Media Search:



Guy Farmer: Censoring the news | Serving Carson City for over 150 years – Nevada Appeal

Two of my favorite political columnists, liberal Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and conservative Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, have recently denounced efforts by so-called "progressives" to censor the news.In a column titled "'Just Asking' for Censorship," Strassel wrote about a recent House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing on "disinformation and extremism in the media" during which progressive lawmakers accused conservative media of fomenting disinformation and extremism. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat, asked the CEOs of a dozen cable, satellite and broadband providers what they planned to do about "the right-wing media ecosystem.""Just asking " wrote Strassel, "whether private companies that if they know what's good for them will do the dirty work for her (Eshoo), thereby saving her the hassle of complying with the Constitution," which guarantees free speech.For her part, Pulitzer Prize-winner Dowd wrote that "many on the Left don't understand what a reporter is. It was so enthralling and gratifying to assail Donald Trump as a liar and misogynist that it was bound to be jarring when the beast slouched out of town and liberals had to relearn the lesson that reporters don't or shouldn't suit-up for the Blue Team," which they're doing in droves.So the battle lines were drawn and respected columnists Dowd and Strassel found themselves on the same side of the battle, fighting against political agendas in media newsrooms. Dowd warned her fellow liberal journalists against taking sides in their straight news reporting. "It's a lot more pleasant to be hailed by the Left than demonized, as you are when you're holding a Democratic president to account," she wrote, "because the Left can be just as nasty as the Right." So true.Strassel asserted progressive politicians and journalists are "just asking for censorship" when they suggest that mainstream and social media companies should censor "disinformation, a code word for conservative ideas." Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr says "politicians have realized that they can silence the speech of those with different political viewpoints by public bullying," so progressives want social media companies to act as politically correct speech enforcers.Actually, both sides bully each other, as we saw when ex-President Trump described the media as "the enemy of the people." "There they are," he used to shout, pointing at network TV cameras, "the enemies of the people." Please! Trump wants to silence liberal media and Democrats now want to shut down Fox News.We see some very tendentious reporting here in Northern Nevada. I'm thinking of the way the Reno Gazette Journal covers "social justice" and "systemic racism" issues, making it very clear in its news columns how we should think about those issues. On the local scene there's a biased reporter for a Carson website who often slants her stories way to the left. Last year she wrote a story about the "numerous assaults" that allegedly occurred during a peaceful law and order demonstration in Minden. The "assaults" were nothing more than verbal confrontations between demonstrators on both sides of the Black Lives Matter issue who were exercising their First Amendment rights.I learned about the dividing line between straight news reporting and opinion in Journalism 101 at the University of Washington in Seattle many years ago, but that line has long since been obliterated by partisan journalists and politicians. Nevertheless, I think Dowd got it right when she wrote that "the role of the press in a functioning democracy is as watchdog, not partisan attack dog." Amen!Guy W. Farmer, a retired diplomat, has worked in and around journalism for more than 50 years.

Read more here:
Guy Farmer: Censoring the news | Serving Carson City for over 150 years - Nevada Appeal

Experts Concerned about Growing Censorship in Russia – OCCRP

Moscows lawsuits against five social media giants for not removing calls to join government-banned rallies from their platforms are part of a new wave of censorship in President Vladimir Putins Russia, experts said on Wednesday.

Twitter is among other social networks targeted by the Russian authorities. (Photo: Flickr)Last week, the Magistrates Court of Moscow filed separate cases against Facebook, Google, Twitter, TikTok and Telegram that could result in administrative fines of up to four million rubles (about US$ 54,000) for failing to delete illegal content that incited teenagers to join protests supporting Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny, for exaggerating the number of people who took part in the demonstrations and for spreading misinformation about police brutality, Russian news agency Interfaxreported.

Similarly, Russias tech and media regulator fined the domestic internet company Mail.ru with a total of four million rubles ($54,000) in early March for the late deletion of allegedly harmful content posted on the social platform Odnoklassniki.

Last month, Human Rights Watchwarned of Russias escalating pressure on social media platforms to censor content they deem illegal, condemning the countrys rapidly growing oppressive legislation.

Human Rights Watchs Russia researcher Damelya Aitkhozhina told OCCRP on Wednesday that the growing restrictions on digital freedoms are part of a new wave of censorship which includes also a series of laws that restrict other civil liberties, such as freedom of assembly.

We have seen a progressive escalation since 2012, when President Putin came into power. There was a wave in 2012, another one in 2014, and now were seeing a new one since late 2020, with so many laws coming into force and having a detrimental effect on civil society, Aitkhozhina said.

Two new laws related to digital freedom have entered into force since last January - one obliging tech companies to delete illegal content and the other introducing fines of up to 10% of a companys annual revenue for failing to do so.

Additionally, President Putin set August as a deadline for the creation of a new regulation that will force big tech companies to open local branches.

The new regulation will come right before the September legislative elections in Russia, which raised concerns among experts who believe the move is part of government efforts to prevent critics.

Russian authorities also slowed down access to Twitter following the sites failure to remove illegal content from its platform, limiting the possibility to upload photos and videos.

According to theregulator, the measure stems from the companys failure to censor content that allegedly incites minors to commit suicide, while also promoting the use of drugs and disseminating child pornography.

However, in previousstatements issued by the oversight body, the government specifically spoke about tech and social media companies not censoring calls to join peaceful protests against the imprisonment of Navalny.

Aitkhozhina expressed concern over accusations against Twitter, hinting that the government might be using the argument it was protecting users from child pornography and other harmful content as an excuse to suppress freedom of expression.

Ive never seen that content online, said the HRW expert. What we did see in the wake of the pro-Navalny protests was that part of the demands from the authorities to the social networks was to take down the videos where users called others to take part in those protests.

Follow this link:
Experts Concerned about Growing Censorship in Russia - OCCRP

Guest opinion: Giving government control is the opposite of free speech – Deseret News

In a show of bipartisanship, both conservatives and progressives testified against SB228 (Electronic Free Speech Amendments), which passed both chambers during the recent Utah legislative session and currently sits on Gov. Spencer Coxs desk for his signature or veto. We urge Cox to veto SB228 because it leverages the power of the government to violate the First Amendment rights of private companies.

Despite the hopeful title of this bill, giving governments more control over private speech is the opposite of promoting free speech.

For starters, this bill requires technology companies like Facebook, Google and even Parler to follow specific notification procedures, timelines and rules set by Utah lawmakers and submit to an untested appeals processes also set by Utah lawmakers for account holders who are suspended or find their content removed.

By requiring technology corporations to jump through new hoops created by government regulations, this bill could discourage social media platforms from halting online voter suppression, stopping the spread of misinformation directed by foreign governments, and even prevent the blocking of credible threats of violence if they relate to a political viewpoint.

If this bill takes effect, it could also result in less online speech for Utahns and expose them to more harassment and vitriol because technology companies would fear lawsuits and sanctions if they tried to proactively moderate content on their platforms.

Even worse, this bill would effectively authorize the government to force private online platforms to carry and distribute speech they would have previously restricted. Historically, the Internet has been less regulated than traditional media outlets like television and radio. This approach has given consumers more options and platforms to express themselves than ever before. Twitch, Discord, Reddit, Snapchat, Clubhouse, Locals, Pinterest, TikTok the list of alternatives to consider is expanding all the time. If the goal of this bill is to promote electronic free speech, it should follow the successful origins of the internet and rely on less government intervention, not more.

In addition, by trying to mandate absolute consistency in applying a social media platforms terms of use, legislators are making a bold assumption that such mandates are even feasible. Platforms like Facebook have tens of thousands of content moderators reviewing hundreds of thousands or even millions of posts, rendering moderation a daunting task.

Additionally, human content moderators carry implicit biases, and it is highly unlikely that you could get any random group of moderators to have a consensus decision on flagged content. While some supporters will call for a tech-based solution, that is based in fantasy, not reality. Even the most advanced artificial intelligence programs integrated into content moderation currently make mistakes, flagging harmless content as problematic, or vice versa. Content moderation, even with technology assistance, remains a subjective task that makes compelling consistency by law deeply problematic.

While we discourage private social media companies from blocking content based on viewpoint, its an entirely different matter and much clearer violation of our constitutional rights for the government to dictate what online platforms must publish or how they must exercise their subjective discretion in content moderation.

Lastly, constitutional experts have noted that SB228 clearly violates Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that protects websites from liability for content posted by third parties. This means the bill violates federal law and opens Utah up to lawsuits that will be a waste of time and taxpayer dollars to defend.

Perhaps sensing the shaky legal ground for this bill, the sponsor of SB228 delayed its effective date until July 1, 2022, to give time for its future repeal. But we dont have to wait for the likely lawsuits to stop this bill. Cox can and should veto it now.

Marina Lowe is the legislative and policy counsel at the ACLU of Utah. Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute and the author of 28 books.

See original here:
Guest opinion: Giving government control is the opposite of free speech - Deseret News

Texas Republicans begin pursuing new voting restrictions – The Texas Tribune

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Today, Republican lawmakers in Texas will begin attempting to cement more bricks into the wall they hope will shield their hold on power from the state's changing electorate.

After more than 20 years in firm control, the GOP is seeing its dominance of Texas politics slowly slip away, with some once reliable suburbs following big cities into the Democratic party's fold.

This legislative session, Republicans are staging a sweeping legislative campaign to further tighten the state's already restrictive voting rules and raise new barriers for some voters, clamping down in particular on local efforts to make voting easier.

If legislation they have introduced passes, future elections in Texas will look something like this: Voters with disabilities will be required to prove they can't make it to the polls before they can get mail-in ballots. County election officials wont be able to keep polling places open late to give voters like shift workers more time to cast their ballots. Partisan poll watchers will be allowed to record voters who receive help filling out their ballots at a polling place. Drive-thru voting would be outlawed. And local election officials may be forbidden from encouraging Texans to fill out applications to vote by mail, even if they meet the states strict eligibility rules.

Those provisions are in a Senate priority bill that will receive its first committee airing Monday. Senate Bill 7 is part of a broader package of proposals to constrain local initiatives widening voter access in urban areas, made up largely by people of color, that favor Democrats.

The wave of new restrictions would crash up against an emerging Texas electorate that every election cycle includes more and more younger voters and voters of color. They risk compounding the hurdles marginalized people already face making themselves heard at the ballot box.

I think Texans should be really frustrated with their politicians, because it is so obvious that theres a lot of work that needs to be done to put itself in a place where its people are safe with all the challenges we could be expecting to be facing in the modern era, and instead theyre figuring out how to stay in power, said Myrna Prez, director of the voting rights and elections program at the Brennan Center for Justice, which is analyzing and tracking proposed voting restrictions across the country.

Their manipulation has got a shelf life, and I think that's part of the reason why theyre so desperate to do it right now because they see the end. They see whats coming down the road for them.

The months since the presidential election have been roiled by unsuccessful Republican attempts to overturn its outcome by pushing disproven claims of widespread voter fraud, and legislative pushback in state Capitols across the country in light of those defeats. Key states like Georgia and Arizona, which voters of color helped flip into Democrats column last year, are at the center of growing Republican efforts to tighten voting rules or rollback access that could suppress those voters.

Republican maneuvering to change voting rules state by state comes as Democrats in Washington D.C., try to pass a national voting rights bill that would upend key elements of Texas election laws. The wide-ranging legislation, which has passed in the U.S. House but faces stiff GOP opposition in the Senate, would require online voter registration systems and the automatic registration of eligible people who interact with certain government agencies. It would open up mail in voting to any registered voter and ban partisan gerrymandering, among other measures.

Texas remains a red state under complete Republican control, even after seeing the highest turnout in decades in 2020. But last years election continued a trend of waning.

Former president Donald Trumps victory by about 5.6 percentage points was smaller than his nine-point margin four years before, making it the state's closest race for the White House since 1996, when GOP nominee Bob Dole won by 5 points. Democrats continued to drive up their margins in large cities and fast-growing, diversifying suburbs. And while they fell significantly short of their self-imposed expectations to take back the Texas House, Democrats held onto most of their 2018 wins in newly-competitive suburban districts.

Even with the state having some of the strictest voting rules in the country on the books, Gov. Greg Abbott earlier this year aligned Texas with the party's national movement, which has been reenergized by the Republican-pushed myth that the presidential election was stolen. He deemed what he called election integrity an emergency item for the 2021 legislative session. Weeks later, he had backing from the national Republican Party, which echoed Abbotts election integrity designation when it announced a committee to push for changes to state election laws.

But the connection between some GOP proposals and the soundness of Texas elections is tenuous. One proposal would shorten the window for requesting a mail-in ballot. Another would limit eligibility to vote by mail based on a disability to voters who are homebound. One bill would prohibit voters from dropping off absentee ballots in person on Election Day. And in a state without online voter registration, another bill would eliminate the volunteer deputy registrars that counties often use to help Texans register on paper.

Several Republicans have filed or signed onto legislation that would impose limits on early voting hours, with a particular nod toward pulling back on Harris Countys extended hours. Last November, the countys 122 early voting sites stayed open three hours past their usual 7 p.m. closing time for three days, and the county hosted a day of 24-hour voting at eight locations.

In the Senate, Houston Republican Paul Bettencourt filed legislation that would set uniform schedules across the state, limiting poll hours during the first week of early voting from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. during the second week.

Bettencourt defended his bill as a starting point to discuss uniform access across the state. But his proposal would result in cuts to early voting, particularly in urban counties like Harris, Dallas and Travis that have recently hosted voting for 12 hours throughout the early voting period.

Im trying to strike a midrange solution, Bettencourt said. Im not trying to disadvantage anybody or create an advantage for anybody. Im trying to come up with a uniform answer.

Other Republicans have explained their bills as efforts to close off opportunities for voting fraud during extended hours, even though there is no evidence that it has occurred under the state's already strict system.

Momma always said nothing good happens after midnight. That includes at polling places, state Rep. Jared Patterson, R-Frisco, posted to Twitter regarding legislation that appears to be aimed at outlawing Harris Countys 24-hour voting initiative. I filed HB 2293 because of irregularities in Harris County polling hours of operation and the opportunity for voter fraud when no one is looking.

In Harris County, elections administrator Isabel Longoria said uniformity was the point in widening access during the November election. Extended hours especially 24-hour voting were meant to accommodate shift workers for whom regular voting hours dont work, including the doctors, construction workers and port workers that came out at midnight. Those ballots were cast under the same conditions and state rules that exist during daytime hours.

Im hoping theyre all here to stay, Longoria said of the countys new initiatives. What we took up in 2020 was about being creative and helping voters.

By the countys account, they worked. One in every 10 of Harris County's in-person early voters cast their ballots at the countys 10 drive-thru polling places. And Black and Hispanic voters cast more than half the ballots counted at both drive-thru sites and during extended hours, according to an analysis by the Harris County elections office. The county estimates Black and Hispanic voters cast 47.5% of the total ballots in the election.

If you total up everyone who did drive-thru voting, everyone who voted after 7 p.m. and everyone who voted by mail, thats 300,000 voters, Longoria said. Number of voter fraud attempts? Truly unknown. Number of Harris County voters who used these methods? 300,000.

Abbott has raised the suggestion that the integrity of elections in 2020 were questioned by the actions of officials in Harris County the states most populous and a Democratically controlled county when they enacted measures like drive-thru voting for the 2020 election and attempted to send applications for mail-in ballots to every registered voter in the county. The governor laid his criticism of Harris County against broader concerns about fraud in the state, but he could not offer specific instances.

Right now I don't know how many or if any elections in the state of Texas in 2020 were altered because of voter fraud, Abbott said. What I can tell you is this, and that is any voter fraud that takes place sow seeds of distrust in the election process.

Though there are documented cases of fraud in Texas, it remains rare. There have been no reports or evidence that there were widespread issues concerning fraud during the 2020 election, and Keith Ingram the chief of elections at the Texas secretary of states office recently told House lawmakers that Texas had an election that was smooth and secure.

Texas Republicans have for many years used concerns about fraud to push voting restrictions, including some that were later found to harm voters of color. One prominent example is the states voter ID law, which requires voters to show one of a handful of allowable photo identification cards before they can cast their ballots. Republicans passed the law claiming it would help prevent voter fraud, even though there was little evidence for the kind of in-person fraud that law purported to prevent.

A federal judge and the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals considered to be among the countrys most conservative appellate courts found the law disproportionately burdened voters of color who were less likely to have one of the seven forms of identification the state required. The law was eventually rewritten to match temporary rules a judge put in place for the 2016 election in an effort to ease the states requirements.

From our perspective, the most important single issue facing Texas elections is a crisis of voter suppression that has been getting worse over time and brought about ever-tightening restrictions on the right to vote because of mythical concerns about voter fraud, said James Slattery, a senior staff attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project.

The Republican push for "integrity" also ushered in a botched scouring for noncitizens on the voter rolls in 2019 that instead jeopardized the registrations of nearly 100,000 voters the bulk of whom were likely naturalized citizens. Now, Republicans are trying to write that effort into law.

To question their citizenship and flag them for review, the state compared registered voters to a Texas Department of Public Safety database of people who provided some form of documentation, such as a green card or a work visa, that showed they were not citizens when they obtained driver's licenses or ID cards. But the database was flawed because in between renewals, Texans arent required to notify DPS about changes in citizenship status. That means many of the people on the list could have become citizens and registered to vote without DPS knowing.

One proposal by Bettencourt would mandate proof of citizenship notices be sent to those voters with a demand to provide documentation to keep their registration.

In recent weeks, Bettencourt and other Texas Republicans have used broader language to categorize their proposals as part of an effort to raise trust and faith in the election process and results even though they are among the most prominent voices casting doubt on the system that put them in office.

Deer Park Republican state Rep. Briscoe Cain who has filed legislation to prohibit counties from sending out mail-in applications unless theyre requested by a voter has said he wants to protect the voices of American citizens who are eligible to vote. In November, Cain volunteered with the Trump campaign in Pennsylvania as it attempted to overturn the outcome of the election. The campaign eventually filed a lawsuit to essentially toss the results of that states election. A federal judge instead threw out the lawsuit.

Texans deserve to have trust and confidence in the process and outcome of our elections, Cain previously said in response to questions about his involvement with the Trump campaign.

During the election season, voters faced a similar blur in messaging. The states Republican leadership reprimanded local officials for attempting to proactively send out applications for mail-in ballots raising claims it would facilitate fraud, even as the state GOP sent unsolicited applications to voters urging them to fill them out.

Lets be clear about this: This is a national rollout. Its a national rollout that started before today and its picked up again with this idea that there's widespread fraud everywhere that doesn't exist, state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said at a House Democratic press conference addressing Republicans proposed legislation.

To Coleman, Republican proposals to narrow access to voting based on purported concerns of fraud amounted to veiled racism over the implication that voters of color who exercised their political weight in greater force during the 2020 election are going to cheat.

As a matter of fact, we had to fight harder for it, said Coleman, who is Black. Of course we want integrity in the voting system but we dont want the voting system to work against the voters. And thats what this legislation and this rhetoric does.

Disclosure: The Texas Secretary of State has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

See the article here:
Texas Republicans begin pursuing new voting restrictions - The Texas Tribune

Lesson of the Day: As Biden Faces Vaccine Hesitancy, Republicans Are a Particular Challenge – The New York Times

Students in U.S. high schools can get free digital access to The New York Times until Sept. 1, 2021.

Featured Article: As Biden Faces Vaccine Hesitancy, Republicans Are a Particular Challenge by Annie Karni and Zolan Kanno-Youngs

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on March 20 that about 79.4 million people have received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, and President Biden has directed states to make all adults eligible for a vaccine by May 1. Mass vaccination is seen by the government and health professionals as an essential strategy for ending the pandemic. Still, many Americans are reluctant to get vaccinated.

In this lesson, you will explore some of the reasons people in different communities in the United States are hesitant to receive a vaccine, and you will consider the best strategies for addressing those concerns.

Part I: As the Covid-19 vaccine becomes more available, some people are experiencing fear and worry about the vaccine. Some of these fears are about proven side effects, while others are based on rumors and conspiracies.

What concerns do you have, or do you know of, about the coronavirus vaccines?

Where have you heard or seen these concerns?

How do you decide what medical information to trust? How do you determine what makes a source reliable?

Note: This resource from the University of California San Francisco can help students learn about which online sources of health information are most reliable.

Read the article, then answer the following questions:

1. The article states, A third of Republicans said in a CBS News poll that they would not be vaccinated compared with 10 percent of Democrats and another 20 percent of Republicans said they were unsure. Then the article identifies a variety of worries that contribute to vaccine hesitancy among some Republicans. Do you feel sympathetic to, or understanding of, any of these reasons for being concerned about the vaccine? Why or why not?

2. What are the possible dangers of widespread opposition to vaccination?

3. The article mentions several strategies to sway skeptical conservatives. Which of these do you think would be most effective? Why?

4. What factors social, economic and historical do you believe contribute to fear or opposition to getting vaccinated?

5. According to the article, the White House plans to target young people as one of its problem areas in a vaccine ad campaign. Drawing from your own experience, brainstorm two possible sources of your generations distrust. Then, brainstorm two possible solutions to address it.

Republicans arent the only group of Americans reluctant to get vaccinated. Black people, Native Americans and L.G.B.T.Q. people have been disproportionately hurt by the pandemic, yet some people in those communities have expressed hesitancy toward the vaccines because of a legacy of medical malpractice and discrimination.

To better understand the reasons for this hesitancy, read one or more of the following articles:

Next, using this Venn diagram, compare Republicans vaccine hesitancy to that of the other group you read about. After completing your Venn diagram, reflect on the following questions in your own writing or during class discussion.

Where do the concerns overlap? In what ways are they distinct?

How might an outreach campaign meaningfully connect with, and educate, those in the group you read about?

Note: If youre doing the above activity as a class, small groups can read different articles and then share what they learned.

Imagine you work for the C.D.C., and it is your responsibility to develop an effective and thoughtful campaign to encourage people to get vaccinated. How could you most effectively persuade those who are hesitant about the vaccine?

Plan your campaign and then create a draft poster or storyboard to share with classmates.

Questions to consider: Who is your primary audience? What message or slogan would you deliver? How would you deliver it (through what media)? Who would be the best spokesperson to help with the delivery? What are some of the lessons you have learned by the reading the article or articles above? What other factors or elements should you take into account?

About Lesson of the Day

Find all our Lessons of the Day in this column. Teachers, watch our on-demand webinar to learn how to use this feature in your classroom.

See more here:
Lesson of the Day: As Biden Faces Vaccine Hesitancy, Republicans Are a Particular Challenge - The New York Times