Editor:

With Hunter Bidens admission that he is the subject of a federal criminal investigation, the mainstream media has finally been shamed into reporting on him and the financial entanglements between the Biden family and the Chinese Communist Party.

As vice president, Joe Biden hauled his neer-do-well son Hunter on Air Force Two around the globe like a soiled Turkish towel to be thrown in every murky puddle of cash between Ukraine and China to be wrung out later for personal profit. Only now that the election is over is the media bringing this to the attention of voters. It may have had an impact on how they voted.

When the framers of the Constitution sought to protect free speech, they envisioned abridgment of free speech by the government; they didnt envision self-censorship by the media to advance political objectives. Where do we turn for protection from that?

James R. Blair

Spring Township

See the article here:

Letter: Who will protect America from censorship by media? - Reading Eagle

Courtesy Photo

Various social media apps widely used by everyday Americans. Social media has become a way of life throughout the 21st century.

President Donald Trump made an announcement on Dec. 1 to veto an annual defense bill unless Section 230 is repealed.Section 230 is a piece of internet legislation that protects companies from being sued for what their users post on their platforms.This legislation has been essential to the growth of the internet over the course of the past two decades since it was introduced. Without it, we couldnt have Youtube, Twitter, Yelp, Facebook and any other platforms which allow users to post content since the companies can be held accountable for countless lawsuits.For example, if person A posts a defamatory piece about person B on Youtube, person B can sue Google for defamation for allowing that content to get posted.With how much content is posted every minute, its impossible to vet everything that is put on each platform.The section also provides protection to companies that want to remove content they deem offensive from their platform. This last part of Section 230 is the reason why Trump wants it repealed.Since June 2019, Twitter has begun flagging tweets from government officials that break their rules.This means Trumps tweets tend to be flagged often for abusive behavior and, more recently, misinformation about the results of the election.Trump has made multiple claims that Twitter and Facebook are trying to censor conservative viewpoints, but theres no evidence to support this claim. The content being flagged is clearly misinformation, bullying, hate speech or some other violation of the websites rules.The real issue with social media isnt censorship, but quite the opposite. Its the difficulty of moderating such a large platform thats the biggest issue.A fake news article, such as one about election fraud, will always spread before it gets flagged and taken down. And many of the people who read that article would rather believe in social media censorship rather than admit they were wrong.Then they read another news article, that one gets flagged as fake, and the narrative continues to get spun.This is exactly how we get such wild conspiracy theories as QAnon and Pizzagate.I do believe Section 230 needs to be adjusted now that the scope of social media is far larger than was originally envisioned when the legislation was put into place.Im not talking about the kinds of changes that Sens. Roger Wicker (R-MI), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) tried to introduce on September 8, which would hold tech companies liable for removing content that isnt obscene or illegal.In fact, websites should be held more accountable for moderating what is posted and make a greater effort in preventing fake news and conspiracy theories from thriving on their platforms.We need to be aware of the dangers of misinformation and find a way to moderate it fairly, otherwise, our society wont be able to distinguish fact from fiction, if we arent at that point already.

Originally posted here:

Section 230 and social media censorship - The Connection

Latest posts by Gregory Wrightstone (see all)

If you think that the Microsoft owned social media platform LinkedIn is just about professional and business connections with no politics, you would be wrong. They appear now to be trending toward emulating their bigger social media rivals at Facebook, Google and Twitter in censoring those views with which they disagree. My second run-in with the LinkedIn censorship squad in as many months occurred recently when they removed a post linking to a new paper on global temperatures published by the CO2 Coalition. According to the LinkedIn censorship team, the post was removed because it goes against our Professional Community Policies.

Although they provided no description of what rules were broken, the only possible violation of their terms and conditions was an admonition to not share false or misleading content. I can only imagine some man bun-wearing fellow with a degree in sustainable development sitting in LinkedIns Sunnyvale headquarters gleefully hitting the delete button in order to prevent distribution of this important scientific paper.

The censored paper, The Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record, may be of interest only to climate geeks like myself, but it was completely factual, fully sourced and written by two of the top climate scientists in the world, Richard Lindzen and John Christy. These are no light-weight scientists. Dr. Lindzen of MIT is an award recipient of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union. He is also a member of the National Academy of Science and was a lead author of the UN IPCCs third assessment reports scientific volume.

Professor Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and has been Alabamas State Climatologist since 2000. Along with Dr. Roy Spencer, he has maintained one of the key global temperature data sets relied on by scientists and government bodies. For this achievement, they were awarded NASAs Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

The main thrust of the paper was to put the modest 1.2 degree rise in temperature since 1900 in its proper perspective. When compared to the wide swings in temperature experienced on a daily and yearly basis, that slight rise in global temperature over the last 120 years does not appear quite as alarming as portrayed by the purveyors of climate doom. Like so many other scholarly works that dont support the notion of catastrophic man-made warming, the science and the authors needed to be silenced and censored. And so they did.

The CO2 Coalition was the publisher of the now censored Lindzen/Christy paper and is no stranger to the social media censorship squads. The coalitions leadership and members are a whos who of leading scientists studying carbon dioxide and climate change, including atmospheric physicists, climatologists, ecologists, statisticians, and energy experts. They apparently have many in the powerful climate alarm community fearful that they are successfully conveying unapproved science and have faced down several attempts to silence them by some of the best-known climate avengers in the world.

First, a lettersigned by Stacey Abrams, Tom Steyer, and 13 leaders of groups working to ban fossil fuelswas sent to Facebook demanding that it shut down the Facebook page of the CO2 Coalition and to censor posts of its members studies and articles on other users pages.

Soon thereafter, four senators, including Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren and Rhode Islands Sheldon Whitehouse, sent an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to censor the CO2 Coalition because climate change is an existential crisis and publicizing any view contrary to that claim puts action on climate change at risk.

The attempts at censorship extended to the Coalition chairman, Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. His PragerU video, What They Havent Told You About Climate Change,which has more than 3.6 million views, was fact-checked byClimate Feedback as misleading. Moores supposedly misleading statement was: Of course the climate is changing. It always has. It always will.

The recent censorship on LinkedIn is not widely known but has extended to others who have dared to post factual data on climate change and on COVID-19, including the de-platforming of blogger David Ramsden-Wood for posting a link to a Stanford University antibody study.

The social media giants are currently protected by a key legal shield known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Future Congressional hearings to review this protection should be sure to include LinkedIns CEO Ryan Roslansky to testify alongside his compadres Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey.

Linked In joins its big brothers with social media censorship was last modified: December 15th, 2020 by Gregory Wrightstone

More here:

Linked In joins its big brothers with social media censorship - Somewhat Reasonable - Heartland Institute

Image: Screenshot from Skla Scam / Skla Scam on Facebook

Freemuseis concerned aboutthe decision of the Minister of Culture oftheFaroe Islands JanisavRanaannounced on 7 December2020to stop thepublicfinancial supportofafilm, because he founditpersonally unsuitable. Despite being recommended for financingbyFilmgrunnurin, the film fundoperatingunder the ministry of culture, the filmwas rejected by the minister. FilmSkla Scam / School Scam,directedbyTki Janssonandproduced by Jonas Dali Wanger,was deemed problematic because of the language used in the production.

Censoring artists fortheir artistic expression violatestheir basic human right to freedom of expressionand is in breach of Faroe Islands international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, saidSrirakPlipat,FreemuseExecutive Director.Artistic expression does not apply only to artworks which are regarded as positive or neutral, but also to those that aim to explore taboo topics.Weurgethe Faroe Islands authoritiestoreverse the decisionand respect artists right to freedom of expression.

According toBerlingske,commenting on hisdecision, the Minister said that: I didnt like what I saw at all. When I put my signature, its because I approve of it and say it(the movie, ed.)is great. And I could not do that with this film.The minister further reportedlyadded thathedoesnot like when people swear, and normal people do notdo it.

When I saw the response from the ministry, I had to read it again.I was just thinking, what?, the films producer Jonas Dali Wagner told Berlingske. He has now complained to the Ombudsman.

Animated seriesSkla Scamis a South Parkdark comedyinspired seriesset in a schooland is made by a17-year-oldfilmmaker.

The cultural sector and civil society are prerequisites for an educated and enlightened public, and thus an investment in democracy. Culture must be free, based on personal involvement and voluntarism.

See the article here:

Freemuse concerned about film censorship in the Faroe Islands - Freemuse

Many books promise sex on the front cover but which ones are really dirty? Ive consulted the blacklist compiled by the Irish censors, who banned thousands of books for smut, swearing and shagging.

The moral effect of literary sex was so incendiary that the government oversaw a strict censorship regime to control it. In order to save the nation from mass perversion, the censors banned the greatest writers of the 20th century as well as sex manuals and pulp fiction. From 1930 to 1967, the harshest censorship system in the Anglophone world thrived in Ireland. So many literary greats were banned that the blacklist was nicknamed Everymans Guide to the Classics.

This is a top 10 list of the best banned literary filth, from classic novels to bestselling popular fiction. Rude books are a perfect saucy stocking-filler for anyone who loves mugs with smutty jokes or nudey fireman calendars.

Since starting Censored, a podcast about books banned in Ireland, Ive read a lot of so-called dirty books from the blacklist. Too many were disappointingly tame, but others explore sex and gender identity in interesting ways. Ive done you the favour of reading and rating them so you can enjoy the best smut over the festive season. Best of all, these naughty books can be read anywhere because the nice covers wont give away your dirty secret. Granny will never know your filthy reading habits as you nibble Christmas chocolates. If you havent been able to get the ride this pandemic, at least you can read about it.

John Broderick: The Pilgrimage Lilliput Press, 1961It opens with Julia, respectably dressed as the dutiful, obedient wife of an invalid, offering tea to the local priest. But she is not wearing knickers as she is planning a quickie with her husbands nephew. Broderick also explores Dublins underground gay scene and how queer men lived double lives. The pragmatic hypocrisy of the books characters regarding faith and morality is wonderfully audacious. A short, punchy book that interrogates the lies around sexual identity in provincial Ireland.

Pamela Moore: Chocolates for BreakfastHarper Perennial, 1956Escape to sun-drenched Hollywood in a book about a troubled teenage girl searching for love and sex. The main character, Courtney, parties too hard but this is not an ode to hedonism. Its a classic coming-of-age novel featuring a teenage girl and should be read alongside TheCatcher in the Rye, which was also banned in Ireland. Written when she was just 19 years old, Pamela Moore became an American literary sensation for this sensitive, candid book about the complications of sexual identity.

Richard Yates: Revolutionary RoadVintage Classics, 1961An unflinching, clear-eyed account of a man trapped by conventional masculinity. Frank and April are the epitome of young middle-class suburbia but he shags a co-worker to distract himself from marital disharmony. Sex for Yates is an opportunity to explore the inherent violence of gendered social roles. This challenging subject matter and a step-by-step description of a DIY abortion ensured his book was banned in Ireland.

Rona Jaffe: The Best of EverythingPenguin Modern Classics,1958Don Draper read it in Mad Men, but Irish people couldnt buy this banned book until the late 1960s. A tale of three hard-working single girls trying to make it in New York. This book has been very influential there are echoes of it in the film Working Girl and the TV series Sex andthe City. Jaffe explored abortion, sexual assault in the work place and obsessive love. It documents sex in a time when a condom was the 16th of an inch between a single woman and a home for unwed mothers. If youve ever debated your love life with friends in a small rented apartment, this is the book for you.

JP Donleavy: The Ginger ManLilliput,1954Set in a damp, grotty and oppressive Dublin, this international bestseller is full of violence, sex and drinking. Donleavy wrote a book that was truly filthy and a case-study in toxic masculinity. It was so dirty the Irish censors banned it twice and a play based on the book was shut down by Archbishop McQuaid. The main character, feckless and revolting Sebastian Dangerfield, is so inexplicably charming that lots of lovely women shag him. Donleavy wanted to shock, referencing gay sex, sexual assault, contraception and mother and baby homes.

Kathleen Winsor:Forever AmberPenguin, 1944The perfect gift for a fan of chicklit or bodice rippers. This book pioneered the bonkbuster, long romance novels by women for women that featured copious shagging. It is hard to believe it was banned in Ireland, Australia and New Zealand but light-hearted, guilt and consequence-free sex is very transgressive. The adventures of Amber, a brazen adventuress, in 17th-century England will brighten the grimmest January day.

Joseph Heller: Catch-22Vintage, 1961War novels offer lots of opportunities for sex and Catch-22 doesnt disappoint. The first page suggests the then-scandalous possibility of gay love but frequent, explicit heterosexual encounters dominate the narrative. Men and women are trapped in surreal dilemmas so inventively explored that catch-22 now means an inescapable situation created by mutually conflicting forces. Irish people probably used the catchphrase before they could legally buy the book.

Muriel Spark: The BachelorsPolygon,1960Laughing at sex is uplifting and Muriel Spark couldnt resist satirising the cosy lives of complacent London bachelors. A cast of disparate characters are slowly drawn into a complicated story of fraud, blackmail and attempted murder. Along the way there is a crisis pregnancy, a gay priest, an attempt to coerce an abortion and much angst over free love. An Irish journalist who likes sex but fears promiscuity will damn his soul is an entertaining portrait of Irish emigrant masculinity. Spark did not write explicit sex scenes but she did explore the dilemmas of sexual attraction in a witty, amusing fashion.

John McGahern:The DarkFaber & Faber,1965Give the history buff in your life a copy of the book that changed Irish censorship forever. The scandal over The Dark led to McGahern losing his teaching job, when Archbishop McQuaid intervened to punish him. After this domestic cause celebre became international news, the government reduced the power of the censorship board in 1967. This is a powerful book that describes the midnight horrors of child sex abuse. Years before it became an acceptable topic for daytime radio, McGahern fearlessly exposed abusive adults, both clergy or parents.

Iris Murdoch: The Flight from the EnchanterVintage Classics,1956Murdochs rich and inventive novel is saturated with sexual tension and issues that feel extraordinarily contemporary. Out of her experience of being Irish in England, Murdoch wrote about refugees and identity in Britain. The vulnerability of the refugee characters to bureaucratic and political machinations is heart-breaking. She also explored image-based sexual abuse, political activism and gaslighting. There were many reasons to ban it but the threesome involving identical twin brothers may have given the censors a coronary or two.

Dr Aoife Bhreatnach hosts Censored, a podcast about banned books

More:

A top 10 list of the best banned literary filth - The Irish Times

YouTube has benefited from the protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for years. Its selective censoring of the 2020 election content, though, makes the case for why Section 230 should be thrown out.

It is becoming more and more common that big tech companies are censoring the opinions of people who upload to their platforms. The latest turn is that YouTube is going to begin deleting videos that are critical of the 2020 election in the United States. It waited until the safe harbor deadline of result certification to start doing this, but the election isnt fully in Joe Bidens pocket yet, with Donald Trump still counting on a Supreme Court case challenging Bidens victory in several states.

Most media outlets havent even waited that long to declare Biden the president-elect. For those who dont know, they do not have that kind of power especially not in an election as momentous and contentious as this years.

Trump and his supporters are claiming Biden won because of widespread voter fraud, and claims such as this are what YouTube is no longer going to allow. The ostensible goal is to preserve the integrity of the election but thats not the job of a platform enjoying Section 230s protection. Yet, its precisely Section 230 that permits this: declare certain content harmful and you can curate it with no consequence for violating peoples free speech. Similar logic was used when Twitter shut down platforms that were discussing the controversies surrounding Hunter Biden.

This is the general issue with YouTube as a platform. The instant it declares something harmful, it can get rid of it with no accountability. Preserving electoral integrity is a good thing, but who made YouTube judge and jury? By this logic, should the results of the 2016 election have been likewise preserved? Have any of the claims that Russian interference put Donald Trump in the Oval Office been deleted? You would think that consistently pushing that narrative even to this day, when it's been thoroughly debunked, would be just as harmful as claiming fraud in 2020. Forgive me if I get the impression that youre allowed to question the validity of an election only if a Republican wins.

YouTube is going above and beyond to shut down free speech. It has taken on itself the role of a moral arbiter, telling us which content is harmful and then forbidding us from seeing it. Time is more than sufficient as a tool to show whether these skeptical videos have any validity. The election is going before the Supreme Court, and once that case is decided, only then we will have something that is truly official.

For YouTube to abuse the protections offered under Section 230 shows a willingness to play the part of a partisan guard dog. Thats contrary to freedom of speech, and just about as un-American as you can get without setting Old Glory on fire.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Continue reading here:

YouTubes censorship of the 2020 election criticism is an argument for abolishing Section 230 - RT

When New Zealand digital media giant Stuff stopped using Facebook as an advertising partner in July this year, it joined the ranks of other openly activist brands. But it also showed how brand activism is moving from speaking directly to consumers to companies policing their own supply chains.

The trial decision was in response to concerns over fake news, hate speech and fraudulent advertising on Facebook, which conflicted with Stuffs charter under its new local ownership.

As such, it is part of a broad trend towards companies applying their own checks and balances on commercial ethics and activity. But this evolving role for business-to-business (B2B) brands is not without controversy or risk of financial blowback.

When does the act of removing products from stock, or boycotting a major supplier, move beyond marketing strategy to moral act? And when does it become censorship?

These questions relate directly to the tangible impacts of B2B activism: removing products from shelves, terminating licensing contracts, removing content from online platforms and firing clients and supply-chain partners who dont align with a corporate brands avowed values and purpose.

Such activism may happen behind the retail face of a brand, but is nevertheless often about the perceptions of the end consumer.

For example, when Australian celebrity chef Pete Evans tweeted a neo-Nazi meme in November, publisher Pan Macmillan and licensed cookware makers Baccarat and House ended their partnerships with him. Baccarat said in a statement:

In our view, the images and views expressed by Mr Evans are abhorrent, unacceptable and deeply offensive.

Retailers across Australasia followed suit, pulling cookbooks and kitchenware lines from their shelves. Theres an important distinction here between retailers simply refusing to stock products because they are offensive or defective, and refusing to stock products because of something a supplier has said or done.

Read more: Athlete activism or corporate woke washing? Getting it right in the age of Black Lives Matter is a tough game

This has been likened to cancel culture by some supply-chain partners vetoed by activist brands, and is forcing businesses to ask where they draw the line on perceived moral and ethical issues.

This is new territory for manufacturing and client-facing corporate brands, which had been somewhat exempted from the first wave of authentic brand activism.

Because B2B companies are insulated from direct customer contact, managers or buyers tasked with justifying corporate decision-making have tended to put costs ahead of social or emotional considerations.

But the rapid acceleration of brands as arbiters of social causes has inevitably moved back up the supply chain. Shoppers are increasingly aware of, and driven by, transparency.

For example, consumer watchdog groups wary of greenwashing or deceptive claims about green product performance have led to the rise of green supply-chain monitoring.

Read more: Woke washing: what happens when marketing communications don't match corporate practice

But end-consumer expectations now extend to social causes. This means we are witnessing the rise of the pro-social supply chain, increasingly driven by social and political considerations rather than the bottom line.

Locally, apparel maker Icebreaker followed Stuff and stopped advertising on Facebook. And online retailer Mighty Ape pulled books by an author who mocked New Zealands new foreign ministers moko kauae (facial tatoo).

Overseas, the Facebook boycott movement #StopHateForProfit organised by civil rights groups saw more than 1,000 companies join and cut their advertising spends.

Elsewhere, American hotel brand Motel 6 and others fired its longstanding advertising agency due to the founders reportedly racist comments. And law firms Jones Day and Porter Wright pulled back from representing outgoing president Donald Trump in post-election lawsuits.

B2B brand activism in the supply chain is not without consequences, however. Suppliers can lose contracts, revenue and livelihoods when they are cancelled by clients further down the supply chain.

Activist brands are also at financial risk themselves as Stuff would have been by forgoing market share due to its Facebook decision. The ideal outcome is that positive brand awareness drives business to offset any losses.

But, as our work on brand activism shows, authenticity is paramount: B2B brands marketing and communication must align with purpose and genuine action. Once a corporate brand takes a stand, it must continue to advocate for sustainable ethical supply-chain practices or risk being accused of woke washing.

The next challenge is clear: B2B brand activism must also involve actively infiltrating the supply chain to prioritise workplace safety, workers rights and sustainability to keep pace with consumer demand for social purpose.

Go here to see the original:

Brand activism is moving up the supply chain corporate accountability or commercial censorship? - The Conversation AU

In 2019, Nigerias selection for the Best International Feature Film category at the Oscars, Lionheart, was disqualified mid-campaign because it was made predominantly in English.

This year, the selection committee submitted The Milkmaid, a beautifully shot, predominantly Hausa language thriller that follows two sisters who are thrust from their idyllic existence when insurgents attack their village. Critics call it the finest Nigerian film in years.

Theres just one problem. The Nigerian National Film and Video Censors Board isnt a fan.

After weeks of testy negotiations, the government board approved a toned-down version of The Milkmaid for public screenings that removed about 24 minutes of footage from the directors original cut, scrubbing any references to religion or hints toward Islam being an enabler of extremism.

This means that the approved version is stripped of some of the films most powerful scenes. In one of those scenes, a character says supplications with his prayer bead while burying the dead. The (dubious) objection from the board was that an insurgent would be unlikely to make use of the bead when praying. Also, a scene that shows a female character expressing sexual desire was heavily frowned upon.

The board did not reply to an interview request for this story. In a January interview speaking more broadly about the boards role, Alonge Oyadiran, director of the boards film censorship and classification unit, warned: Anything that can cause an uproar should not be ventured into because we know where we are as a society.

Some of it didnt make sense, says Desmond Ovbiagele, 48, director, writer and producer of The Milkmaid. We had to remove everything costume, language, dialogue that was an authentic depiction of a particular religion, even though there is nothing in the film that states that the religion was directly responsible for violence. The films original version was sent to the Oscars, but only the censored version can be screened in Nigeria. The film has also been released in Cameroon and Zimbabwe.

The Milkmaid was inspired by the iconic photo of two Fulani milkmaids on the back of the Nigerian 10 Naira note. Ovbiagele imagined them as players in the protracted Boko Haram war that has decimated Nigerias northeast and claimed the lives of more than 37,000 people.

Seun Sowemimo, a U.S.-based bariatric surgeon and childhood friend of Ovbiagele, served as executive producer on The Milkmaid. I challenged Desmond after I saw Black Panther, because I felt like African stories should be told by Africans, Sowemimo says. He, in turn, challenged me to come up with the funds.

Ovbiagele studied thousands of pages of news articles and agency reports, and he spoke with people who had escaped the violence to better understand their world. The survivors could narrate the most horrific experiences in a very dispassionate manner. They could reveal almost casually how loved ones were slaughtered in front of them without breaking down, he says.

This observation influenced the unsentimental tone that The Milkmaid adopts, which is at odds with the melodrama often favored by Nollywood filmmakers.

To open up the film to wider audiences across the continent, Ovbiagele deliberately avoided any specificities with regard to the films rural setting. The characters speak Hausa, Fulani, and Arabic and could be in Nigeria, Mali or Burkina Faso, where Boko Haram has made headway of late.

Ovbiagele also took considerable care to build his cast and crew with people local to these regions; they provided both authenticity and technical support to get the details right.

All of these measures were important, considering Nigerias peculiar population and social dynamics. About half of the countrys 200 million population are Muslim and located in the deeply conservative northern region, which often clashes with the more liberal and Christian south. Recently, Rahama Sadau, a famous Muslim actress, was bullied online and invited for police questioning after she posted revealing photos of gasp! her back, which offended conservative Muslims.

There is a history of state censorship in the arts as well. In January, the censors board temporarily recalled Nigerias No. 1 film, the romantic comedy Sugar Rush, for an unflattering depiction of government officials. In 2014, the theatrical opening of Half of a Yellow Sun, a fictionalized treatment of the Biafran War, was delayed over fears that some scenes would incite violence.

The Milkmaid is Ovbiageles sophomore effort. He made his debut in 2014 with the action thriller Render to Caesar after leaving behind a high-profile 16-year career in investment banking. Even though banking was rewarding, he wanted to flex his creative muscles. I always felt like I needed to express myself in a different way but I wasnt quite sure how. It is this outsider status or perhaps a certain strain of arrogance that explains his insistence on pushing forward with the project where others may have balked.

Sowemimo sees it differently. Desmond is a quiet, reserved and thoughtful person. And for the film industry, where part of the skill set is making a lot of noise and PR, this can be some sort of weakness.

Born in Lagos to a middle-class family, Ovbiagele was a nerdy kid, reading everything he could lay his hands on. His mother, Helen, was a teacher, journalist and novelist, who found acclaim for feminist works like Evbu My Love, published as part of Macmillans iconic Pacesetter series.

His father worked as a journalist and was stationed in London briefly. Ovbiagele studied business administration at the University of Lagos and earned an MBA from Imperial College London. Despite his literary bona fides, Ovbiagele didnt do any writing until hed left banking.

After The Milkmaids Oscars-qualifying limited-release run, Ovbiagele says the plan is to place it back on the shelf until a distribution platform preferably a streaming service allows the film to be seen in its original iteration.

The experience hasnt left him discouraged, though. Ovbiagele remains committed to making films and is excited by the stories of complex historical figures. I was alarmed for the prospects of our film obviously, but also for filmmaking generally, he says of the censorship. Film is a powerful medium for change. And you dont want that subject to mindsets seeking to curtail authentic expression, particularly in a developing country.

Excerpt from:

The Potential Oscar Film That's Too Hot for the Nigerian Government - OZY

For tens of thousands of years, humans have told stories. We relied on ancient carvings and oral storytelling, eventually evolving more intricate and advanced ways to share our experiences. The earliest literary works date back to 2,500 B.C., and the Epic of Gilgamesh is often thought to be the oldest fictional story, a sophisticated mythic poem focusing on the eponymous Sumerian King.

As time moved forward, so tohave our methods of telling stories. We have moved from cave walls and clay tablets to quill and ink, typewriters, word processors, and now digital ebooks. Yet we continue to use stories to entertain, inform, and connect people from every corner of the earth, because ours is a history steeped in literary tradition.

Using literary journals and a variety of news, publishing, and entertainment sources including The New York Times, The Guardian, Time, Literary Hub, and NPR, Stacker dives into literary history from the year you were born. We review the greatest moments in the history of literature, exploring romance, betrayal, censorship, feuds, hoaxeseven arsonand everything in between. Do you remember the magazine that featured some of the greatest serialized fiction? Can you name the first African American female writer to read at the presidential inauguration? Perhaps you were born the year that the first book was written on a word processor. Whether you are here for the literary firsts or the awards and scandals, this list has something to appeal to even the most knowledgeable bibliophiles.

Join Stacker as we lead you across nine decades through stories, milestones, and the most magnificent and enthralling literary facts from the year you were born.

You may also like: Most dangerous countries for journalists

More here:

Literary history from the year you were born - North Platte Telegraph