Mediaboss Marketing

In a sweeping victory for free speech rights in cyberspace, the Supreme Court struck down the Communications Decency Act inReno v. ACLUin June 1997. The Court granted the highest level of First Amendment protection to the Internet, and cyber-activists are still dancing in the streets.

But is cyberspace really safe from the censors?

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, states are busy crafting censorship laws at home. At least thirteen states have passed legislationsince 1995. This year, New Mexico has already passed a draconian censorship law, and bills are pending in 10 other states.

Our state lawmakers need to understand the Internet -- not gag it.

This year the ACLU is fighting bills in the following states:

CaliforniaAssembly Bill 1793, sponsor Assembly Member Runner. Requires all public libraries that receive state funds to adopt a policy to prohibit minors from accessing harmful matter on Internet terminals at the library.

IllinoisAssembly Bill 2568, sponsor Assembly Member Novak. Makes it a felony to disclose on "an adult obscenity or child pornography site the name, address, telephone number, or e-mail address of a person under 18."

KansasSenate Bill 670, sponsor Senator Huelskamp. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software by all users on Internet terminals at state-funded public libraries, school districts, and state and local educational institutions, colleges and universities.

KentuckySenate Bill 230, sponsor Senator Karem. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software on Internet terminals at public schools.

MissouriSenate Bill 850, sponsor Senator Kenney. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software by all users on Internet terminals at public libraries.

New YorkAssembly Bill 5395, sponsor Assembly Member Mazzarelli. Criminalizes engaging in sexually explicit conversation with minors over the Internet.

Assembly Bill 6453, sponsor Assembly Member Klein. Requires all public libraries to establish a policy to restrict minors' Internet access to obscene materials.

OhioHouse Bill 565, sponsor Rep. Terwilleger. Criminalizes the dissemination of material on the Internet that is "harmful to minors."

Rhode IslandSenate Bill 2864, sponsor Senator Cicillino. Makes it a felony to transmit by computer "any notice, statement, advertisement, or minor's name, telephone number, [or] place of residence . . . for the purpose of engaging, facilitating, encouraging, offering, or soliciting unlawful sexual conduct and/or any felony or misdemeanor."

TennesseeHouse Bill 3353, sponsor Rep. Burchett. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software by all users on Internet terminals at public schools and libraries. Holds Internet service providers strictly liable for the dissemination of "obscene material, child pornography, or pornographic materials harmful to youth."

VirginiaHouse Bill 348, sponsor Rep. Marshall. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software by all users on Internet terminals at state-funded libraries. Imposes criminal penalties for communicating online material at libraries that is "harmful to minors."

California Assembly Bill 132, enacted 7/97.Sponsor: Rep. Bladwin.Requires schools to adopt an Internet access policy regarding student access to sites with material that is harmful to minors.

Connecticut House Bill 6883, enacted 6/95.Sponsor: House Committe on Judiciary.Creates criminal liability for sending an online message "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person."

Florida Senate Bill 156, enacted 5/96.Sponsor: Sen. Burt.Amends existing child porn law to hold owners or operators of computer online services explicitly liable for permitting subscribers to violate the law.

Georgia House Bill 1630, enacted 4/96.Sponsor: Rep. Don Parsons.Criminalized the use of pseudonyms on the Net, and prohibits unauthorized links to web site with trade names or logos. Overturned, in ACLU v. Miller

House Bill 76, enacted 3/95.Sponsor: Rep. Wall.Prohibits online transmission of fighting words, obscene or vulgar speech to minors, and information related to terrorist acts and certain dangerous weapons.

Kansas House Bill 2223, enacted 5/95. Expands child pornography statute to include computer-generated images.

MinnesotaHouse Bill 575/Senate Bill 585, enacted 7/97 (as part of the compromise education bill). Directs the Commissioner of Education to recommend computer software products to schools in order to block Intgernet access to speech that is indecnet or intended to promote violence.

Montana House Bill 0161, enacted 3/95. Expands child pornography statute to prohibit transmission by computer and posession of computer-generatged child pornographic images.

New MexicoSenate Bill 127, enacted 3/98. Criminalizes the transmission of communications that depict "nudity, sexual intercourse or any other sexual conduct." The ACLU has vowed to file a legal challenge to the law before it becomes effective on 7/1/98.

NevadaSenate Bill 13, enacted 7/97. Creates an action for civil damages against persons who transmit unsolicited advertising over the Internet.

New YorkSenate Bill 210E, passed 7/96.Sponsor: Sen. Sears; Rep. DeStito.Criminalized the transmission of "indecent" materials to minors. Overturned, inALA v. Pataki

OklahomaHouse Bill 1048, enacted 4/95.Sponsor: Rep. Perry.Prohibits online transmission of material deemed "harmful to minors."

House Concurrent Resolution 1097, passed 5/96.Sponsor: Rep. PaulkDirects all state agencies, including educational institutions, to remove all illegal obscene materials from their computer systems.

VirginiaHouse Bill 7, enacted 3/96.Sponsor: Rep. Marshall.Prohibits any government employee from using state-owned computer systems to send or access sexually explicit material. Overturned, inUrofsky v. Allen

Senate Bill 1067, enacted 5/95.Sponsor: Sen. CalhounExpands existing statute to criminalize electronic transmissions of child pornography.

Like the CDA, these state bills raise serious free speech concerns. They all overlook the unique nature of the online medium, and many censor speech that is protected by the Constitution for adults and older minors.

Laws that try to keep adult materials away from minors end up reducing all online content to that which is suitable for children -- the Supreme Court delclared this outcome unconstitutional inReno v. ACLU. Similarly, the use of blocking software at libraries prevents both adults and teenagers from getting access to valuable speech like sex education materials, abuse recovery discussions, and speech about lesbian and gay issues.

The draconian effect of state censorship bills doesn't stop at state borders. A message you post to the Internet today in New York City could travel the fifty states and the globe by tomorrow. You'd better be careful that the message isn't "indecent" in Oklahoma, "annoying" in Connecticut, or "vulgar" in Georgia.

These state laws pose a cumulative threat to online speech that may be even more powerful than the CDA, because every online user must comply with every state law -- or risk prosecution if their speech is accessed in a state that makes it illegal.

In addition to violating the First Amendment, many of these state censorship laws violate the Constitution's Commerce Clause because they criminalize online conversations that occur entirely outside the state's borders and burden interstate commerce. Earlier in this century, the Supreme Court struck down burdensome state laws that regulated the length of railway trains.

As the court recognized when striking down the NY censorship law inALA v. Pataki, the Internet is much like the railroad system, because it is used to transport speech and information all over the country. The New York law, like similar state laws, violated the Commerce Clause because it would have required a Texan who posts a web page or message to abide by New York standards, even if no one from New York ever saw the page or read the post.

The court inALA v. Patakiheld that internet users must be protected from "inconsistent legislation that, taken to its most extreme, could paralyze development of the Internet altogether."

The ACLU's nationwide network of local affiliate offices is ready and willing to counter state attacks on your right to speak freely online.

ALA v. Pataki: In a precedent-setting opinion, the court struck down a New York State online "indecency" law because it violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits states from regulating speech wholly outside their own borders and from imposing inconsistent state burdens on speakers.

ACLU v. Miller: This case struck down on free speech grounds a Georgia state law that made it a crime 1) to communicate anonymously or using a pseudonym on the Internet; 2) to create links to Web sites that use tradenames, trademarks, or logos.

Urofsky v. Allen: This case struck down a Virginia law that forbade state employees -- including university professors -- from using state-owned computers to access or transmit sexually explicit material.

See the rest here:
Online Censorship in the States | American Civil Liberties ...

There is only one place I have ever went to in modern days, from 2012-2018 that doesn't censor. Everywhere else, from games, to steam, to here, to any place they all ban you for saying anything that some one gets their bleeding vagnia in a up roar about.

That place is fing infowars haah. I mean I have made fun of the infowarriors for months at a time and they don't ban me. So yeah all you bed wetting pansy ruined the internet, and want anything that offends you banned.

This conversation i just posted on steam got banned.

The most toxic player on the internet is not the person calling you names. The ones that are the most toxic, and apparantly the most numerous since game companies usally cater to these freaks, are the ones who feel the need to punish you for typeing what ever. These nasty freaks are so messed up in the head, that they think because you typed something to them that offended them, you should be banned. Which in some cases costs money.

You have to be one sick freak to actually want to see some one have money taken from them, for typing on the internet. I am assuming these s are the most numerous because any online game i play, i get banned, for using the words i have here. We live in one pieace ofhole, to have a bunch of these baby butt hurt freaks running around, actually wanting to force physical pain by making people lose money, for speaking their mind.

It use to be general that if some one was bothering you you ignore them. Now its I want to punish that person, I am a big bleeding vagnia and they hurt my feelings I WANT THEM TO SUFFER. So any of you freaks reading this, FU haha. You are a worthless human, and the people who talkare way way way better than you are. I have never wanted some one to lose money, because they were talkingto me. Bunch of man babies.

The best though is, these freaks actually think that being mature and grown up, is trying to force punishment on people who offend you hahah.

They dont even want that being discussed.

I still say that's true though, some one who wants to cause physical pain to someone by making them lose money, because they got offended by some text chat, is far more toxic than some one saying you are a faggot.

View original post here:
Censorship r/censorship - reddit

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy thinks removing Infowars was a good first step and says tech giants should censor more content. (murphy.senate.gov)

Sen. Chris Murphy thinks tech giants banning Alex Jones Infowars is a good start, but says the survival of our democracy depends on sites like Facebook and YouTube removing additional content.

Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it, Murphy, D-Conn., tweeted on Monday.

The controversial Jones and his Infowars content were removed from Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify this week. Jonesis a notorious conspiracy theorist who has been widely criticized for polarizing content, including discredited claims about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Many staunch Infowars critics condemned the tech giants decision, noting that censoring him could result in further actions against people who arent accepted by the mainstream media which appears to be exactly what Murphy wants.

Murphy wrote that Facebook and Apple and YouTube have gotten so big they sometimes seem like the government, but reminded his 704,000 followers that the technology giants arent publicly controlled.

They are private companies that shouldnt knowingly spread lies and hate. They took a good first step today by removing Infowars, Murphy wrote.

Murphys Twitter account was filled with negative reaction to his call for additional censorship.

Talk radio host Tony Bruno responded, Thanks for confirming your hatred of the First Amendment Chris. You do realize this is not what Democracy looks like, don't you?

In other words you won't rest until you control the entire message. You won't be happy until you dictate everything we get to hear. I didn't like Jones but you scare me far more, a user said.

Another user added, Youre advocating censorship, how progressive!

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro explained to Murphy, Youre a governmental official and there is a thing called the First Amendment.

Murphy bills himself as a strong voice for job creation, affordable health care, education, stricter gun laws and progressive foreign policy. He has been among the Senates most liberal members and attacks President Trump on a regular basis.

Murphy recently said Trump is waging a very deliberate assault on the American health care system and called for Connecticut to create its own insurance mandate.

Murphy is seeking re-election in November.

Brian Flood covers the media for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter at @briansflood.

Read more:
Sen. Chris Murphy calls for more Silicon Valley censorship ...

Nobodys feelings were consulted during the making of this video. Anyone who has a problem with that can drop dead.

A Word To The Google Feminists on BitChutehttps://www.bitchute.com/video/YA0GQNtI8lQ/

A Word To The Google Feminists on LiveLeakhttps://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e06_1519057581

A Word To The Google Feminists on Vimeohttps://vimeo.com/256448828

A Word To The Google Feminists on PewTubehttps://pewtube.com/user/patcondell/Rftaqvx

German women have had enough. Please share this video widely. #120dbhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJxU8iiyOS0

Restricted by YouTube, A Word To The Criminal Migrant, subtitled in Arabic, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Spanish, Swedishhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9e_vcSut0A

Interview with a woman from the #120db videohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QJ3wYi_Fug

A German woman speaks out about the rape of her countryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itKmpVnAemc

German journalist (part 1): Like many other women in Germany, I no longer feel safe.https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/01/interview-with-a-german-journalist-like-many-other-women-in-germany-i-no-longer-feel-safe/

German journalist (part 2): More and more citizens wake up and realise that something is totally wrong here.https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/02/german-journalist-more-and-more-citizens-wake-up-and-realize-that-something-is-totally-wrong-here/

Afghan rapes 13 year-old girl after being released from prison for attempted rapehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5353915/Afghan-asylum-seeker-18-rapes-girl-13-Germany.html

Anti-rape pants sell out quickly in Germany.https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/02/german-women-in-fear-new-anti-rape-pants-sell-out-very-quickly

Swedish volunteers patrol Malm streets after wave of gang rapeshttps://www.rt.com/news/414083-malmo-rapes-street-patrols/

Swedish police warn women not to go out alone at nighthttps://www.thelocal.se/20160308/backlash-begins-after-swedish-women-told-not-to-go-out-alone

Migrants raped woman in wheelchair. Swedes have had enough.https://acidmuncher.wordpress.com

Nearly half of Swedens women afraid to go out after darkhttp://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/04/scared-sweden-almost-half-of-women-afraid-to-be-out-after-dark-in-europes-rape-capital/

Only 1 in 5 foreign rapists in Sweden deportedhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4302128/Foreigners-not-deported-Sweden-rapes.html

A glimpse into life at Google, a bubble of hysterical bigotry and safe space paranoiahttp://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-googles-office-environment/

Worker suing Google says the company is dominated by a racist man-hating hate grouphttps://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16885560/david-gudeman-james-damore-google-lawsuit-misandrist-liberal-hate-group-accusation

Everyone is free to download this video and post it to their own account if they wish, as long as it is not edited in any way (including the title) and not monetised.

You can download audio versions of all my videos athttp://patcondell.libsyn.com/

Subscribe via iTunes at http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=262679978

Follow me on Gabhttps://gab.ai/patcondell

Twitterhttp://twitter.com/patcondell

Websitehttp://www.patcondell.net

Read more here:
Godless Comedy YouTube Censorship - Godless Comedy

The term censorship refers to the suppression, banning, or deletion of speech, writing, or images that are considered to be indecent, obscene, or otherwise objectionable. Censorship becomes a civil rights issue when a government or other entity with authority, suppresses ideas, or the expression of ideas, information, and self. In the U.S., censorship has been debated for decades, as some seek to protect the public from offensive materials, and others seek to protect the publics rights to free speech and expression. To explore this concept, consider the following censorship definition.

Noun

Origin

380 B.C. Greek Philosopher Plato

The word censorship is from the Latin censere, which is to give as ones opinion, to assess. In Roman times, censors were public officials who took census counts, as well as evaluating public principles and moralities. Societies throughout history have taken on the belief that the government is responsible for shaping the characters of individuals, many engaging in censorship to that end.

In his text The Republic, ancient Greek philosopher Plato makes a systematic case for the need for censorship in the arts. Information in the ancient Chinese society was tightly controlled, a practice that persists in some form today. Finally, many churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, have historically banned literature felt to be contrary to the teachings of the church.

Many of Americas laws have their origins in English law. In the 1700s, both countries made it their business to censor speech and writings concerning sedition, which are actions promoting the overthrowing of the government, and blasphemy, which is sacrilege or irreverence toward God. The idea that obscenity should be censored didnt gain serious favor until the mid-1800s. The courts in both countries, throughout history, have worked to suppress speech, writings, and images on these issues.

As time went on, contention arose over just what should be considered obscene. Early English law defined obscenity as anything that tended to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and anything that might suggest to the minds of the young of either sex, and even to persons of more advanced years, thoughts of a most impure and libidinous character. This essentially meant anything that might lead one to have impure thoughts. This definition carried over into early American law as well.

However, that definition was vague enough to raise more questions than it answered in many circumstances. These included:

Censorship in America took a turn in 1957, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that adults cannot be reduced to reading only what is fit for children, ruling that it must be considered whether the work was originally meant for children or adults. Still, the Court acknowledged that works that are utterly without redeeming social importance can be censored or banned. This left another vague standard for the courts to deal with.

Censorship in America is most commonly a question in the entertainment industry, which is widely influential on the young and old alike. Public entertainment in the form of movies, television, music, and electronic gaming are considered to have a substantial effect on public interest. Because of this, it is subject to certain governmental regulations.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits suppression of an individuals right to free speech, stating Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press This is a principle held dear by those protesting censorship in any form. In the U.S., censorship of obscene materials in entertainment is allowed, in order to protect children from pornography and other offensive things. The problem with government sanctioned censorship is the risk of violating the civil rights of either those producing the materials, or those wishing to view them.

The issue of censorship in the film industry has, at times, been quite contentious. In an effort to avoid the censorship issue, while striving to protect children and conform to federal laws, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) instituted a self-regulating, voluntary rating system in 1968. In the 1990s, the MPAA updated its rating system, making it easier for parents to determine what is appropriate for their children, based on the childrens ages.

The MPAA rating system has a number of ratings:

Rather than censoring movies or their content by exclusion of content, MCAA ratings are assigned by a board of people who view the movies, who consider such factors as violence, sex, drug use, and language when assigning ratings. The board strives to assign a rating that a majority of parents in the U.S. would give, considering their needs to protect their children.

An X rating was part of the MCAAs original rating system, and signified that no one under the age of 16 would be allowed, regardless of parental accompaniment. The X rating was replaced by the NC-17 rating in 1990.

Internet censorship refers to the suppression of information that can be published to, or viewed on, the internet. While many people enjoy unfettered access to the broad spectrum of information racing across the information highway, others are denied access, or allowed access only to government approved information. Rationales for internet censorship range from a desire to protect children from content that is offensive or inappropriate, to a governments objective to control its peoples access to world news, opinions, and other information.

In the United States, the First Amendment affords the people some protection of their right to freely access the internet, and of the things they post to the web. Because of this, there is very little government-mandated filtering of information that originates in the U.S. The issue of censorship of certain content, especially content that may further terrorism, is constantly debated at the federal government level.

As an example of censorship, the following countries are known for censoring their peoples internet content:

In the mid-1960s, Sam Ginsberg, who owned Sams Stationery and Luncheonette on Long Island, was charged with selling girlie magazines to a 16-year old boy, which was in violation of New York state law. Ginsberg was tried in the Nassau County District Court, without a jury, and found guilty. The judge found that the magazines contained pictures which, by failing to cover the female buttocks and breasts with an opaque covering, were harmful to minors. He stated that the photos appealed to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest of minors, and that the images were patently offensive to standards held by the adult community regarding what was suitable for minors.

Ginsberg was denied the right to appeal his convictions to the New York Court of Appeals, at which time he took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, on the basis that the state of New York had no authority to define two separate classes of people (minors and adults), with respect to what is harmful. In addition, Ginsberg argued that it was easy to mistake a young persons age, and the law makes no requirement for how much effort a shop owner must put into determining age before selling magazines intended for adult viewing. The Court did not agree, holding that Ginsberg might be acquitted on the grounds of an honest mistake, only if he had made a reasonable bonafide attempt to ascertain the true age of such a minor. The conviction was upheld.

View original post here:
Censorship - Definition, Examples, Cases - Legal Dictionary