It’s time to cull and reform our sham, woke universities – Reaction – Reaction

Britains universities are in an appalling state and by no means all of it is the fault of Covid or Ofqual. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, 13 universities face a very real prospect of insolvency as a result of the coronavirus crisis, unless they receive a government (i.e. taxpayer) bailout. The least prestigious universities are at greatest risk. But when will somebody, confronted with these naked emperors, dare to ask the obvious question: why should we bail them out?

It is understandable that universities, in the face of the pandemic and closure of studies, have been financially damaged by a slump in international student enrolments, loss of income from other campus activities such as conferences, losses on their investment portfolios and the continuing need to meet pension obligations. The reality, though, is that this crisis has simply halted them in a career that was already self-destructive and also harmful to society.

The first problem is one of scale. Does a country the size of Britain really need 130 universities, plus 35 similar establishments classed as institutions of Higher Education? Does it make sense that our universities, supposedly establishments catering for the most gifted, currently house 2.3 million students? This is a consequence of decades of politicising higher education, treating it as just another vote-winning amenity on the road to embourgeoisement, like owning a car or graduating to a foreign holiday.

Far too many people are going to university the target of 50 per cent of youngsters set by Tony Blair was passed last year rendering the experience meaningless. In 1994 a total of 271,000 applicants were admitted to UK universities; by 2019 the figure had doubled to 541,000. No wonder we have a drop-out rate of 6.3 per cent, representing a scandalous waste of time and resources. The drop-out rate at some institutions suggests utter incompetence in selecting undergraduates. At the University of Bedfordshire the drop-out rate is 15.2 per cent; at the University of Bolton it is 15.4 per cent; and at London Metropolitan University 18.6 per cent almost one in five students. If the question arose of bailing out any of those institutions, how could such indulgence be justified?

The curricula, too, in many cases, are a travesty. The high culture of the mediaevalstudium generalehas been debased to the point where university courses now embrace subjects such as media studies, counselling, fashion, hospitality leisure and tourism, youth work, floristry and, of course, gender studies. This lowering of the culture of academe has been necessitated by the admission of students lacking the capability to address a serious academic subject.

The objectives of universities today are to generate as much money as possible out of their sausage factories and to flatter the public with the delusion that society is becoming more intelligent, as a consequence of progress. To sustain this imposture, since it has, predictably, proved impossible to elevate the performance of unfit students, it has been necessary to lower the bar by a progressive (in every sense) inflation of grades. Over the same period that saw student intake double, from 1994 to 2019, the proportion of Firsts awarded to a demonstrably less intelligent undergraduate population has more than quadrupled, from 7 per cent to 29 per cent.

Considering the prestige that once attached to a First Class degree, even the initial level of 7 per cent represented undesirable grade inflation. Today, the proportion of students awarded a First or 2:1 has reached 79 per cent. Employers will rightly conclude a UK university degree is not worth the paper it is printed on, unless those employers are the BBC, the public sector or, most appropriately, one of our Potemkin universities. Academics who have protested against this degrading charade have been crushed by the self-interested university hierarchy.

This tragedy has been played out against the background of a Greek chorus of pompous dons droning on about our world-class universities. Yet again,la trahison des clercshas further contributed to the discrediting of another cohort of experts drawn from the elites. Of course there is still first-class research coming out of Oxford, Cambridge and other universities, in certain subjects and at certain levels: considering the resources commanded by them, both human and fiscal, it would be extraordinary if it produced no significant outcomes.

Those reassuring successes, however, like the crowded shop windows in 1960s East Berlin, are a mere facade concealing wider failure. Yet, although the whole climate of contemporary academe is on the cerebrally challenged side of the Left, that should not absolve the Right of its share of responsibility for the decline of universities. Even if one hugely admires Margaret Thatcher, it is not necessary to endorse her attitude to universities. Yes, there was some bumbling inefficiency among dons administering university affairs, but the solution was not to turn institutions of higher learning into business corporations.

Today, having originally embraced that corporate culture, to the detriment of scholarly ideals, universities have followed the same trajectory or, more accurately, pioneered it as their business counterparts: they have become woke corporations. In past centuries there was one forum in Europe, regardless of conditions elsewhere, in which free speech, civil exchange of ideas and lively debate ensured intellectual freedom and that was the university community. Today, in the whole of our society, there is no place where freedom of speech and thought are more violently repressed than in our universities.

Years ago, an American commentator described North American campuses as small, ivy-covered North Koreas. The same now applies to Britain. It is not just a case of scuffles in quadrangles: the totalitarian woke culture has devastated the academic curriculum. To take just one example, in 2018 Oxford Universitys philosophy department, in order to attract more women students, instructed its diversity and equality officer to compose a new reading list comprising 40 per cent female authors. Since the classical canon of philosophy was overwhelmingly male, serious philosophers had to be displaced to make way for unknown women.

How patronising it is for universities to assume women would rather read Angela Davis than Duns Scotus. How long can intellectual achievement survive in such a climate of enforced stultification? Violent de-platforming of speakers disapproved of by the campus nomenklatura, both staff and undergraduate, is training a new generation that will soon occupy influential positions in society that it is not only acceptable but morally imperative to silence the views of anyone with whom they disagree.

Campuses are now police states. Policy Exchange published a paper last year on Academic Freedom in the UK the mere necessity for such a study is a grave reproach to our society which revealed a climate of intimidation on campuses. Only 39 per cent of pro-Brexit students said they would be comfortable expressing that view in class. Strangely, the authors took comfort from the fact that a significant proportion of students are consistently supportive of academic freedom, estimated at 30 per cent to 50 per cent. Yet that means half or more reject academic freedom.

The report recommended that universities should adopt an academic freedom commitment such as the Chicago Principles and appoint an Academic Freedom Champion reporting to the vice-chancellor. The government should establish a statutory duty of non-discrimination for political and moral beliefs and extend statutory protection of free speech to student bodies.

The Adam Smith Institute has published research into left-liberal over-representation in British academia, showing that less than 12 per cent of academics support conservative parties, compared with at least 50 per cent of the public; in 1964, 35 per cent of academics voted Conservative. That illustrates the long march through the institutions by the Left.

There will never be a better opportunity than the post-Covid disarray among universities for a cull of our sink institutions. It is necessary on fiscal and academic grounds. We need a leaner, fitter academe, rather than the teeming spires of overcrowded campuses teaching junk subjects. We also need strong statutory intervention to force university authorities to protect freedom of speech, with punitive fines and, eventually, dismissal from post for persistently failing to do so. Attempted de-platforming should automatically incur being sent down from university.

While it is not practical or desirable to appoint academics along political lines, a code of conduct should impose a duty to refrain from political activity on campus and to teach and mark subjects objectively. But the worst problem of all, the most atrocious example of groupthink, is the public delusion that our world-leading universities are havens of academic distinction. The public must let the scales fall from its eyes and recognise that, of all the flawed institutions in our society, the universities are in the worst state of health.

See more here:

It's time to cull and reform our sham, woke universities - Reaction - Reaction

Antifa Unsuccessfully Tries To Protest The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Sturgis, SD -(Ammoland.com)- When we heard that Antifa was planning to protest the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, we thought it was a joke, but the group did end up trying to protest the biker rally. They were unsuccessful by any metric.

Every year hundreds of thousands of bikers from all around the country descended on Sturgis, South Dakota, for the worlds largest and most famous motorcycle rally. Even in the face of the global COVID-19 pandemic, bikers made their yearly pilgrimage to the small town that becomes the mecca of the bike world. This year the bikers were joined by a small group of members of the anarcho-communist group known as Antifa.

Antifa decided to protest South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noems decision not to shut down the bike rally as they demanded. Antifa claims it wanted the rally shut down because of the novel coronavirus world pandemic. The group said the rally would increase the spread of the virus. Some of the bikers found the groups reason hypocritical since Antifa has been protesting by the side of Black Lives Matter around the country without regard to the pandemic.

Another reason the group gave for protesting the biker rally was that they were standing up against white supremacy and President Trump. The group believes that most bikers are Trump supporters. The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally draws partygoers from all races and walks of life. Several predominantly Hispanic and Black motorcycle clubs attend the rally every year without fear of white supremacy. President Trump has never attended Sturgis or any other motorcycle rally.

One of the protesters signs read, We dont want you here. Coronavirus, White Supremacy, 45.

The number 45 is a reference to Trump. President Trump is the 45th President of the United States. Protesters and others use the number as a nickname for the President.

The protest started peacefully, with most bikers ignoring the black mask covered protestors that marched on down Main Street. One of Antifas favorite tactics is to block off a street. One biker rode his motorcycle by the group. A member of the black-clad demonstrators kicked out at bikers bike as he passed the group. Motorcycles to bikers are more than just a vehicle. They treat their bikes as a part of themselves. They are scared objects.

This trespass against the bikers ride set off the rowdy crowd. Bikers swarmed the Antifa members surrounding them. The noise from the crowd was deafening. Eggs were thrown by the bikers and hit an Antifa member. Police had to move in to protect the group from the angry bikers. The police officers had to escort the group to a safe spot away from the rally attendees.

Police Chief Geody Vandewater said the scene was little chaotic for a bit. The bikers vastly outnumbered law enforcement officers. The rallys attendees did respect the officers request that they stay back away from the protesters. The protesters want the state to defund the police but depended on the same officers to keep them safe from the massive crowd of pissed off bikers.

After the protest ended abruptly, police arrested one of the protesters from Rapid City South Dakota. The officers charge the man with disorderly conduct.

Antifa did not try to protest the rally again. The 80th Sturgis Motorcycle Rally ended on Sunday.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at http://www.crumpy.com.

More:

Antifa Unsuccessfully Tries To Protest The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Edward Snowden raked in over $1.2 million in speaking fees, agent says – POLITICO

Snowdens biggest speaking payday disclosed is the very first on the list: $50,000 for a speech to Hong Kong-based brokerage firm CLSA in 2015. Other pricey appearances include a turn at Piston ad agency in Kuwait for $35,000, a $32,000 gig for a Portugese tourism bureau and $30,000 each for a Get Motivated lineup of motivational speakers and an appearance at the Park City Performing Arts Foundation.

The list also includes payouts Snowden got from colleges and universities. He got $25,000 from the University of Waterloo, $20,000 each for speaking to audiences at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Winnipeg, $18,000 each from Middlebury College and the University of Alberta, $15,000 from the University of Pittsburgh, $14,000 from Ontario Colleges and $12,000 each from Georgetown and Ohio Wesleyan Universities.

While critics will likely view the payments as the computer specialist capitalizing on his alleged crimes, the stream of income he has managed to establish could also dispel suspicions that hes being supported financially by the Russian government, which granted him temporary asylum in 2013 and has repeatedly extended that status.

The sums the hosts paid were larger than what Snowden received, as the speakers bureau took a cut. However, a federal magistrate judge ruled last week that APB can keep the amount of its commissions confidential.

The federal lawsuit filed last August accuses Snowden of breaching various agreements regarding classified information by failing to clear his speeches and his recent book, Permanent Record, with the NSA and CIA in advance.

Snowdens attorneys have acknowledged he did not do so, but have said those agencies would not have dealt with him fairly. Theyve also noted widespread complaints from former government officials about the pre-publication review process.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Liam OGrady ruled in favor of the government in the case last December, holding that the government is entitled to the proceeds of the book and Snowdens profits from the speeches. The remaining issues in the case involve determining just how much money the government is entitled to.

Snowden spurned formal requests from the government for information about his earnings and the contents of his speeches, despite advice from his attorneys that he comply. That prompted U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan to enter sanctions against him earlier this month that essentially bar him from disputing most of the calculations the government has made about his earnings.

In April, Macmillan Publishing Group agreed to direct to the government all future royalties due to Snowden. However, the firm was not required to recover or pay back to the government the undisclosed advance Snowden received for Permanent Record.

Snowdens disclosures about NSA surveillance practices prompted an end of some agency programs and major reforms to others. Stories based on his revelations fueled a global backlash against surveillance and led Congress to pass the USA Freedom Act in 2015, which reined in bulk collection of communications data without individualized suspicion.

Critics have faulted Snowden for indiscriminately releasing top-secret information, even about legitimate programs targeting terrorists, nuclear proliferation and regimes hostile to the U.S. He has said he transferred the data he took to journalists and allowed them to judge what merited release.

Federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against Snowden in June 2013, charging him with three felonies: conveying classified information to an unauthorized party, disclosing communications intelligence information and theft of government property.

The new court filing confirms a Yahoo News report in August 2016 that said sources familiar with Snowdens business dealings said he had pulled in more than $200,000 in the past year. The disclosure shows that income kept pace over the past several years, but seemed to slow down earlier this year.

APBs submission said its personnel believe Snowden directed about $51,000 in donations to charity from his speaking fees, although the firm's records regarding some of those gifts are not clear. A nonprofit group that has been outspoken in support of Snowden, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, got at least $35,000 of that money, the speakers bureau said.

Continued here:
Edward Snowden raked in over $1.2 million in speaking fees, agent says - POLITICO

Hong Kong censorship fears as protest slogans removed from some textbooks – The Guardian

Hong Kong publishers have been told to remove references to the separation of powers and protest slogans from school textbooks, in a move decried as censorship by the authorities.

Six publishers voluntarily submitted eight textbooks to the education regulator for vetting and were asked to make revisions, reports in Hong Kong and mainland media said on Wednesday.

Its the latest in a series of extraordinary moves on Hong Kongs education system since Beijings national security law was implemented in late June.

Liberal studies has been mandatory for senior students in Hong Kong for more than a decade, but has drawn criticism from some pro-Beijing figures who claimed its teaching materials - which schools can choose without government approval - were biased. Last year a voluntary review service was offered to publishers.

According to a comparison conducted by the South China Morning Post, two publishers have removed the phrase separation of power in sections about Hong Kong, and other illustrations of Lennon walls and protesters holding placards have been replaced. At least one textbook added text to say that if protesters violated laws they would be held legally accountable, Chinese state media outlet the Global Times said.

Cheung Yui Fai, executive council member of the Professional Teachers Union, told the Guardian government attempts to censor school subjects had been going for some time. The vetting meant the textbooks now may not reflect the real picture of Hong Kong, he said.

We would like the students to have the full picture of the development of the social issues, including the pro government side and the criticism of the governments [in Hong Kong and mainland China].

In Hong Kong now the political pressure is really high for teachers. If youre brave enough you can try your best to tell the truth to the students and lead them to have more rounded discussion of the social issues.

Cheung also said the inefficiency of the vetting process, which began before the national security laws were passed, meant the new versions had been approved only a week before school returned, and may face more amendments if even the new version were found not be within the law.

Tang Fei, a principal at Hong Kongs Heung To Secondary School, told the Global Times previous versions of the textbooks failed to prevent students falling into the traps of opposition groups propaganda.

It is entirely untrue and pure propaganda to say that Hong Kong society widely believes in the so-called separation of three powers, and opposition groups used to implant ideas in textbooks to promote their political agenda among the youth.

Despite assurances from the government that the law would make no difference to the regular lives of law-abiding Hong Kongers, schools and universities have experienced a chilling effect and actual curtailments on what they can teach, discuss, and allow.

Security chief John Lee has previously pledged to deal with the schools in the governments crackdown on dissent. Lee claimed around 40% of the protesters arrested were students, and more than 100 were teachers.

The education bureau and a textbook publisher have been contacted for comment.

Read more here:

Hong Kong censorship fears as protest slogans removed from some textbooks - The Guardian

Donald Trump Jr. blasts tech giants over report that Facebook, Twitter censor anti-Biden posts – Fox News

A new report indicates that presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has received preferential treatment from tech giants, but Donald Trump Jr. plans to make sure Republicans dont allow the seemingly coordinated campaign against his father to continue.

The Media Research Center unveiled its latestTechWatchReport on Tuesday, whichfound thatmore than 260 conservative users on Facebook and Twitter had their posts about Biden scrubbed from the social media platforms in the months leading up to the Democratic National Convention.

EVENING NEWSCASTS 150 TIMES MORE NEGATIVE TORWARD TRUMP THAN BIDE, STUDY SAYS

Since my father won the 2016 election, Big Tech has been engaging in a seemingly coordinated campaign to stifle and suppress right of center voices, Donald Trump Jr.told the MRC.

Donald Trump Jr. said Twitter and Facebook have been engaging in a seemingly coordinated campaign to stifle and suppress right of center voices. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Though they will of course claim otherwise, the obvious goals of these left-wing tech companiesisboth to make my father a one-term president and to ensure Democrat control of Congress moving forward, Trump Jr. said.

They're willing to engage in blatant election interference to make those dreams a reality.

Trump Jr., the president's oldest son, added that companies such as Facebook and Twitter hold immense power in our Republic and the GOP needs totake action.

It's long past due for elected Republicans to finally take seriously the threats that these near-monopolies pose to our inalienable rights and hold them accountable legislatively for their abuses, Trump Jr. told the MRC.

BIDEN TALKS TO CARDI B AS PRESSURE MOUNTS TO FACE TOUGH QUESTIONS FROM REPORTERS

The MRCsTechWatchdivision has collected and independently verified incidents ofcensorshipsince March 2020 and found that260 users had posts or accounts censored due to their criticisms of Biden, with 129 of the incidentscomingon Facebook and 131 coming from Twitter.

Posting an innocent meme showing light coming from Bidens eyes meant an immediate suspension on Twitter for anywhere between 12 hours and two months. Facebook users who argued that Biden was creepy or posted actual pictures of the former vice president hugging, sniffing, or kissing children have had their posts removed as well, MRCanalystsCorinne Weaver and Heather Moon wrote.

Former editor of Psychology TodayDr. Robert Epstein told Weaver and Moon that its absolutely election interference and the censorshipcould be considered a valuable, undeclared, in-kind contribution to a political campaign, which is unlawful.

Facebook and Twitter did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The study found that the 129 instances of censorship on Facebook includedvideo of a stammering Biden accidentally endorsing Trump and a collage of photos that depict Biden sniffing, hugging, or kissing young girls has been censored on a regular basis,Weaver and Moon wrote.

GET THE FOX NEWSAPP

Meanwhile, Twitters 131 examples of censorship include a crackdown on memesthat mock Bidens health and fitness for office.

Facebook and Twitter openly deny working with Biden. Yet the platforms appear to cover for him,Weaver and Moon wrote. Actions speak louder than words. Both social media platforms are using their algorithms to muffle negative statements or jokes about Biden.

Read more:

Donald Trump Jr. blasts tech giants over report that Facebook, Twitter censor anti-Biden posts - Fox News

When Jello Biafra and Ice-T took on censorship on The Oprah Winfrey Show – Far Out Magazine

Were dipping into the Far Out Magazine vault to look back at a moment in musics rich history as hip-hop and punk combined to take on a common enemy, the PMRC. In this permutation of the good fight against censorship, we see Dead Kennedys leading man Jello Biafra combine forces with the iconic Cop Killer rapper Ice-T.

The duo verbally duelled with a host of conservative voices alongside Tipper Gore, the then-wife of failed presidential candidate Al Gore on The Oprah Winfrey Show back in 1990. It remains one of the most brilliant pieces of daytime television youll ever witness.

Parental Advisory stickers have become a part of musics lexicon these days and we cant say theyve really affected much in the way of deterring kids from buying any record that comes with one plastered on it. However, that doesnt mean that they arent a needless addition to an art form, after all, you wont see one at any gallery you ever walk through. The stickers were at the time plainly referred to as Tipper Stickers.

Backed by the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Centre), Tipper Gore who labelled herself a liberal Democrat during the debacle found herself leading the charge against the danger of music during the 80s and 90s. It just so happened to be one of the eras of music in which America wasnt just at its most potent but most powerful too.

With two sides seemingly unwilling to compromise or back down, the PMRC pushed for more and more musical censorship, citing it as the reason for pretty much any unexplained run of crimes or suicides. Equally, music was becoming more opaquely provocative, songs like Ice-Ts Cop Killer receiving particular heat during unsettling times of civility. There was only one way to settle this, a daytime TV chat show.

In the 90s there was only one name that mattered in daytime TV, Oprah Winfrey. The iconic TV host played the peacekeeper when she invited Gore, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Juan Williams, Ice-T and Jello Biafra to discuss the continuing issue. It would seem that Dee Snider and Frank Zappa telling you off wasnt enough for Gore.

While many would have expected Gore, a politically savvy Washington-type to be able to negotiate a snotty punk but Biafra was quick to show her just how intelligent he was, emboldened by his search for justified art. It had all started back in 1986 when the PMRC had Biafras house raided and brought him to trial for distributing harmful material to minors as part of the Dead Kennedys album Frankenhrist.

The charges werent actually brought against his music in particular but rather the pull out in the record which included a print of H. R. Gigers poster Landscape XX (Penis Landscape). Biafra has always suggested that the raid and charges were politically motivated and had been angled towards him because he had comparatively low funds to fight the case.

In court, it may have cost Biafra a pretty penny to be heard but on The Oprah Winfrey Show he was given all the time and space he needed to mount his attack on Gore and he doesnt hold back. Biafra became famed for his anti-censorship stance and channelled a lot fo the trial into his subsequent spoken-word albums.

But, for us, theres no greater moment than when he and Ice-T sat down across from Gore and delivered a rant worthy of burning anybody to the ground. Joyous.

Go here to read the rest:

When Jello Biafra and Ice-T took on censorship on The Oprah Winfrey Show - Far Out Magazine

How COVID-19 gives cover to press crackdowns the world over – Minneapolis Star Tribune

Governments around the world are taking advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to justify or to divert attention from crackdowns on press freedom.

Media tycoon Jimmy Lai was arrested in Hong Kong earlier in August as police enforced a new national security law. In June, journalist Maria Ressa was convicted of " cyber libel " in the Philippines. In Egypt, at least 12 journalists have been arrested this year under laws against "spreading misinformation" related to the coronavirus.

In some cases, regimes have moved to curb alleged misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic that doesn't align with official proclamations about its spread or severity. In others, the pandemic serves as a distraction by directing national attention away from these incidents.

Egypt, for instance, has been jailing young journalists such as Nora Younis, editor-in-chief of the al-Manassa news agency, who according to the International Press Institute was arrested on June 24. In Russia, the AP found at least nine cases against ordinary Russians accused of spreading "untrue information" on social media and via messenger apps, with at least three of them receiving significant fines.

The IPI has been tracking media freedom violations since the pandemic began. Such repression includes arrests and charges, restrictions to access to information, censorship, excessive fake news regulation, and physical attack.

Incomplete figures make it difficult to say whether such crackdowns are on the rise. At least 17 countries, including Hungary, Russia, the Philippines and Vietnam, have enacted new laws ostensibly intended to fight misinformation about the coronavirus, according to an IPI tally. In reality, those measures have actually served as pretexts to fine or jail journalists who are critical of the government, the organization said.

In Hungary, for example, Prime Minister Viktor Orban passed a coronavirus law that could mean up to five years in prison for false information. Russia can fine people up to $25,000 or imprison them for five years if they're deemed to have spread false information about the virus. Media outlets can be fined up to $127,000, according to the IPI.

The Committee to Protect Journalists has tracked 163 violations of press freedom related to the coronavirus this year as of July 29. The group says its data is not comprehensive. The IPI has tracked 421 violations related to the virus, including arrests, censorship, excessive "fake news" regulation and physical or verbal attacks.

"We see an ongoing crackdown on the press that is compounded by the coronavirus," said Courtney Radsch, CPJ's advocacy director.

Even incidents unrelated to alleged pandemic misinformation can escape broader notice amid the flood of coronavirus news. Jimmy Lai's arrest in Hong Kong, for instance, shortly followed enactment of a new national security law that gives China more power to squash dissent in Hong Kong. Lai operates Apple Daily, a feisty pro-democracy tabloid that often criticizes China's Communist Party-led government.

The libel convictions of Ressa and another journalist were also unrelated to COVID-19. But Radsch said the pandemic can serve as a distraction for such cases that might otherwise have gotten more international attention.

"There's just much less attention being paid to a lot of this since people are just caught up in other news," she said. "It's difficult to break through the morass to raise concerns and public concerns about crackdowns."

That's been exacerbated by the absence of a robust response from the U.S. under President Donald Trump, experts said.

"In the age before Trump, clearly the United States would be the one advocating for press freedom and independent media worldwide," said David Kaye, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and a former UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression. Trump routinely refers to the mainstream press as "fake news."

While the Trump administration sanctioned Chinese officials, including Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam, over Lai's arrest, its traditional rhetoric in support of the free press has fallen short. "We don't see the robust condemnation that we would expect from the U.S. over press freedom crackdowns or deaths of journalists in custody," Radsch said. The administration also could have done more for Ressa, she said, as the journalist holds American as well as Filipino citizenship.

"We have not seen a robust call at the highest level for charges to be dropped," she said. "It's not what we expect."

The U.S. does still intervene on occasion. For example, U.S. negotiators have been active negotiations over Austin Tice, a Houston journalist and veteran held in Syria. But that is a rare exception.

Kaye said increasing media repression is a direct consequence of a global rise in authoritarian government.

"Authoritarians and populists of the last several years have been elected into office," he said. "There's been pressure on independent media, that hasn't changed, and that has been happening in parallel prior to and into COVID."

The pandemic "has added a new vector toward repression," he said. "There is existing repression that's continued, and COVID-oriented repression that's new."

Follow this link:

How COVID-19 gives cover to press crackdowns the world over - Minneapolis Star Tribune

In India, the push for censorship on Facebook comes from the left, just as it does in the US and Europe – Reclaim The Net

There are significant cultural and other differences between the United States and India, but one feature seems to unite them seamlessly: the inability (at least as reflected in media and among campaigners and activists of various persuasions) to reach political consensus on whether Facebook is implementing too much or too little censorship?

And just like in the US, in India, too, accusations that Facebook needs to step up its censorship game are coming from the left, while those telling opposite ideological beliefs say their speech on the global social network is already muzzled to an unacceptable degree.

One, but not insignificant difference, is the way this dissatisfaction is expressed against Facebooks representatives: in India, Reuters said, Ankhi Das, a top exec with the giant, has had to formally turn to the police with a criminal complaint against those making death threats against her. They accuse Das and the platform of allegedly giving a leg-up to the ruling BJP party, led by the countrys prime minister.

The case against Das and Facebook is that hate speech coming from BJP supporters is not being removed, just as we see from the left in the US and Europe.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

Facebook is meanwhile denying the accusations of exhibiting political bias in India not only those coming from the left, but also those simultaneously voiced by the right, including the BJP, who say their nationalist voices are the ones censored on the platform.

OpIndia presents this side of the row, saying that the perception of Facebook favoring the prime ministers party is false, and a result of local liberals joining forces with whats referred to as WSJ propagandists.

This report finds evidence that if any, Facebook has a pro-left bias that is evident in its own guidelines used as the basis for moderation and censorship, especially on issues like hate speech and gender identity.

In addition, says OpIndia, Facebook took down as many as 687 pages with links to the Indian National Congress ahead of the 2019 India elections, also targeting BJP pages which, the article warns, amounts to involvement in electoral malpractice.

The rest is here:

In India, the push for censorship on Facebook comes from the left, just as it does in the US and Europe - Reclaim The Net

Musician Ziggy Ramo accuses ABC of censorship over Anzac song on Q+A – ABC News

The ABC has been accused of censorship by a Q+A panellist, on an episode dedicated to whether Australians can trust the media.

Indigenous musician Ziggy Ramo took the national broadcaster to task on the program, saying his preferred choice of song for the episode's closing segment was rejected.

The song, April 25th, includes these lines:

"You didn't give your life

"You weren't an Anzac

"If you're gonna love your soldiers

"You've gotta love the blacks

"But you fly your flag

"Water off your back

"If this don't make sense and you lost your way

"Just remember how much you hate it when I say

"F*** those Anzacs, screaming, f*** those Anzacs. Now, how f***ed up is that?"

Ramo questioned whether his inclusion on the Monday night panel was "performative" diversity on the part of the ABC, after talking about the lack of representation of people from minority backgrounds at media outlets.

"For example, on this show today the song that I'm going to perform is called Stand For Something," Ramo said.

"The song I initially was going to perform was called April 25th, and this was a song that I was not allowed to perform.

"I was basically censored, in the fact that the ABC said that it was not appropriate.

"Me sitting on this panel ticks off a box for the ABC that is cultural diversity, but if I'm not able to express my perspective, is it performative or is it actual cultural diversity?"

He then referenced an earlier comment from Nationals MP and former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce, about the importance of freedom of expression.

But Mr Joyce indicated he felt there were limits, and sided with the ABC's decision on the song.

"I imagine when we say April 25th, we are looking at Anzac Day or something like that," Mr Joyce said.

"You have to be careful what you say.

"You go to a point where you insult people. I could talk to Indigenous people where I grew up and there are so many Indigenous people who are part of the RSL movement, and what are you saying to them?

"What do you say to all the members? What are you saying to them? You don't respect them?" Mr Joyce added.

Host Hamish Macdonald then offered to let Ramo explain his position.

"I want to celebrate the Anzacs, and I do celebrate the Anzacs," the rapper said.

"I myself, have gone to [World War I battlefields in] Belgium when I was 17. I had the privilege to go there and celebrate and understand the sacrifice that people have laid down for this country.

"The whole point of a song about April 25th is saying that I've seen this country recognise the sacrifices that have been made so that we could all sit here today.

"We can't just pick parts of our history that we want to recognise, and bury the others.

"If in World War II, we fought against genocide, yet we don't recognise the genocide in our own country, that's a double standard.

"So the whole reason why the song says, 'I hate the Anzacs,' is to demonstrate, that how outrageous is that?

"If we can recognise how outrageous that is, why can't [we] recognise that on [Australia Day] January 26?

"Why can't we recognise that when we ask to raise the age from 10 because 600 kids last year were locked up, we're 2 per cent of the population, we make up 65 per cent of those kids incarcerated.

"Do we not understand the hypocrisy?"

An ABC spokesperson confirmed Ramo had been asked to "perform an alternative song to close the show".

"[The ABC] instead invited him to present his points of view on all topics, including the sentiment and lyrics of the song April 25th and the reasons he wrote it, during the discussion," the spokesperson said.

"He took up the opportunity to explain those sentiments in detail."

Ramo later closed out the show with an emotional performance of Stand For Something.

Watch the full episode again on iview or via the Q+A Facebook page.

Read the rest here:

Musician Ziggy Ramo accuses ABC of censorship over Anzac song on Q+A - ABC News

Banned Book Week 2020: Promotional Kits, Ingram Discount, and Virtual Programming Ideas – BTW

Bookstores that received a Banned Books Week promotional kit from the American Booksellers Association last year will receive the 2020 kit in the September Box mailing. This year, the Banned Books Week celebration will be held September 27 to October 3 and will feature the theme Censorship Is a Dead End.

Banned Books Week is an annual event celebrating the freedom to read that brings together the entire book community, including booksellers, librarians, publishers, journalists, teachers, and readers.

According to the American Library Association (ALA), eight of the 10 most challenged books of 2019 were challenged or banned because of LGBTQIA+ content. In 2019, the ALA tracked 377 attempts to censor library, school, and university materials and services, encompassing 566 books that were challenged or banned. The list includes George by Alex Gino (Scholastic); Sex Is a Funny Wordby Cory Silverberg and Fiona Smyth (Triangle Square); and Drama by Raina Telgemeier (Graphix).

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the kit has been slightly modified from past years with the understanding that many bookstores are open in limited capacity. This year, the kit will include:

ABA members can also download a 8.5x11 Banned Books Week poster to print as a counter card or use on social media under the Marketing Assets section on BookWeb.org. Booksellers can choose from one of two designs, with a black or white background.

Booksellers can take advantage of Ingrams 3 percent discount on banned, challenged, and relocated titles in advance of Banned Books Week. The promotion is running from August 1 to October 4. Place your orders from a list of 2020 banned and challenged titles on ipage. No promotional code is needed.

The American Libraries Association has also created a list of 40 virtual program ideas for Banned Books Week. Ideas include story time or Q&A with a banned author, a partnership with a local LGBTQIA+ group to address why LGBTQIA+ stories are overwhelmingly censored, an online bingo based on banned book titles, and a partnership with an organization that centers on Black voices to discuss racism and the continuing challenges books about racism and police brutality face.

As you prepare for the upcoming Banned Books Week, booksellers are encouraged to share their plans and photos of their displays by tagging ABA and using #BannedBooksWeek on social media or contacting socialmedia@bookweb.org.

The full list of hashtags associated with this years event are: #BannedBooksWeek, #bannedbooks, #FirstAmendment, #freespeech, #censorship, #intellectualfreedom, #bannedbookslist, #freespeechfighter.

Here is the original post:

Banned Book Week 2020: Promotional Kits, Ingram Discount, and Virtual Programming Ideas - BTW