Media Search:



Where to Watch and Stream Censor Free Online – EpicStream

Cast: Niamh AlgarMichael SmileyNicholas BurnsVincent FranklinSophia La Porta

Geners: HorrorMystery

Director: Prano Bailey-Bond

Release Date: Jun 11, 2021

Film censor Enid takes pride in her meticulous work, guarding unsuspecting audiences from the deleterious effects of watching the gore-filled movies she pores over. Her sense of duty to protect is amplified by guilt over her inability to recall details of the long-ago disappearance of her sister. When Enid is assigned to review a disturbing film from the archive that echoes her hazy childhood memories, she begins to unravel how this eerie work might be tied to her past.

Unfortunately, Censor is not available on Netflix. Although you can access the vast library of shows and movies on Netflix under various subscription costs depending on the plan you choose: $9.99 per month for the basic plan, $15.99 monthly for the standard plan, and $19.99 a month for the premium plan.

You got it here! Censor is available on Hulu. Hulu subscribers can access a variety of content on the streaming platform for an ad-supported version cost of $6.99 a month. The ad-free version costs $12.99 monthly. If you want a broader choice of what to watch, you can opt to subscribe to Hulu+ Live TV with Disney+ and ESPN+ for $75.99 a month.

No, Censor is not streaming on Disney Plus. With Disney+, you can have a wide range of shows from Marvel, Star Wars, Disney+, Pixar, ESPN, and National Geographic to choose from in the streaming platform for the price of $7.99 monthly or $79.99 annually.

You won't find Censor on HBO Max. But if you're still interested in the service, it's $14.99 per month, which gives you full access to the entire vault, and is also ad-free, or $9.99 per month with ads. However, the annual versions for both are cheaper, with the ad-free plan at $150 and the ad-supported plan at $100.

As of now, Censor is not available to watch for free on Amazon Prime Video. You can still buy or rent other movies through their service.

Censor hasn't made its way onto the Peacock streaming library. Peacock has plenty of other shows and movies for only $4.99 a month or $49.99 per year for a premium account.

Censor is not on Paramount Plus. Paramount Plus has two subscription options: the basic version ad-supported Paramount+ Essential service costs $4.99 per month, and an ad-free premium plan for $9.99 per month.

No dice. Censor isn't streaming on the Apple TV+ library at this time. You can watch plenty of other top-rated shows and movies like Mythic Quest, Tedd Lasso, and Wolfwalkers for a monthly cost of $4.99 from the Apple TV Plus library.

No luck. Censor is not available to watch on Direct TV. If you're interested in other movies and shows, Direct TV still has plenty of other options that may intrigue you.

Go here to see the original:
Where to Watch and Stream Censor Free Online - EpicStream

Creators on the Cusp: Gina Gagliano, head of the Boston Book Festival – NPR

Some books Gina Gagliano worked on at Random House Graphic. Meghan Collins Sullivan/NPR hide caption

Some books Gina Gagliano worked on at Random House Graphic.

Our Creators on the Cusp series brings you writers, artists, editors and publishers who are shaping the future of comics and graphic novels. We'll introduce you to the troublemakers and boundary-pushers who're taking comics in once-unimaginable directions.

At a time when comics and graphic novels were seldom released by mainstream publishers, Gina Gagliano worked tirelessly to put the genre on the radar.

She was on the original team behind Macmillan's trailblazing graphic novel imprint First Second in 2006. And then, two years ago, she helped found the Penguin-Random House imprint RH Graphic, focused on graphic novels for kids and Young Adult readers. She's pursued her passion outside the system, too, as host of the Graphic Novel TK podcast. She was named executive director of the Boston Book Festival in February. She spoke with me about working within the system, fighting censorship, and teaching kids (and adults) to love reading.

Back when I started thinking about this series, I was focused on people who actively make comics. My editor then, Petra Mayer, asked me specifically to include you in the series too even though you're not the type of creator I had in mind because she admired you so much. She saw you as the kind of publisher who's had a powerful influence on individual graphic novels, as well as someone who is contributing to the exploding popularity of the genre. As you may know, Petra passed away suddenly last fall. So I see this interview as a kind of memorial to her.

I'm sorry, I'm getting choked up, because Petra was one of my favorite people in the industry.

She was a lot like you, actually. She was devoted to making people aware of the types of books that she thought were special and overlooked. Did you feel a sense of kinship with her around this crusade?

She was this amazing champion. I respected how she was kind of "inside the system" at NPR which has this monolithic reputation as an assessor of all things cultural and she was taking all kinds of books that have been historically underappreciated and shedding a light on them. ... It's so important that we think about reading in all the different ways that people are reading: from kids' books, to comics, to romance and mystery. Commercial fiction as well as highbrow literary work.

It's interesting that you emphasize Petra's role as someone who was working inside a mainstream edifice to push for what she saw as important. You have been doing the same thing for years. People are still talking about your departure from Random House Graphic, the imprint you founded and headed, in December. Why did you leave there?

Gina Gagliano. Courtesy of Gina Gagliano hide caption

Gina Gagliano.

That change was really about the very thing that you said: Being in this large organization, being on the inside there and realizing that I wanted to work more directly with readers. At [the Boston Book Festival] I'm going to be building programs to get [books] into schools and ... bring them to as many of the people in this city ... as I can.

There's a huge problem with censorship right now. We're going to have a banned book speak out ... We have a Ukrainian reading room at our Lit Crawl program so that people can raise their awareness about what's happening in Ukraine. ... Those are things that I could make happen that are not on a timeline of, you know, "Let me acquire a book, and then the author will work on the book, and then the book will come out three years from now."

How are you able to combine your interest in comics, and especially kids' and Young Adult comics, with your goal of helping readers connect with current events?

I think there's always this question in kids' books: "Can kids' books truly address contemporary issues? Are kids' books just books for adults, but with a "less-high" vocabulary?" That's not what kids' books are at all. ... What they are meant to be, in my personal opinion, is books that reach kids where they are. Books that are as sophisticated and complex and enjoyable as adult books, but targeted at someone who may be just learning about something like climate change, someone who's just learning about censorship. ... [It's] a completely different approach. It sometimes takes much, much more work to figure out.

You mentioned the increase in censorship earlier. It seems like one of the things that's happening in the discourse these days is that a big chunk of people has decided that they don't have any hope of getting their right-wing views heard by the mainstream media, so they've just checked out. How do you think we should be addressing them?

There ... just needs to be so much change in the place that our culture gives to schools and libraries and the funding that our culture gives to schools and libraries so that those spaces can have the time and the resources and the staff to make community connections and be the centers of those discussions for all of the different towns and communities across America. Part of that is people trying out new books, people reading books from viewpoints that are not their own. [People should be] reading books, as Rudine Sims Bishop says, as mirrors and also as windows to other experiences. ... Before that reading can happen, there just need to be those conversations and those relationships.

What are the graphic novels you've worked on over the course of your publishing career that you've been most excited about the ones you will always remember?

Gene Luen Yang's American Born Chinese is one of the first graphic novels I worked on after starting at First Second doing marketing and publicity. It was the start of getting to support Gene on many more books in the next decade. Robot Dreams by Sara Varon will always remain one of my favorite books ever. I love so much how she captures the sweet and bittersweet nature of friendship. And [there's] the first book I acquired at Random House Graphic, Trung Le Nguyen's The Magic Fish, which I co-edited with Whitney Leopard. Trung is an amazing storyteller, and stories about queer identity and family always have a place in my heart even when they're not accompanied by fairy tales, one of my other favorite types of books.

I looked at the Random House Graphic homepage, and it said it had "a mission to put a graphic novel on the bookshelf of every child and YA reader." Is that still your mission?

It's not just that everyone should be reading comics (which they should), it's also that America has a lot of stigma [around] reading. Reading, for many people, is not fun it's not entertainment. It's kind of thought of in the same frame as you think about book reports [rather than a way] to relax after work. ... I really want people's attitude towards reading ... to be like, "This is an exciting and fun thing that I can't wait to do."

The number of blockbuster book franchises that we've seen in the U.S., especially for kids, over the past 20 years ... things like John Green and The Fault in Our Stars, things like Suzanne Collins and The Hunger Games ... really shows that books can permeate our cultural landscape. ... This vision that I have of everyone in America just being excited about and invested in reading I can see it on the horizon.

See the original post here:
Creators on the Cusp: Gina Gagliano, head of the Boston Book Festival - NPR

Here’s how the DSA keeps its lawmakers in line – City & State

To be an unorganized socialist is a contradiction in terms, Zohran Mamdani told City & State, explaining his decision to join the Socialists in Office committee soon after winning a Democratic primary for an Assembly seat in 2020.

Mamdani, who represents the Astoria section of Queens, is a member of the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America and received the groups endorsement when he ran for office. He is one of six DSA members in the state Senate and Assembly, who are collectively known as the Socialists in Office.

The first socialist in office in the modern era was Julia Salazar, who was first elected to the state Senate in 2018. (Full disclosure: I am a member of NYC-DSA and donated to Salazars campaign.)

The rest of the group were elected in 2020: Mamdani, state Sen. Jabari Brisport, and Assembly Members Marcela Mitaynes, Phara Souffrant Forrest and Emily Gallagher.

These six legislators work closely with DSA, in ways that go far beyond the usual relationship that elected officials have with community and activist groups.

Following its victories in the 2020 elections, NYC-DSA created a dedicated group known as the Socialists in Office committee (SIO) to coordinate with its elected officials. The SIO includes representatives of NYC-DSAs Citywide Leadership Committee, geographic branches (such as the Central Brooklyn branch and Queens branch), and working groups focused on specific issues (such as the Healthcare Working Group and housing working groups).

The SIO meets regularly, typically through weekly virtual meetings and monthly in-person meetings. During the meetings, members will often discuss pending bills and strategize on how to win DSAs legislative priorities, which this year included the New York Health Act, the Build Public Renewables Act, and good cause eviction.

The committee is democratically run, with any member not just those in elected office able to suggest that the committee adopt a collective position on a certain issue or piece of legislation.

We have created a decision-making process by which we could air out a question whether it be legislation or whatever else, or endorsements and then have a structure to a debate and then a vote, internally, to figure out: Where do we lie on this as a committee, and how do we ensure that we move as a collective even amidst individual dissent? Mamdani said.

In cases where the committee does vote to adopt a collective position, the six legislators will be expected to vote as a bloc in the Assembly and Senate. In other cases, though, they may vote differently from one another.

There have been a lot of occasions where we didnt make any decision at all and then as a result we just ended up voting in different ways, Salazar said.

In addition to the regular SIO meetings, the six socialists in office often attend the DSAs monthly branch meetings and participate in mass calls open to all DSA members, where they report back on what is happening in Albany.

Part of the function of the committee is to have mass calls where we explain what exactly just happened in this extremely complicated, last-minute process that has huge ramifications for millions of people in our state, said Sumathy Kumar, the co-chair of NYC-DSA and a member of the SIO committee. That is an extremely important function of the socialists that are in Albany right now, of pulling back the veil on how undemocratic, how top-down the Legislature is, all the things that they think they can get away with, and exposing that to a mass audience and agitating people to get involved, to get organized, to join a movement so that we can actually structurally change that.

The particular relationship that DSA has with its elected officials is unique within state politics. Plenty of lawmakers belong to caucuses and informal blocs, participate in strategy calls led by outside advocacy groups and host town halls to hear from constituents. But only DSA and socialists in office have created this hybrid model.

Its not a one-off town hall where you hear from people and then you go back to your office and you do whatever you want, Kumar explained. Its an ongoing process, its an organizing conversation, its a permanent strategy really, to have an ongoing conversation between people who have been elected and people theyre representing.

In some limited but very real sense, the elected officials who belong to SIO have been willing to share the power they have as legislators with DSA, agreeing to support the collective goals of the SIO committee despite their own personal beliefs.

I think whats unique about it is it truly is collaborative between the legislators in the Socialists in Office committee and the non-legislators in the committee, Salazar said.

In theory, that could mean DSA elected officials would represent the interests of an outside group rather than the interests of their constituents. But in practice, the socialists in office say, there isnt much conflict between DSAs values and those of the districts that elected them not least because many people in those districts belong to DSA. NYC-DSA currently has about 6,400 members.

More of my constituents are dues-paying DSA members than of any other organized group in the district, Mamdani said.

The guy that I beat in FIFA five blocks down from my apartment is a DSA member, he added. The co-owner of the bar on Avenue North where we launch our canvasses is a DSA member. The taxi driver who lives two avenues south is a DSA member. The teacher I run into on the subway platform is a DSA member. In being accountable to a mass movement, I am being accountable to my constituency.

Both Salazar and Mamdani said that they have never felt pressured by DSA to take a stance that they disagreed with, since they all share the organizations values and politics.

This committee is, almost fundamentally, based on our socialist ideology, right? So were like-minded people and like-minded policymakers, Salazar said.

That is a credit to DSAs electoral strategy. Unlike many progressive advocacy organizations, DSA is extremely selective with its endorsements, only endorsing candidates who fully embrace the organizations values and plan to work closely with the organization once in office. Often, DSA-endorsed candidates have already been active in DSA organizing campaigns for years before deciding to run for office. So long as DSA only endorses true believers in socialism, they can be assured that any endorsed candidate who wins election will share their goals and be eager to work with them.

When it comes to DSAs main campaigns such as universal health care, good cause eviction, and publicly owned renewable energy utilities theres no question that all six of the socialists in office are on the same page.

When it comes to issues that are controversial within DSA, however, the unified front of the socialists in office can fray. That was the case with the bill creating the NYCHA Preservation Trust an enormously complex piece of legislation that enables the New York City Housing Authority to set up a public trust to accept federal housing vouchers and sell bonds to raise money from investors to repair NYCHA buildings. Many NYCHA tenants have expressed skepticism of the Preservation Trust, though others have spoken out in favor of it.

In late May, Salazar was approached by Democratic leadership and asked whether she would sponsor the Senate version of the bill creating the NYCHA Preservation Trust. The bill had originally been introduced by Senate Housing Committee chair Brian Kavanagh, but he withdrew his sponsorship in response to opposition from NYCHA tenants. Salazar, who supported the creation of the Preservation Trust, agreed to sponsor the bill without first consulting the SIO committee.

Salazar maintains that she did not do anything wrong, since neither the SIO nor NYC-DSA as a whole had taken a position on the NYCHA Preservation Trust. She said that the SIO did discuss an earlier version of the bill, known as the Blueprint for NYCHA, but ultimately decided not to take a position.

In 2021, we had a discussion about it. The members of the committee who were interested actually met with representatives from NYCHA to understand the bill better and make our own recommendations for how the bill could be improved, Salazar said. After that, the Socialists in Office committee determined that it was not a priority for the committee, and it clearly wasnt a priority for the organization, so the committee took no position on the Preservation Trust.

But others within the organization felt betrayed when Salazar sponsored the bill. Last summer, a group of DSA activists who opposed the creation of the Preservation Trust had introduced a resolution at NYC-DSAs annual convention calling for the organization to publicly oppose the bill. But the resolution did not pass a reflection of the fact that some within DSA actually support the Preservation Trust. After the convention, NYC-DSA leadership passed an amended resolution that pledged to remain neutral on the issue of the Preservation Trust and to create a dedicated group within DSA known as the NYCHA Solidarity Working Group that would focus on bringing NYCHA tenants into DSA.

We moved forward with a resolution at the convention, and there was a back and forth; some in leadership didnt want to take a hard anti stance on the Trust, said Dannelly Rodriguez, a member of the NYCHA Solidarity Working Group. We made compromises; DSA would not take any position on the Blueprint or the Trust until we had organized NYCHA tenants.

Rodriguez said Salazars unilateral decision to sponsor the bill was a slap in the face that violated NYC-DSA leaderships pledge to remain neutral on the issue.

After Salazar announced her sponsorship of the NYCHA Preservation Trust bill, the NYCHA Solidarity Working Group published an open letter demanding that she withdraw the bill. More than 140 DSA members signed their names to the letter.

Senator Salazar has ignored NYC-DSAs democratic decision-making process, the letter reads. By surprising her NYC-DSA colleagues in the State Legislature, some of whom have no firm opinion on and others of whom have major concerns with this NYCHA legislation, she has shown disregard for the SIO Committee as a concept. Albany wants to politically divide the SIO and this action accomplished that.

Salazar did not withdraw the bill, though she did hold a virtual forum with the NYCHA Solidarity Working Group and other DSA members to discuss her position on the bill. Rodriguez and other members of the NYCHA Solidarity WG said that their concerns were not addressed; they wanted Salazar to face some form of accountability from DSA or SIO for her decision to sponsor the bill, not just for her to explain her position.

In the aftermath, there has been zero to minimal engagement about what Julia had done, Rodriguez said. We had a meeting prior to the voting on the bill to try to rein her in, a critical and meaningful discussion that ultimately led to zero accountability on her position.

When Salazars bill and its Assembly equivalent came up for a vote, all of her fellow socialists in office voted against the bills. Phara Souffrant Forrest, one of the Assembly members elected in 2020, also released a public statement explaining her decision: For me, doing better means starting with NYCHA residents and engaging them deeply on the issues and what possible solutions might look like. Having spoken to my own constituents about this legislation, I have heard skepticism and a feeling that no one has invested the time to work deeply with them on shaping their future.

Rodriguez said that Salazars decision to sponsor the bill had led some NYCHA tenants to refuse to work with DSA and had led him to question DSAs commitment to holding its elected officials accountable.

Meanwhile, Fight for NYCHA, an activist group opposed to the Preservation Trust that Salazar has previously sparred with on Twitter, recently launched a new Twitter account called @NoDSANY with the tagline, The DSA sold-out NYCHA. Now, they are going to find out.

Despite the acrimonious split over the NYCHA Preservation Trust, both NYC-DSA and the Socialists in Office project seem poised to continue to grow.

Last year, two DSA candidates won election to the City Council Alexa Avils and Tiffany Cabn prompting the organization to create a nascent City Socialists in Office committee. In the August primary, two more candidates are running for state Senate with DSAs endorsement: Kristen Gonzalez and David Alexis.

And last month, climate organizer Sarahana Shrestha beat incumbent Assembly Member Kevin Cahill in a Democratic primary. Shrestha is a member of the Mid-Hudson Valley chapter of DSA, and before running for office, she participated in an SIO strategy workshop as an organizer on DSAs Public Power NY campaign. If she wins the general election in November, as she is heavily favored to, then she will continue participating in the SIO committee but this time as an elected official.

Shrestha told City & State that she did not originally want to run for office but was persuaded to run in order to expand DSAs legislative influence beyond New York City.

I would not have run as a candidate without DSA backing, she said. In this case, it was really the organization and the organizers coming together and being like, lets run this specific member of our organization for this specific reason in this specific place.

Original post:
Here's how the DSA keeps its lawmakers in line - City & State

Turn the other tweet: NYPD not heeding Adams’ call to censor violence on social media – Gothamist

Mayor Eric Adams has one of the biggest bully pulpits in the country and for months hes used it to drive home this message: Get rid of violent imagery on social media.

Look at what we are showing now on social media, the mayor said during a May interview on Pix 11. We should be using artificial intelligence to identify words, identify phrases, to immediately remove and censor some of this information.

He later added, The type of violence that's being promoted on social media is beyond anything I've ever witnessed before.

The mayor was responding to the online history of two recent mass shooting suspects. The man accused of the April subway shooting in Sunset Park had posted videos of violent ramblings on social media, and the suspect in the Buffalo grocery store shooting was live-streaming as the horror unfolded. The postings hurled Big Tech into the spotlight and inspired city and state leaders, including Gov. Kathy Hochul, to demand more from internet companies when it comes to policing the violence on their platforms.

The attack on social media has been a recurring theme in the mayors rhetoric, but his May remarks came just days after his own police department posted surveillance footage of violent perpetrators pointing guns at their victims.

The New York City Police Department has long used social media to share information on crimes under investigation and to get the publics help finding suspects. Surveillance footage and imagery have become commonplace on the departments Twitter and Facebook pages. But as technology progressed, so did the frequency of graphic imagery on the departments online channels, creating a cycle of sometimes shockingly graphic imagery being shared online, picked up by local news outlets, and transmitted across the airwaves.

So while the mayor has been inveighing against the varied images of violence by civilians, theres been no shortage of it streaming from the NYPDs social media channels. The mayors office declined to comment, but the NYPD told Gothamist there was value in showing video of certain crimes in progress because it might motivate the public to help catch criminals.

The footage is often raw and unedited, except for the obscuring of victims faces. The posts often get picked up and shared by local media outlets and distributed on other social media platforms.

A tweet from June 7th showed a suspect tossing a 52-year-old woman onto subway tracks in the Bronx. A post on May 25th showed a 37-year-old woman getting violently kicked in the head and falling onto her back. On May 16th, the department posted footage on Twitter of a suspect in Queens beating a 24-year-old man over the head with a firearm. Another post from May 11th showed a suspect in Staten Island hitting a 54-year-old store employee on the head with a glass bottle and choking him. A tweet from May 4th showed a man in the Bronx punching a 77-year-old man in the face, knocking him over.

In an interview with Gothamist, NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Public Information John Miller said the department posts imagery like this to engage the public.

Sometimes, one way to engage is to show either the incident or the brutality of the incident or the wanton nature of the incident, where you can tell these people are firing guns on a crowded street, Miller said. And there are children in the background. There are mothers in the background. There are elderly people in the background. There's a park behind them and they just don't care where those bullets go. And sometimes, that in and of itself will add power to the imagery that goes with it.

Miller added that New York City is still one of the safest big cities in the country by most measures, with the number of shootings down from one year ago, but still up from pre-pandemic levels.

But sociologist Barry Glassner, who wrote Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things, told Gothamist that the proliferation of images and videos of crimes in progress could make people feel more afraid than the crime statistics warrant without necessarily helping catch the perpetrators of crimes.

Any added value for actually succeeding at the police work, I would be pretty confident is not as great as the damage done by all these violent videos circulating around and creating more fear in the population and more sense that there's crime everywhere you turn, Glassner said. And that it's very scary.

Glassner said the more people are inundated with the prevalence of crime the more they see violent imagery online, such as the footage the NYPD shares the more anxious the general public becomes, regardless of statistics.

He also said the recordings of crimes in progress present an incomplete picture.

The recording of the event by the police presents one perspective, he said. [It] doesn't capture the full context of what occurred. And so people watch this and it seems strictly factual and complete, and it can't be its not possible.

When determining what to share, and how to share it, Miller said officers comb through security footage and try to find identifiable images of the particular suspect. In many cases, he said, the department will share video footage so the public can see how a suspect might walk or move. If a victim is involved, he said, officers notify them about disseminating footage with their faces blurred.

The deal with videos and imagery of violence that we put out has to do with a different set of obligations, he said. And we shouldn't be considering whether it increases fear or not. Our first obligation is to the victim of that crime. The victim of that crime, above all considerations of perception and public relations and spin, the victim of that crime deserves justice.

More here:
Turn the other tweet: NYPD not heeding Adams' call to censor violence on social media - Gothamist

More Than Two Thirds Of States Are Pushing Highly Controversial (And Likely Unconstitutional) Bills To Moderate Speech Online – Techdirt

from the the-moral-panic-to-end-all-moral-panics dept

Over the last year and a half, weve had plenty of stories about how various state legislators are shoving each other aside to pass laws to try to regulate speech online. Of course, thats generally not how they put it. They claim that theyre regulating social media, and making lots of (highly questionable) assumptions insisting that social media is somehow bad. And this is coming from both sides of the traditional political spectrum. Republicans are pushing bills to compel websites to host speech, while Democrats are pushing bills to compel websites to censor speech. And sometimes they team up to push horrible, dangerous, unconstitutional legislation for the children.

Over at Politco, Rebecca Kern has done an amazing job cataloging this rush by state legislators across the country to push these laws almost all of which are likely unconstitutional. Its depressing as anything, and in a few decades when we look back and talk about the incredibly ridiculous moral panic over social media, maps like these will be front and center:

You should read Kerns full article, as it breaks the various bills down into four categories: banning censorship, reporting hateful content, regulating algorithms, and mandating transparency including interesting discussions on each category.

Of course, as youll note in the chart above, while Texas, Florida, and New York are the only states so far to pass such laws, the Florida and Texas ones are both on hold due to courts recognizing their problems. While New Yorks only passed bill (it has more in the hopper) perhaps isnt quite as bad as Floridas and Texas, its still awful and hopefully someone will challenge the constitutionality of it as well.

However, part of the problem is that for the apparently dwindling collection of people who still believe in free speech online, all of these bills (and many of the states listed above arent doing just one bill, but multiple crazy bills all at once) are creating a sort of distributed denial of service attack on free speech advocates.

We simply cant respond to every crazy new bill in every crazy state legislature trying to regulate speech online. We (and here I mean literally us at the Copia Institute) are trying to help educate and explain to policymakers all across the country how dangerous and backwards most of these bills are. But were a tiny, tiny team with extremely little resources.

Yet, at the same time, many in the media (without noting that they compete with social media for ad dollars) seem to be cheering on many of these bills.

And, speaking of free speech advocates, it is beyond disappointing in Kerns article to see the Knight First Amendment Institute, which Ive worked with many times, and which I respect, quoted as supporting some of these clearly unconstitutional bills. There seems to have been an unfortunate shift in the Institutes support for free speech over the last year or so. Rather than protecting the 1st Amendment, it has repeatedly staked out weird positions that seem designed to chip away at the 1st Amendment protections that are so important.

For example, they apparently see the ability to regulate algorithms as possibly not violating the 1st Amendment, which is crazy:

However, Wilkens, of the Knight First Amendment Institute, said that while the bill may implicate the First Amendment, it doesnt mean that it violates the First Amendment. He said that while its still up for interpretation, the legislation if it became law may be held constitutional because the states interest here in protecting young girls seems to be a very strong interest.

Im not going to go deep on why this is disconnected from reality both the idea that the bill being discussed (Californias AB 2048) would protect young girls (it wouldnt) and that it might be constitutional (it obviously is not), but its distressing beyond belief that yet another institution that has taken in many millions of dollars (way more than Copia has received in nearly 25 years of existence) is now fighting against the 1st Amendment rather than protecting it.

Theres a war going on against online speech these days, and much of it is happening in state houses, where it is very, very difficult for the remaining advocates of online speech to be heard. And its not helping that others who claim to be supporters of free speech are out there actively undermining it.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, california, florida, free speech, online speech, regulating social media, state legislatures, states, texas

Here is the original post:
More Than Two Thirds Of States Are Pushing Highly Controversial (And Likely Unconstitutional) Bills To Moderate Speech Online - Techdirt