| Media Search: |
Arabic Cultural Program: Cinema and Censorship - Part 1
The Arabic Culture Program in the Department of Arab and Islamic Civilizations held a seminar titled Cinema and Censorship. Critics Ali Abu Shadi, Walid Saif...
By: AUC
See more here:
Arabic Cultural Program: Cinema and Censorship - Part 1 - Video
L
ast week in Jefferson County, Colorado, nearly a thousand high school students walked out of their classrooms in protest of proposed curriculum changes to their history classes.
The walkouts were staged in response to a proposal submitted by the new conservative school board, which suggested setting up a review committee to make sure Advanced Placement U.S. history classes promote patriotism, free enterprise and respect for authority. According to a draft of the proposal, AP U.S. history teachers would have to present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage, while being prohibited from encouraging or condoning civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.
Teachers and students in several schools across the district have understandably expressed concern that this review committee will lead to censorship of educational materials.
School board member Julie Williams, a supporter of the review committee, criticized the current AP U.S. history curriculum for focusing too much on gender, class, race, ethnicity and grievance. In her eyes, emphasizing the historical struggles of different groups is American-bashing.
I understand the desire to encourage students to be proud of their country, but that patriotism must not come at the cost of distorting or censoring history. This proposal would essentially strip educators of their ability to offer students a comprehensive course on U.S. history. Instead of encouraging students to think critically and examine how the past shapes the present, teachers would be restricted to only presenting materials that portray America in a wholly favorable light.
These changes would essentially transform a college-level history class into a political platform with the goal of endorsing American pride while simultaneously discouraging civil disobedience. In addition to being a shameful attempt to propagandize education for ideological purposes, the proposal is also inherently un-American.
One of the most cherished rights of an American citizen is the ability to protest unjust laws. Such protests contributed to the abolition of slavery, the approval of womens suffrage and the social progress achieved during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. If people werent willing to stand up against the government and make their voices heard, these monumental steps in our history might never have occurred. Civil disobedience has been essential for driving positive social change since the founding of our country.
The students who are rightfully protesting against the school boards proposal have been backed by the College Board, which issued this statement of support: These students recognize that the social disorder can and sometimes must be disrupted in the pursuit of liberty and justice. The board emphasized these ideas are essential within the study of a college-level, AP U.S. History course.
The Jefferson County School Board majority may believe its actions will promote patriotism, but censorship in the history classroom will only promote ignorance and indifference to the social struggles that have made our nation what it is today. Students dont deserve to be robbed of the challenging and rewarding experience of a college-level history class, and they most certainly dont deserve to be treated as children who need to be told what to think.
Excerpt from:
Censorship, despite intent, is unpatriotic
The huge protests in Hong Kong were planned long in advance, but their scale seems to have taken many by surprise: The city was in chaos over the weekend after thousands took to the streets, and there are many signs that the Occupy Central demonstrations may not be over yet.
For Chinese state media, the protests present a conundrum: how to cover a story that is now too large to ignore without challenging the official narrative. Their response, at times, seems awkward.
According to the China Media Projectat the University of Hong Kong, more than 20 mainland newspapers have run astory from China's state news agency, Xinhua, in response to the protests. That report is based largely on an official statement by theHong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council and contains little explanation for the protests, which it calls "unlawful occupation actions." A later report from Xinhua, featured on the English-language China Daily Web site, describes the disruption caused to Hong Kong daily life in neutral terms.
In op-eds, however, there's a more noticeable negative sentiment. State newspaper Global Times, known for taking a stronger, more controversial stance on issues, published oneeditorial that says people should feel"sorrow over the chaos" caused by "radical opposition forces."
That editorial has since been deleted from the paper's Chinese-language Web site but still appears online in English, perhaps an indication of its target audience. "U.S. media is linking the Occupy Central movement with the Tiananmen Incident in 1989," the editorial says. "By hyping such a groundless comparison, they attempt to mislead and stir up Hong Kong society."
In another, now-deletedop-ed published byGlobal Times,Wang Qiang,a professor at the Peoples Armed Police college, suggested that if Hong Kong's police could not control the protesters, mainland China's paramilitary group should be sent in. Events that "damage the fundamental interests of a sovereign country cannot be tolerated indefinitely," the article says, according to an archived version.
Meanwhile, the People's Daily published an op-ed Monday that expressly linked the protesters to "foreign anti-China forces" and alleged intervention by the United States and Britain. "No one is more concerned about the future and destiny of the Chinese people in Hong Kong" than the Chinese government, the op-ed states. It also accuses"some of the Western media" of creating "a big fuss," noting rolling live coverage of the protests.
That rolling coverage is certainly in marked contrast to how the story is being covered by Chinese broadcasters. The protests have been featured little, if at all, on China's largest state broadcaster, CCTV, and George Chen, a columnist at the independent South China Morning Post, points out that Shanghai's state television channel appears to be portraying the large crowds in Hong Kong as pro-state nationalists:
For mainland users looking online, the informationisn't much better, unfortunately.China's large Web portalsseem to be giving the protests little attention.
Social media is being restricted, too: The China Media Project's Weiboscope tool shows a remarkable spike in the number of posts censored on Chinese social networks, and, as my colleague William Wan notes, one of the few available Western social networks, Instagram, appeared to be blocked Monday.
More here:
WorldViews: Chinese state media points to foreign hand in Hong Kong protests
Are we allowed to have ideas and opinions? Or must they be state-endorsed to be valid?
COMMENT
The rise of social media has been uneasy in more ways than one. From privacy concerns to ethics, there are many shades of gray that need to be explored before we truly come to understand and integrate it in our daily lives. One such complication is very prominent here in Malaysia freedom of speech in a semi-democratic society.
Autocratic regimes such as China have long been wary of social media, a useful tool for organising and disseminating information, but one that could spread news of a governments missteps within seconds of their happening.
China has implemented a set of tools to curb free speech as much as possible while still being able to dubiously claim democracy, such as having proprietary social media platforms more readily available than Facebook or Twitter. But wily Internet users have devised their own workarounds to deliver news to each other on government misdeeds. However, if discovered, they can be arbitrarily taken from their homes and locked up, beaten and abused by secret police, and more. Sounds like a familiar story, really.
Indeed, Chinas efforts have not escaped the sight of our esteemed ruling government of the day. Facebook and Twitter have been bugbears for our politicians, as the slightest gaffe is magnified under the spotlight of social media, and free speech runs rampant in forums, without a way for the government to hold it in check. This is mostly due to guarantees made by Mahathir Mohamad when he was the Prime Minister, that is that the Internet would be unrestricted in Malaysia.
Observe these delicate, probing remarks to elicit a response on the idea of banning Facebook:
The greatest threat so far, however, has been the use of the colonial-era law, the Sedition Act, to silence dissent under the guise of national security. The charges against Adam Adli, Safwan Anang, N. Surendran, Tian Chua, David Orok, Azmi Sharom, Susan Loone and more were called a fear-instilling tactic by Phil Robertson of Human Rights Watch. No one is safe from the long arm of the Sedition Act.
A score of people have been charged under the act since August, leading even the United Nations to make a statement. We are concerned about the recent increase in the use of the Sedition Act 1948 to arrest and prosecute people for their peaceful expression of opinion in Malaysia, said the spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Rupert Colville. We call on the government to quickly initiate a promised review of the act and to repeal or amend it in line with its international human rights obligations.
But what, dear reader, does all this mean for you and I?
Read the original:
Social media and the age of sedition
In an in-depth interview in GQ, George Zimmerman's brother discloses that his family wanted to "rebrand" the former Neighborhood Watch volunteer after his murder acquittal and make him the star of a reality TV show.
"I learned a lot from watching 'Keeping up with the Kardashians,' " Robert Zimmerman Jr. told GQ in a story in its October editions.
George Zimmerman, 30, would not take part in the interview unless he was offered a week's stay in a luxury hotel, something the magazine would not do, it reported.
Still, the magazine reported some fascinating details about his pre- and post-trial life and that of his spokesman brother, Robert Zimmerman Jr., and parents Robert Sr. and Gladys, who moved out of their Lake Mary home shortly after their son George killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old in Sanford Feb. 26, 2012.
Although a Seminole County jury acquitted George Zimmerman last year, he and his family continue to live in hiding and typically carry guns, fearful that they would be attacked, the magazine reported.
After the shooting but before his arrest, George and his now-estranged wife, Shellie, moved from the Lake Mary home of a close friend to a trailer on an island off the coast of Maryland, according to the report.
At the same time, his parents and adult sister, Grace, moved from Orlando-area hotel to hotel, trying to stay out of sight, always paid cash and tore up their garbage and distributed it to various Dumpsters.
They carried prepacked "go-bags" that included all their essentials such things as cellphones, laptops and other electronic devices should they need to flee an oncoming assault.
They gave each other code names and developed a warning system, the magazine reported. "Code blue" meant law enforcement was at the door. "Code brown" meant draw your weapon, and "code black" meant open fire. .
Gladys Zimmerman also carries a gun, the story reported.
Continued here:
GQ: George Zimmerman's family hoped for reality show