be protected.

Connor Pardini believes in the right to hold an opinion, popular or not.

Go here to read the rest:
Unwilling to Reason: Why Censorship is the Wrong Answer - Daily Nexus