Mediaboss Marketing

Parenting is hard. There is no other way to describe it. And parenting at a time of social and political turmoil is especially challenging. Old social norms are losing their authority. Social media intrude on the family, often supplanting parental authority. Predators are a concern. Video games are a concern. The music is a concern. The list goes on and on.

As parents, our first instinct is to do everything we can to shield our children from the world around us. And that is a good instinct. But at the same time, it comes with a cost. If we shield them too successfully, do we keep them from preparing to take on the world when they become adults? What are parents to do?

I have thoughts about these things, as you do. I have made my share of mistakes as a parent, and Im sure you would admit you have as well. And there is probably no one answer for every family. Having said this, I would suggest that most parents are trying too hard to protect their children from the world today. I certainly sympathize with this. When I look around, a lot of what I see scares me. But fear shouldnt be our motivation as parents.

We need to find a way to strike a balance between too much fear and too little fear. We must look for ways to keep the pendulum from swinging too far in either direction. Aristotle taught that virtue is a mean between an excess and a defect between too much or too little of something. And courage is a mean between too much fear and too little fear.

Let me ask a question: What do we see as our primary goal as parents? Obviously, we want to provide all the love and support we can for our children. But I suspect that many of us would say that our primary goal is to prepare our children for the future so that they can live successful, independent lives on their own. If that is our goal, then the most important thing is to teach them how to think for themselves. And that means that sheltering them too much is a mistake. They are going to need to know how to respond for themselves to all of the things that we hope wont hurt them.

In other words, our children need to learn how to think critically. That involves weighing and balancing competing arguments. It means developing an ability to confront the harshness and the evil of the world around them. It means our children need to learn their limits. And it means that we need to know our limits as well. We cant do this for them.

Of course, all of this needs to be done in an age-appropriate manner. No sensible person would want a kindergartner to be reading about abortion. But we should even look for age-appropriate ways to challenge kindergartners to think for themselves. If we set the bar too low for them at that age, they may never develop true independence. And by the time our children make it to high school, we shouldnt be trying to shelter them. Its time for them to deal with everything the world brings their way.

Censorship in schools is therefore the worst possible thing for our children. We do them a disservice if we try to keep them from feeling uncomfortable when their beliefs are challenged, even if those are our beliefs as well. And if we keep them from learning about the darkest moments in our nations history, they will not be able to understand todays world. They need to read novels that reveal the beauty in the world around us and the ugliness of which human beings are capable. They must confront racism, sexism, antisemitism and other forms of hatred and prejudice. They need to ask questions about gender.

So the nationwide push by parents and politicians for new forms of censorship in schools harms our children. We are not showing them the respect they deserve if we focus on trying to indoctrinate them rather than inviting them to think for themselves. Laws that prohibit specific topics, books and even discussions from the classroom limit the ability of our children to think. If we want to bless our children by giving them the strength and wisdom they need to be independent, then we have to restrain our desire to always be protecting them.

See the rest here:
Parenting and Censorship in the Schools InsideSources - InsideSources

Twenty-three international media freedom, freedom of expression, and journalists organizations today called for the immediate dismissal of the bill on disinformation and fake news which was submitted to the parliament on May 27 by the governing alliance of Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).

The bill threatens up to three years imprisonment for those found guilty of the deliberate publishing of disinformation and fake news intended to instigate fear or panic, endanger the countrys internal or external security, public order and general health of Turkeys society.

Such a bill, where the definition of disinformation and intent is left so vague, puts millions of Turkeys internet users at risk of criminal action for posting information that the government disagrees with.

Placed in the hands of Turkeys highly politicized judiciary, the law would become another tool for harassing journalists and activists and may cause blanket self-censorship across the internet.

The bill would also increase any sentence by 50 percent where information is published from anonymous user accounts. This severely undermines anonymity on the internet and further intimidates those wanting to publish evidence of corruption and wrongdoing but are afraid of the consequences of being publicly identified.

The governing alliance claim the bill is in line with the European Unions Digital Services Act and General Data Protection Regulation, however there are no such provisions under either of these laws.

The law would also bring news sites under the Press Law (Basin Kanunu). This gives their journalists access to the official press accreditation and also to public advertising funds through the official Press Advertising Agency, Basin Ilan Kurumu (BIK). In practice however this will simply enable the government to fund pro-government news sites while banning critical media deemed to have breached the disinformation law.

In the drafting stage, the government reportedly organized a consultation with international digital platforms yet it failed to hold any meetings with media representatives, editors, journalism associations, or unions, despite these groups, and their members, being the most affected by the legislation.

The draft bill is currently before the Parliament. However the role of parliament has been so heavily undermined by the Presidential system that the bill is being rushed through without proper scrutiny or debate and expected to be passed swiftly into law within days.

Disinformation is an important issue and needs to be combatted but not at the price of restricting journalists rights and the publics rights of freedom of expression. Any such initiatives should be developed in close consultation with media and other stakeholders and include sufficient safeguards for free speech and independent journalism that can prevent their abuse by the government to impose arbitrary censorship.

We, therefore, call on all Turkeys parliamentarians who believe in the parliamentary process and the free flow of ideas and information as central to a democratic society to vote down this bill.

SignatoriesInternational Press Institute (IPI)ARTICLE 19Articolo 21Association of European JournalistsCommittee to Protect JournalistsEnglish PENEuropean Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)Foreign Media Association (FMA)IFEXInternational Federation of Journalists (IFJ)Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)Media Research Association (MEDAR)OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)PEN AmericaPEN InternationalPEN NorwayPlatform for Independent Journalism (P24)Reporters Without Borders (RSF)South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)Swedish PenThe Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ)Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support ProjectWorld Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)

Visit link:
International Groups Call on Turkey's Parliament to Reject the Disinformation Bill as a Tool of Digital Censorship - PEN America

Gangster Gangaraju Censor report and run time

Gangster Gangaraju is an upcoming Telugu movie which is gearing up for the grand release very soon. The movie is directed by Eeshaan Suryaah and will feature Nihar Kapoor, Laksh Chadalavada, Vedieka Dutt, Vennela Kishore and Srikanth Iyyengar as lead characters. The movie also has Goparaju Ramana, Satyakrishan, Raviteja Nannimala, Charan Deep,Srikanth Iyenger, Rajeshwari Nair, Sammeta Gandhi, Rajendra, Anu Manasa, Lavanya Reddy, Annapoorna, and others in the important roles. According to the latest update, Gangster Gangaraju has completed the censor formalities and received U/A certificate from the censor board. The movie has crisp run time of 2Hrs 12Mins.

g-Ad

In the month of August last year, the makers of Gangster Gangaraju , unveiled the first look poster of Laksh Chadalavada who was spotted wearing an under cool outfit. He was seen sipping the coconut water.

The upcoming action entertainer Gangster Gangaraju is funded by well-known producer Padmavathi Chadalavada under the banner of Sri Tirumala Tirupati Venkstwshwara Films while Chadalavada Brothers are presenting this upcoming drama, which has the music by Sai Kartheek. The promotions of the film are going on in full swing. While the first look and songs of Gangster Gangaraju got a wonderful response. Being made with a different and first-of-its-kind storyline, the upcoming drama Gangster Gangaraju has all the thrilling elements for the movie lovers.

Read the original:
Gangster Gangaraju Censor report and run time - Tollywood

While the freezes were bad news for Bitcoin investors that are already suffering a historic downturn, they also expose a contradiction at the heart of the cryptocurrency world.

For all the industrys promises of decentralising finance, those who have exchanged their cash for crypto have done little more than put their faith in one financial gatekeeper over another.

Binance and Celsius customers savings were no more free for being in Bitcoin. They were still subject to the whims of an intermediary with the power to shut its doors and cut off users, just as they would be with a bank.

The key difference is that if a cryptocurrency company goes bust, there is no regulation protecting deposits.

Yes, Bitcoin technically operates independently of any institution or country, governed only by computer code and the network of miners that maintain it. This is why, strictly, it can never be regulated. You can download your bitcoin on to a hard drive and truly own it.

But most people dont: it is not worth the hassle or the risk. Instead, they store their cryptocurrencies in an online exchange where it can be easily withdrawn and liquidated.

Convenience wins over idealism, and as the current crop of Silicon Valley monopolies has shown, consumers drift towards centralisation.

Once it sits in an exchange where it can be converted, Bitcoin must interact with the rest of the financial system, making it subject to regulation.

Coinbase, one of the worlds biggest exchanges, deals with hundreds of law enforcement requests a week. Those operating in Britain are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Criminals are finding it increasingly difficult to convert stolen crypto into cash, because it is often seized when it enters an exchange.

As cryptocurrency companies come under closer scrutiny, they will start looking less representative of the libertarian ideal on which Bitcoin was founded and more like the ageing banks it was meant to replace.

At that point, we might start to wonder where its value comes from. If a couple of companies have the power to crash the entire market, Bitcoin does not look so free after all.

Go here to see the original:
The crypto crash proves it Bitcoin's libertarian dream is over - The Telegraph

With the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Federalist Society appears poised for a triumph. This organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers and law professors and students turns 40 this year.

Yet contrary to progressive perceptions, the societys function has not been solely, or even primarily, to roll back abortion and other elements of the sexual revolution. If you look at the full scope of its activities, you will notice that a far more important mission has been to mount an economic revolution of its own, on behalf of corporations and other powerful market actors.

The Federalist Society has become a judicial pipeline of the Republican Party, helping to supply numerous nominees to the federal bench. In the progressive imagination, the society is a secretive cabal of theocrats and cultural reactionaries. In reality, it is best understood as a professional-development club for what the writer Michael Lind calls libertarians in robes who shift power from working-class voters to overclass judges.

The society was largely one of many institutions nurtured by the right wing of the American donor class to roll back the legal and material achievements of U.S. workers dating back to the New Deal and to elevate economic deregulation to high moral and constitutional principle. In tandem, other right-of-center institutions emerged to solidify Americas status abroad as a hegemon guarding the rule of global capital against rival claimants for organizing world order.

None of this is news to leftist critics of 20th-century conservatism. But a growing number of dissidents within conservatism view these legacy institutions not just the Federalist Society but also the Heritage Foundation, National Review Institute and others as ultimately hostile to core commitments that ought to inform the right. These would include cultivation of republican and personal virtue that rests on common prosperity and, yes, a measure of material equality; robust social-democratic support, especially for working families, who shouldnt have to choose between paying their bills and having children; and modesty about Washingtons role in foreign affairs.

Yet the institutions of Conservatism Inc. persist in advancing a pro-business agenda despite opposition from the large populist-right segment of the Republican rank and file. While the G.O.P. has never been a workers party, many of its voters are. Yet Conservatism Inc. refuses to embrace a multiethnic, working-class ethos.

Having seen the workings of institutional conservatism firsthand for several decades, we believe that the best way to understand the contemporary conservative intellectual movement is by examining the material interests that underwrite its workings and shape its mission. Those material interests arent all perfectly in agreement with one another, which is why the organizations in question dont always play nice together. There are disagreements at the margins. But the North Star of all is rule by large corporate and financial power, and support for militarism and cultural aggression abroad.

The Federalist Society itself offers the best illustration of the misguided development of movement conservatism. Hot-button social questions are sometimes fiercely contested among those with ties to the society. For instance, it was Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch who in 2020 led a majority of the court in ruling that sexual orientation and gender identity apply to the 1964 Civil Rights Acts definition of sex. And Edward Whelan, an originalist stalwart, countered arguments in favor of constitutional protection of fetal personhood the likely next stage in the anti-abortion battle if or when Roe falls.

Where the society has been supremely effective and far more united is in the realm of political economy. In the same decades of progressive ascendancy on cultural issues, society-certified judges on the federal bench pushed through a raft of decisions aimed at thwarting collective action by workers and government action against monopolies.

Over the past several decades, society heroes like Justice Antonin Scalia upended decades of settled law and clear congressional intent to expand the use of commercial arbitration to employment and consumer contexts. This was despite the manifest imbalance in power between the parties agreeing to arbitrate their disputes.

The conservative legal scholar Robert Bork proposed reforms to U.S. antitrust law by arguing that it should focus on consumer welfare, often understood to mean lower prices, even if monopoly power means a less competitive economy lorded over by a few giant companies.

The Federalist Society is not the only conservative institution to pursue a similar, pro-corporate agenda. Others, like the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute and National Review Institute, also receive large sums from wealthy individuals and trusts and have similarly too often equated conservatism with a neoliberal, imperial agenda.

What does this tell us about whether the right can really be realigned with the working class? There are a number of smaller right-of-center institutions trying meaningfully to adapt, but Conservatism Inc. at best pays only lip service to working-class concerns. The largest institutions are still dedicated to inventing, often from whole cloth, as the Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich revolutionaries also did, a version of movement conservatism that holds at bay authentic American traditions that run counter to corporate interests.

In the republican tradition, the political economy must be embedded, with state intervention as needed, within a moral order. Yet the longstanding American tradition that fretted over compromises to civic virtue and democratic self-rule demanded by unchecked financial power and imperial expansion has very little institutional expression in todays Conservatism Inc.

In his farewell address, in 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower warned his compatriots about just this threat: the rise of a military-industrial complex that shuts out the primacy of public order and the common good to secure the economic commitments of corporate entities. This is what the conservative movement became, the jackals of Mammon. And it is what threatens the common good of the nation.

Sohrab Ahmari is a founder and editor of the journal Compact. Patrick Deneen is a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. Chad Pecknold is an associate professor of systematic theology at the Catholic University of America.

View original post here:
Opinion | The Federalist Society Has Helped Create a Corporate-Friendly Court That Hurts U.S. Workers - The New York Times