You may have seen it on TV or in action, up close and personal on social media: Big Tech, at the request of the federal government, has been censoring Americans who ask questions about the COVID vaccines. The unintended consequences of this blatant violation of Americans' First Amendment rights has been a growing mistrust of the government and what it says about the vaccine, resulting in a steady percentage of Americans remaining hesitant to get vaccinated. Everyday Americans are being censored by our social media giants when they ask questions or oppose the prevailing narrative. This censorship, intended to tamp down on "misinformation," is instead a leading source of vaccine hesitancy and fuels the fires of conspiracy theories.

Recent polling suggests that across party lines, Americans have an overall negative view of social media. A supermajority of 69 percent of Americans believes that social media makes it easier for misinformation to spread, creating a culture where a lack of trust is prevalent. Big Tech companies have tried to remedy this by censoring content it finds problematic, but this has had the opposite effect. The answer to speech one disagrees with isn't less speech; it's more speech.

Ever since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Big Tech has been working overtime to promote its own ideology over any dissent standing in the way. This strategy has only grown during the Biden administration. We've seen doctors censored for questioning the vaccine, along with any posts that did the same thing. It's easy to conclude this was the result of Big Tech working together with the government, which Jen Psaki openly admitted did happen earlier this year. Big Tech and the federal government don't want debate that could undermine their preferred narrative. It's straight out of the totalitarian playbook.

Understanding and appreciating our differences helps bring us together by building bridges, thus benefiting all of us. That is why censorship and cancel culture are so troubling. Instead of resolving our differences, these forces exacerbate them. When you marginalize, you radicalize.

Today's biggest proponents, enablers and enforcers of censorship and cancel culture are the trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists: Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple. Big Tech monopolists have an unholy alliance with Big Government to censor, silence, deplatform and even cancel those with whom they disagree. When Big Tech censors under the guise of protecting us from "misinformation," it behaves more like the communist Chinese than patriotic, constitutionally guided Americans.

Big Tech has been particularly egregious with its COVID censorship. Big Tech is censoring noted doctors, scientists and even a sitting United States senatorwho also happens to be a doctor. Even if one is ignorant or arrogant enough to believe that Big Tech is the ultimate arbiter of truth, how does censoring dissenting doctors and scientists help convince vaccine-hesitant Americans disproportionately Black and Hispanicto overcome their concerns and get vaccinated?

Censorship is counter-productive. It makes people lose confidence in the science, particularly the science behind vaccines. COVID vaccines are indeed quite effective, especially in preventing hospitalizations and deaths. But many people don't believe this because censorship has created mistrust.

Individuals must be allowed the freedom to make their own choices, especially when it comes to their health and well-being. We don't need Biden administration officials and their censors working with Big Tech to protect us from ourselves. Get the information out there, good or bad, right or wrong, and let people make their own informed decisions, in consultation with their own medical providers.

There are no real competitors to Big Tech, especially as it relates to online speech. Google owns YouTube. Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp. Google controls online search. Facebook and Google control the digital advertising market. Google and Apple control the smartphone app market. And Facebook, Twitter and Google control social media. These conglomerates can pick and choose winners and losers with no repercussions. This cannot be allowed any longer.

How do we fix this? We must do two important things.

First, we must end Big Tech's antitrust amnesty. We cannot continue to allow trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists to use their market dominance to kill competitors like Parler, control the online public square and censor our opinions. We must break up Big Tech before it is too late.

Second, we must repeal Big Tech's Section 230 shieldwhich gives the companies immunity with respect to third-party content posted on their platformsso they can no longer censor, silence, deplatform and even cancel those with whom they disagree. This leads to government-sponsored censorship, and Biden officials have made it clear that the government is actively working with various social media platforms to censor Americans.

The COVID vaccine is a remarkable human achievement that is saving millions of lives across the globe. But many Americans aren't going to believe that because they think they aren't being told the full story. And it's truethey're not. Big Tech is censoring critical voices online and it's having a devastating effect, contributing directly to vaccine hesitancy. If we break up Big Tech to give users more options and modernize Section 230 to allow for freer online speech, Americans would feel more confident they aren't being lied to. They would choose to get vaccinated after they feel more fully informed.

We need more competition, not less. We need more free speech, not less. The less we have of each, the more dangerous and totalitarian the national political and social environment becomes. And that's not a road we want to continue to go down.

Mike Davis is the founder and president of Unsilenced Majority, an organization dedicated to opposing cancel culture and fighting back against the woke mob and their enablers. Davis is the former chief counsel for nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and clerked for Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Go here to read the rest:

Big Tech Censorship of COVID Information Leads to Vaccine Hesitancy | Opinion - Newsweek

One of my favorite moments of political dissent was being detained by a police officer after ignoring his demand to stop shouting toward the presidential motorcade, Fuck Donald Trump! My catharsis was worth the handcuffs, and I can only imagine how much less satisfying the memory would be if I had instead chanted something as neutered as, Lets go, Brandon!

Tough-guy conservatism has reverted to teenaged, coded taunting, where cheering for Brandon is understood as a profane insult toward our current president. I dont know if this substitution of language is intended to seem clever or classy or simply sates the conservative instinct to communicate in dog whistles.

Whatever its etymology, Lets go, Brandon! which is conservative code for Fuck Joe Biden is cowardly self-censorship among a group of people who endlessly whine about being unable to speak honestly. Supposedly champions of free speech, conservatives are so spooked by the politically correct boogeyman of their imaginations that theyve preemptively canceled their constitutional right to cuss out politicians.

White Republicans are not the only folks who have convinced themselves they cant express whats truly on their mind. Dave Chappelle has made millions of dollars with a series of stand-up lectures about the persecution he has endured due to his discomfort with LGBTQ advancement, and even though there are few jokes in his routines, his act allows viewers to rationalize their hostility to LGBTQ rights through the pretext of humor.

Chappelle could shoot a transgender person on Fifth Avenue and Netflix wouldnt lose a subscriber. He is destined to be enshrined beside historys bravest stand-up comics, despite every working comedian having their own version of the rage-against-cancel-culture shtick that has elevated his legacy.

Chapelles latest Netflix special was cited in a meme that went viral after Jon Gruden resigned as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders. Leaked emails revealed that Gruden freely used racist and misogynist language, but his departure after homophobic slurs came to light seemed to prove Chappelle was right: homos hop the line, and their rights receive priority protection.

The meme suggests Gruden was fired because homophobia has become a death sentence, nevermind that he voluntarily resigned or the dearth of sports figures who have been terminated after expressing anti-LGBTQ sentiments. NBA analyst Chris Broussard and former Atlanta Braves pitcher John Smoltz both tried to pretend it was perilous for Christians to voice religious objections to LGBTQ rights; but since their respective, spiritually vulgar condemnations of same-sex marriage, Broussard has risen from a beat reporter to hosting the morning show on Fox Sports, and Smoltz provided color commentary for this years World Series.

There is no more profitable punishment than being canceled. There is also no doubt that LGBTQ court victories, as well as increased representation in Hollywood and corporate marketing, have outpaced the evolution of a society that for centuries believed God hated gay people.

So, it cannot be surprising that, as illustrated by the Gruden episode and Chappelles meditative rants, even minorities and progressives would rather pledge solidarity with conservatives who feel muzzled by cultural changes than unify against bigotry with LGBTQ folks. There has undoubtedly been a cacophony of LGBTQ support and acceptance over the last decade, but many of the people who we thought were cheering for us were actually chanting an anti-queer equivalent of Lets go, Brandon!

See the rest here:

Self-Censorship and the Veneer of LGBTQ Acceptance - Georgia Voice

President Joe Bidens selection to lead the Federal Communications Commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, has a track record that suggests she is unlikely to help him overhaul a controversial law that gives social media platforms legal immunity for content moderation decisions.

Biden has expressed an interest in both repealing and reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects social media companies such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter from being sued for content posted by their users, toward the goal of empowering regulators to crack down on misinformation and disinformation.

The FCC has some jurisdiction over Section 230, but Rosenworcel has said she doesnt believe the agency should play a role in moderating or censoring content.

While social media can be frustrating, turning this agency into the president's speech police is not the answer, Rosenworcel said in July 2020 in relation to a Trump administration petition asking the commission to develop rules to stop social media platforms from censoring content under Section 230.

Earlier this year, Biden revoked Trumps order for the commission to review the law.

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION REVIEWS CONTROVERSIAL LAW THAT PROTECTS BIG TECH FROM LAWSUITS

Liberal scholars of internet and tech policy say that its highly unlikely that Rosenworcel will change her mind regarding Section 230 now that Biden is in power and she runs the FCC.

I would be shocked if she tried to change Section 230 now, said Eric Goldman, who heads the Santa Clara University High Tech Law Institute. Because it would be a complete flip, a 180, from the position she took earlier, and its a terrible idea for the FCC to weigh in on this issue.

Biden cannot revoke or amend Section 230 by himself, using an executive order or any other mechanism. Only Congress has the power to change the law.

Capitol Hill is divided, though, regarding how to solve issues related to content moderation, with Democrats focused on curbing the spread of misinformation and disinformation while Republicans are targeting what they say is rampant censorship of conservatives by the social media giants.

Despite bipartisan agreement to hold Big Tech companies more accountable for unfair and unclear behavior in regards to content moderation, the two parties do not agree on how to change Section 230 within Congress.

Conservatives say that the only way Rosenworcel would take action on Section 230 is if shes pushed into doing so by other Democrats.

Biden wants to address the issues of misinformation and disinformation online, and his administration could put pressure on her to at least evaluate how she and the FCC could tackle that issue through 230, said Joel Thayer, a lawyer and telecommunications policy expert who worked for former Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But that seems like a long shot. It would be a total 180 that could only happen if she comes under big pressure from Biden, he added.

See the original post:

FCC nominee's record is at odds with Biden censorship goals - Washington Examiner

Conservative pundit Dennis Prager feels muzzled by ongoing Big Tech restrictions on his media company PragerU, the radio talker told The Washington Times on Tuesday.

If I say the wrong thing whatever that might be on my Fireside Chat podcast for PragerU, I can be yanked off YouTube or Facebook. When big business and big government work together to muzzle free speech, thats fascism, Mr. Prager said.

The nationally syndicated talk show hosts comments came as his company PragerU continues to wage a long legal battle against Googles YouTube.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled unanimously against Mr. Pragers claim of illegal censorship of conservatives. But Mr. Prager continues to allege that YouTube prevents PragerU from advertising videos due to unexplained violations of community guidelines, restricting other videos as likewise inappropriate and adding a disclaimer that the content may be factually incorrect.

Never in the history of this country has free speech been in such jeopardy. Whats even more shocking is that the threat is not coming directly from the government but from woke corporations, Mr. Prager said.

One disputed video depicts Mr. Prager, who testified about it in July 2019 to a U.S. Senate committee hearing, discussing the Bibles commandment against killing. Mr. Prager said in his testimony that Google placed the video on a restricted list due to him using the word murder.

We go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in a way that doesnt take political leanings into account, said Ivy Choi, a YouTube spokesperson. And were proud that YouTube continues to be a place where many different voices are welcome, including PragerU, which has 2+ million subscribers.

Attempts to reach Facebook and Twitter, who have issued no comments on his allegations, were unsuccessful.

PragerU has claimed that other videos and audio podcasts targeted for censorship center around dissenting opinions on COVID-19 lockdown policies.

The Times reported Oct. 18 that Mr. Prager, a vaccine skeptic, had tested positive for the virus after deliberately seeking infection to acquire herd immunity.

Mr. Prager said Tuesday: A doctor cant offer his best medical advice to his patients without risking his medical license? When has that ever happened?

Marissa Streit, CEO of PragerU, said social media platforms routinely restrict the companys videos by preventing them from advertising and keeping the videos inaccessible to most of its followers for short periods.

These big tech companies invited us to invest in their platforms, but then they started changing the rules, making it impossible to benefit from reaching the very audience that we paid to build, Ms. Streit said.

She added that the California-based media company, which has 90 employees, is still seeking an explanation from Big Tech companies on why their videos get banned.

We dont understand which videos are inappropriate and why they flag them. They wont give us the guidelines and that allows them to take down things that they just dont like ideologically, Ms. Streit said.

She said PragerU signed a million-dollar annual lease last week on a 40,000 square foot building and has no plans to stop pushing out Mr. Pragers video content.

But PragerU isnt the only company complaining about Big Tech restrictions on political influencers.

The nonprofit Social Movement Technologies, an international NGO that advises the media campaigns of human rights protesters, called on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to stop suspending the accounts of human rights activists while leaving other accounts intact.

Left or right, Twitter got a lot of good press for being accessible to democracy movements during the Arab Spring. Today, however, Twitter has left human rights activists of all stripes out to dry, and needs to fix its human rights problem, Hannah Roditi, the groups executive director, told the Times.

Transparency in how Big Tech censors content cant come soon enough for Mr. Prager, whose company purports to make edutainment like PBS, but without what it calls left-wing indoctrination.

Time to stand up and fight back, Mr. Prager said. No free speech, no America. Its as simple as that.

Original post:

Conservative pundit Prager says he feels 'muzzled' by Big Tech censorship - Washington Times

Pornography. Extremism. Fake News. Few words have as visceral an effect on a person as these. Together, these three items embody almost everything that is wrong in American society. And how has the government responded to their increase? By inviting them in as guests of honor through internet servers around the country.

Since its inception, the internet has been a nearly universal hub of information and activity. Everything from debates, auctions and photo albums is shared across the web in plain view of the public. Unfortunately, the internet contains much more sinister files than these. Pornography, drug deals and explicit content are all only a few clicks away from anyone with access to a computer. In this age, parents are forced to protect the eyes of their children from graphic content and sexual innuendos from the moment they touch their first device. Sexual addictions and crime rates across the country are on the rise and the vulgarity of the internet bears the brunt of the blame.

For years there has been an ongoing argument regarding the subject of internet censorship. Many groups claim that any content that someone desires to put on the web should be allowed to be posted. Others staunchly believe that the internet has become too explicit and harmful to be allowed to continue unchecked.

I believe that there is a difference between the restriction of useful information that can be applied and evaluated freely by consumers and the restriction of material that has little to no positive application. To be clear, I dont believe that the internet needs to be dismantled. It is a wonderful tool with limitless potential for the improvement of mankind. But, I also believe that it is a tool that can easily be misused. Evil was not born on the day the internet was created, but it was given a new foster home. In the days of newspapers and encyclopedias, evil things were still captured and mass-produced but not on the scale that the internet allows them to be.

Much of the content on the internet including pornographic websites fall within that category of harmful material. These are things that have no potential to improve society and serve as a stumbling block to many who are exposed to them. We are becoming a culture that is more addicted, sexualized and uncaring than we ever have been before, and it is happening at a younger age than we have previously seen. Left unchecked, this exposure could lead to a dramatic shift in the moral values of American youth. When exposure to explicit content becomes normalized, other more socially unacceptable acts become more acceptable. Several scholars and studies have made the connection between rape acceptance and pornography exposure. Pornography is not simply images or videos; it is the breeding place of complacency and acceptance of heinous acts.

Another more controversial item needing censorship from the internet is websites and forums that foster extreme or criminal opinions. The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime published a document that records multiple examples of how the internet has been used to foster terrorism across the globe. One of the main ways these groups use the internet to reach people is through propaganda, including messages, videos or games that intended to sway people to a more extreme mindset.

This topic becomes startling when we realize that none of this is actually prohibited. The UNODC states that the dissemination of propaganda is generally not, in and of itself, a prohibited activity. How is this not illegal? Criminal groups are embedding dangerous messages into the internet, and there is nothing the law can do to stop them.

The final commonality on the internet that needs to be regulated is fake news. As internet users, we are practically drowned in a flood of news. I understand that storylines will differ based on the perspective from which they are told, but an issue arises when two stories become irreconcilable. We are correct to assume that a narrative contains multiple storylines, but those lines should not contradict each other.

Somehow, individuals and news outlets manage to transform a single-threaded story into a web of self-contradiction and fallacy. Often, only a select few of those accounts are reasonably factual, leaving the rest as pure fiction, written to incite an emotional response in undiscerning people. It has become increasingly difficult to find cultural common ground with people around us because of the sheer quantity of fallacies we are fed. Humanity requires a standard to be set for news on the internet if groups are to begin to fix bridges and restore broken relationships.

But my viewpoint is uncommon. As a whole, the general American consensus is that freedom of speech should not be infringed. They cry that the First Amendment protects our freedom and keeps the government from influencing our lives. The American Constitution makes it clear that information should be free for all, and that it cannot be restricted by the government.

There is certainly justification in their fears. Governments should not be allowed to abuse their power to subjugate their citizens by scrubbing the internet. Many people fear what may happen to America if internet censorship is allowed. They fear that their freedom of speech will be infringed upon, and they will not be able to express their doubts and concerns to the public. In the opinion of many, internet censorship is the first step down the road leading to the eventual loss of freedom for Americans. Without freedom, innovation and progress will come to a standstill, leading to the undoing of American society.

The discussion regarding internet censorship is just one example of a larger ongoing debate. The core of this issue lies the question of mans moral compass. If a man is born good, then there is no need to regulate content on the internet or anywhere else. But if man is inherently evil, regulation is imperative. Without guidance, humanity will slowly fall away from moral rightness, and we will begin to suffer the consequences of our arrogance.

The question also remains, who exists that is good enough to regulate us? Certainly not the government. They are human as well and have shown that they fall victim to the same errors as the public. The regulator would have to be a group with objective goals and moral uprightness. I am not sure if such a group exists. But if humanity has proven anything, it is that we are a people sorely in need of regulation if we are to remain on a path to improvement.

Read the rest here:

Averting our eyes: The controversy of internet censorship The Threefold Advocate - Three fold Online

Audio articles on Wilson County News made possible by C Street Gift Shop and Boutique, located in downtown Floresville

By the time you read this, Tuesdays election will be history. We will know whether or not Texans came out to vote for Proposition 3, which would ban the state from prohibiting or limiting church services and other religious worship, as happened during the pandemic.

We will know whether Virginias new governor is Democrat Terry McAuliffe or Republican Glenn Youngkin. This race has garnered national attention and may be a harbinger of things to come as we approach the 2022 elections.

The intensity of this race escalated following a dust-up in Loudoun County over whether parents can have a say in what their children are taught in public schools.

McAuliffe exacerbated the controversy when he was widely quoted saying that he doesnt think parents should be telling schools what they should teach. In another debate, he said parents should have no role in directing the education of their children.

Parents as voters, taxpayers, and as guardians of their children should have every right to be heard and to attend school board meetings without fear of being labeled domestic terrorists.

The Loudoun County controversy is what led to the current kerfuffle in Texas over books in public-school libraries. We conservatives are familiar with intimidation and censorship as we experience the effects of cancel culture. We are boycotted, deplatformed, and intimidated with toxic attempts to silence conservative speech. The woke crowd goes after conservative thought and speech wherever and however they can.

In recent years, books such as The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, and Charlottes Web have been censored. Even some of the popular Dr. Seuss books were pulled. In fact, the criticism was so severe, that Dr. Seuss Enterprises joined the woke crowd and committed to discontinue publishing certain titles because of possible racist or insensitive imagery.

And to Think I Saw it on Mulberry Street was pulled because it contained Asian and Arab stereotypes. A Google search pulls up some of the questionable illustrations along with a cautionary note: Due to the nature of this story, this article contains images that some might find offensive.

Now that conservatives are finding titles of books that some students, parents, and taxpayers find offensive, we are told books unite us; censorship divides us.

Banned Books Week was established in 1982 to unite librarians, booksellers, publishers, journalists, teachers, students, and readers of all types in an effort to support the freedom to seek and to express ideas.

When the tables are turned and it is the conservatives, specifically in Texas, who are offended, its a different story: Suddenly, censoring reading materials makes the world smaller. What happened to being insensitive and offensive?

Perhaps its time to put the independent back in the local school districts, for example La Vernia Independent School District. Nowhere does it say La Vernia Federal School District.

Now the National School Boards Association cautions that some of Americas public schools are under an immediate threat from parents. Its time to argue that differing views must be allowed.

Divergent views are good, but perhaps a public school library where we send our children to learn might not be an appropriate place for certain controversial topics.

Its not un-American to use a certain amount of discretion in stocking school libraries. Public libraries and information online can provide any and all topics. When pressure is applied to the extent that a publisher ceases to publish a book because it might offend someone, that is un-American.

Elections for local school boards, and, yes, even for constitutional amendments, should play a part in determining how this country goes forward as we approach the 2022 elections. The information is there; use it wisely.

This is my opinion. Whats yours?

More:

Censorship in this, the age of information overload - Wilson County News

Filipino teachers, researchers, school administrators, and other education professionals called out Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Chairperson Popoy De Vera for justifying the removal of so-called subversive books from libraries of various universities nationwide.

The Academics Unite for Democracy and Human Rights (ADHR) on Wednesday, Nov. 3, slammed De Vera for twisting the meaning of academic freedom to include book censorship and other forms of attacks on the free exchange of ideas that form the very essence of academic freedom.

When De Vera first broached the idea of constituting a panel of experts to redefine academic freedom back in January, we found it laughable because this is already enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, said ADHR lead convenor Dr. Ramon Guillermo.

Now it has become clear that the intention is to repress and limit the scope of academic freedom to whatever is acceptable to the state, added Guillermo who is also a former University of the Philippines (UP) Faculty Regent.

ADHR alleged that De Vera is diverting the attention to respecting the prerogative of schools when the issue is about book censorship and the real threat this poses to the freedoms of academic institutions, faculty, and students.

READ:

Guillermo stressed that academic freedom includes the right to challenge dominant ideologies without fear of repression thus, book censorship represses the freedom to pursue knowledge and engage in social critique sans reprisals and persecution.

CHED wishes to make book censorship, by itself a concrete threat on academic freedom, acceptable by reducing academic freedom to the matter of respecting administrative prerogative of affected universities Guillermo added.

Furthermore, Guillermo pointed out that CHEDs calls for respecting book censorship defies logic noting that it was the governments National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) and military that have been actively calling for the removals of these books from libraries in the first place, thereby intruding on the academic freedom of affected higher education institutions.

ADHR said that CHED in the Cordillera Administrative Region late in October 2021 issued regional memo nos. 113, series of 2021 calling on all universities and colleges to surrender subversive reading materials to authorities.

To oppose book censorship, the ADHR launched an online petition dubbed Defend Academic Freedom, Hands Off Our Libraries (https://forms.gle/HRm3NiwUsp5Zghb68) which has garnered over 400 signatures from members of the countrys academic community as of press time.

ADHR also launched the Aswang sa Aklatan website (https://handsoffourlibraries.crd.co) which seeks to provide the public updates on the #HandsOffOurLibraries campaign as well as free and easily accessible resource of endangered books and materials.

RELATED STORY:

SIGN UP TO DAILY NEWSLETTER

See the rest here:

Book censorship is an 'assault' on the very essence of academic freedom, CHED told - Manila Bulletin

By banning @TamilGuardian, @Instagram and @Facebook are contributing to the decades of repression and attacks on the Tamil press. I condemn this act of censorship and call for the account to be reinstated. pic.twitter.com/nq96s7WbBR

Shritharan Sivagnanam (@ImShritharan) October 29, 2021

Tamil politicians from the North-East joined British and Canadian parliamentarians in denouncing Instagrams censoring of Tamil Guardians page.

Tamil Guardians Instagram account, was brieflyreinstated on Friday after itwas disabled on Wednesday without any prior warning or explanation.

However, just over 12 hours later, it was disabled again.

Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP S Shritharan tweeted that the censorship contributes to the decades of repression and attacks on the Tamil press.

Tamil National Peoples Front (TNPF) leader Gajen Ponnambalam also expressed his dismay and called the move disgraceful and outrageous.

.@Facebooks @instagrams actions against @TamilGuardian is not only disgraceful and unacceptable but must be condemned outright. The world pandered to the #SriLankan state to such an extent that it allowed a war that culminated in #tamil #genocide. (1) pic.twitter.com/n10HDZfcq5

Gajen Ponnambalam MP (@GGPonnambalam) October 29, 2021

These type of actions by Instagram will only embolden the Sri Lankan state in its culture of impunity and make the victims to continue to be voiceless," he added.

Despite reaching out toFacebook and Instagram through various channels, theyhave not provided an explanation as to why the page has been disabled or why posts are repeatedly removed.

See more here:

Tamil politicians say Instagram's censorship of Tamil Guardian contributes to the 'decades of repression and attacks on the Tamil press' - Tamil...

SINGAPORE, Nov 2, 2021 (AFP): Singapore has banned a book on censorship over "offensive images" including controversial cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed, authorities had said on Monday (Nov 1).

The city-state is majority ethnic Chinese but has a sizeable Muslim minority, and has strict laws to curb hate speech and actions promoting ill-will between religious or racial groups.

The book, "Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship" is banned from distribution in Singapore, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) said on Monday.

It has been deemed "objectionable" because it contains reproductions of cartoons published by French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, which led to violence and protests overseas, the regulator added.

"The offensive Charlie Hebdo cartoons first appeared in 2006 and have been widely labelled as irresponsible, reckless and racist," it said in a statement.

The book also contained denigratory references to Hinduism and Christianity, the IMDA said.

Anyone convicted of importing, selling, distributing, making or reproducing an objectionable publication faces a fine of up to 5,000 Singaporean dollars (US$3,700), imprisonment of up to a year, or both.

"Red Lines" is by Cherian George, a Singaporean media professor now based in Hong Kong, and Sonny Liew, an award-winning Singaporean cartoonist.

Published in August by MIT Press, it features interviews with censored cartoonists around the world and explores censorship in graphic form.

The French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo first joined some other European titles in publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2006.

In 2015 a massacre at its office killed 12 people, after it reprinted some of the controversial images.

A French teacher was beheaded by an extremist last year after showing his class Charlie Hebdo's cartoons of the Prophet.

After French President Emmanuel Macron defended the right to publish cartoons, angry protests erupted in Asia and the Middle East. - AFP

Read the original post:

Book on censorship banned in Singapore over "offensive images" - The Star Online