A recent overview in Publishers Weekly about the state of free expression in the industry noted, Many longtime book people have said what makes the present unprecedented is a new impetus to censor and self-censor coming from the left. When the reporter asked a half dozen influential figures at the largest publishing houses to comment, only one would talk and only on condition of anonymity. This is the censorship that, as the phrase goes, dare not speak its name, the reporter wrote.

The caution is born of recent experience. No publisher wants another American Dirt imbroglio, in which a highly anticipated novel was accused of capitalizing on the migrant experience, no matter how well the book sells. No publisher wants the kind of staff walkout that took place in 2020 at Hachette Book Group when the journalist Ronan Farrow protested its plan to publish a memoir by his father, Woody Allen.

It is certainly true that not every book deserves to be published. But those decisions should be based on the quality of a book as judged by editors and publishers, not in response to a threatened, perceived or real political litmus test. The heart of publishing lies in taking risks, not avoiding them.

You can understand why the publishing world gets nervous. Consider what has happened to books that have gotten on the wrong side of illiberal scolds. On Goodreads, for example, vicious campaigns have circulated against authors for inadvertent offenses in novels that havent even been published yet. Sometimes the outcry doesnt take place until after a book is in stores. Last year, a bunny in a childrens picture book got soot on his face by sticking his head into an oven to clean it and the book was deemed racially insensitive by a single blogger. It was reprinted with the illustration redrawn. All this after the book received rave reviews and a New York Times/New York Public Library Best Illustrated Childrens Book Award.

In another instance, a white academic was denounced for cultural appropriation because trap feminism, the subject of her book Bad and Boujee, lay outside her own racial experience. The publisher subsequently withdrew the book. PEN America rightfully denounced the publishers decision, noting that it detracts from public discourse and feeds into a climate where authors, editors and publishers are disincentivized to take risks.

Books have always contained delicate and challenging material that rubs up against some readers sensitivities or deeply held beliefs. But which material upsets which people changes over time; many stories about interracial cooperation that were once hailed for their progressive values (To Kill a Mockingbird, The Help) are now criticized as white savior narratives. Yet these books can still be read, appreciated and debated not only despite but also because of the offending material. Even if only to better understand where we started and how far weve come.

Here is the original post:

Opinion | Theres More Than One Way to Ban a Book - The New York Times

Can the state censor conversation on a public street? Should the government have the power to prevent people from being influenced and penalise those guilty of influencing?

It all seems like a nefarious concept crawling out from between the pages of an Orwell novel. Yet these are the questions at the heart of the hearing held today before the UK Supreme Court concerning the troublesome Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill.

The clause in question is marketed as a public service. Proponents claim that it prevents the harassment of women outside abortion facilities. Yet this is untrue. The wording of the legislation flies past harassment which is already illegal and hits freedom of expression square in the face.

The clause in issue, clause 5(2)(a), criminalises not harassment, aggression or physical threats but attempts to influence, whether directly or indirectly. A failed attempt to include a defence of reasonable excuse, rejected by the Northern Ireland Assembly, leaves the clause to function as a sort of strict liability offence.

Censorship zones are not pro-choice. They are no-choice

The Supreme Court will decide whether the clause is consistent with freedom of speech, association and religion as secured under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Perhaps most worrying about the bill is that it is not an isolated occurrence. It is but one amongst a growing trend of laws that lack accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability basic tenets of the rule of law.

What counts as influencing is literally anyones guess. This use of terminology is so broad that it sinks the threshold for criminality to an all-time low. It hands arbitrary power to police officers, with the inevitable consequence being the unjust arrest and prosecution of those expressing minority viewpoints in this instance pro-life views. Views protected, no less, by domestic and international human rights law.

One of the laws moral offences, the greatest may be that it could limit offers of help. Women like Alina Dulgheriu know. She was abandoned, alone and without a job when she found herself in a crisis pregnancy. She thought she had no choice but abortion. But when she turned up at the abortion facility, a pro-life volunteer offered her a leaflet advertising help. The organisation gave Alina the financial, practical and emotional support she needed to bring her child into the world even providing housing until she was back on her feet. It was a warm offer of help that she would not have encountered anywhere else.

Censorship zones dont just prevent offers of help from being made, they limit womens rights to hear those offers and options. They are not pro-choice. They are no-choice.

In fact, where censorship zones have been rolled out in England, many would be surprised that the scope for criminalisation has gone beyond restricting speech to banning even silent prayer an activity taking place within the privacy of an individuals mind. It is quite literally a thought crime.

Such laws serve as a stark reminder that where the frontiers of the right to free speech are not jealousy and robustly guarded, it is only a matter of time before the state feels empowered to infringe on the right to freedom of thought.

Earlier this week, news broke that 76-year-old Rosa Lalor had successfully pushed back against an unjust fine she had received after being arrested for praying. The Liverpudlian grandmother had been taking a prayer walk, alone, nearby an abortion facility in February 2021. She prayed with headphones in, and a mask on, just to be safe.

Police dont exist to be agents of cancel culture

Police stopped her and asked what she was doing. Im walking and praying, she replied. Prayer should take place in a church, not in the street, reasoned the police officer. He accused Rosa of being there to protest, arrested her, detained her in a police car and fined her 200.

Thankfully, after over a year of legal proceedings, Merseyside Police have conceded that they got it wrong. Rosa was acting within her rights having a reasonable excuse to be outdoors praying. The police had jumped the gun and clamped down on her fundamental freedoms. This is the very same police force, notably, that had to apologise last year for wrongly advertising that being offensive is an offence on a public billboard. Go figure.

Pro-life views are not the most popular in our current cultural climate. That much is clear. But police dont exist to be agents of cancel culture. Nor is it their role to determine whether an opinion is acceptable or not, not least when it comes to matters of political and social debate. Cases such as those of Maya Forstater and Harry Miller have taught us better than to entertain viewpoint discrimination.

Police do, on the other hand, exist to respond to genuine threats to public order while protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of women like Alina and Rosa, who just want to be able to communicate on an issue that has a profound impact on women across the country. It doesnt serve women to remove offers of help. Its patronising to assume that they cannot hear relevant information and make informed decisions for themselves.

If we want to be pro-woman and pro-freedom, censorship zones are taking us in the wrong direction.

Originally posted here:

Dont buffer the truth about censorship zones | Jeremiah Igunnubole - The Critic

Saints Row is coming back in 2022, but censorship could mean the disappearance of some of the franchises most famous features.

When Grand Theft Auto reimagined itself as a gritty and more realistic simulation in GTA IV, rival urban sandbox Saints Row took the opportunity to become the wacky and wild alternative. Starting from the third game onwards, the series incorporated more adult humor and ridiculous scenarios into the mix. While the 2022 Saints Row reboot will keep most of the franchises whimsical touches intact, some elements could be on the chopping block for foreign releases.

Saints Row wasnt alone in featuring adult humor and situations. But Saints Rows unique take was focused more on shock factor. The Third quickly gained online notoriety after the reveal of a giant adult toy being used as a melee weapon. In fact, the weapon is so iconic that its return in the reboot has already been confirmed.

But the dildo bat wont necessarily be present in every release of the game. In 2022, more countries that ever have censorship laws that could affect the new Saints Row. In fact, the game may not even be released in some regions due to its potentially obscene content. Heres a brief history of how previous games have been censored and what it means for the reboot.

While adult humor and a certain purple weapon are confirmed for inclusion, Saints Row 2022 will most likely have censorship in some countries, and it wont have all of the same adult themes as did previous iterations of the series.

The game will still release in most countries. Adult content from Saints Row The Third was censored or replaced in Germany, Japan, and some other countries that oppose sexual humor in video games. The Third was even outright banned in the United Arab Emirates. The constant presence of drugs and alcohol may have contributed as well, in some instances.

For countries where Saints Row was released with censorship, the Japanese version used a different model for adult toy weapons. It also prevented the player from fully undressing. The German version took a more philosophical approach, removing money drops and the ability to be used as a human shield from civilians.

For gamers in countries that limit media, Saints Row should still release with notable changes. As for the main release, it will still have much of the adult humor with more modern sensibilities. The game will probably not feature many jokes about race or gender, and it looks as though some elements of sexuality have been reduced. Beating people to death with a giant dildo is still on the table, though.

See original here:

Will Saints Row 2022 have censorship? Here's what we know - Win.gg

Bayonetta is known for her unique fighting style, long hair, sassy comebacks, and sexy moves. Of course, not everyone is a fan of her sultry behavior during battle, causing developer PlatinumGames to introduce a new nudity censorship option to its upcoming game.

Bayonetta 3 is coming out on October 28 and PlatinumGames has reassured fans that the witch will be sexier than ever. But for people who feel more sensitive to sexually graphic content, there will be a revolutionary option called Naive Angel Mode so that more people can enjoy the game without feeling uncomfortable.

By turning it on, you can play right in the living room without having to worry about whats on screen we think, the game developers joked.

The short answer is no, Bayonetta 3 will not be censored. Bayonetta 3 in its original form will have just as much nudity and sexual expression as ever. But now, players can toggle Nave Angel Mode on or off, an option that will censor the game when activated.

While PlatinumGaming was clearly being a bit cheeky with its announcement tweet, fans of the witch were left feeling conflicted about the update. Some said that censorship is wrong, even if its just an option. Others pointed out that the game is rated M, so gamers should already be aware of the content before purchasing the game.

Bayonetta is known for her confidence and sexuality. Some gamers felt that it was counterproductive to have a censorship option, as though Bayonetta should be ashamed of her nudity instead of embracing it.

Some even responded with confusion as to why Bayonettas body was considered inappropriate for some gamers while the gore in the game was being left untouched.

While the majority of responses brought about by frustration over the decision, a few people applauded PlatinumGames for making it an option for people that want to play the game with younger children or their families on hand.

Regardless of how gamers feel about it, those who wish to play Bayonetta 3 without any censorship will still have the opportunity to do so.

Read the original here:

Bayonetta 3 has nudity censorship option, here's what it means - Win.gg

A comedians fortunes could change overnight with a spot on NBCs The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.

Even better? If Carson summoned the comic over to his iconic couch.

Late-night TV no longer transforms a comedians career in the same way. Now, its snagging a Netflix comedy special or streaming deal, with a few stars landing talk shows to call their own.

Andrew Schulz suggests that era may be waning, too, at least for stand-ups who wont play by the woke rules.

Schulz, the freewheeling comic known for hilarious YouTube videos and podcasts like Flagrant, is part of the new comedy revolution. Its not exactly by choice, but he suspects its the best path forward for stand-ups who loathe censorship.

Call it DIY Show Business.

RELATED: How Big Tech Is Crushing Conservative Comedy (UPDATED)

Schulz opened up to Megyn Kelly about his new comedy special, Infamous, and why he decided to share the special independently. He originally teamed with an unnamed streaming outlet but the platform demanded he remove select jokes.

He refused, deciding to buy back the special and produce it independently. So far, so good, according to TMZ, but it remains to be seen if hell get a return on his sizable investment.

Im not gonna edit my jokes anymore because I built my career without the streamers and I was able to build this career doing the jokes the exact way I wanted to I amassed this following and was able to tour around the world, he told Kelly.

I never felt like I needed the streamer the people validate me more than anything, he added.

His solo venture isnt the first attempt at avoiding comedy gatekeepers. Other stars like Nick Di Paolo, Jim Breuer, Louis C.K. and Steve Mudflap McGrew have tried that DIY approach.

The big test? Can comedians without that streamer cash and cachet?

If we prove you can make more money, or as much money doing it on your own than doing it with a streamer, then theres no point to go with a streamer and get notes, Schulz said. How do you make comedy the most pure?

Kelly agreed, noting how her career blossomed after NBC unceremoniously fired her on dubious charges. She went rogue, creating a powerful podcast and teaming with SiriusXM while retaining full control of the content.

I can work around the system where Im beholden to no one and my product will rise or fail entirely on its own merit, Kelly said of Schulzs approach, one that mirrors her own.

The future is ownership, not censorship, Schulz said. The companies that get that are starting to succeed. The creators who get that are succeeding.

RELATED: Tyler Fischer Scored By Blazing His Own Path

Earlier in the chat, Schulz broke down why the culture is suddenly so sensitive to edgy jokes. During the 1980s and 90s comedians like Howard Stern, Sam Kinison and Andrew Dice Clay challenged the status quo with gags that many found offensive.

They faced little punishment for telling them, though. Thats no longer the case, and Schulz thinks he knows why.

[Jokes] arent true, but the feelings are true. We have these feelings that are messed up thats whats relatable about jokes, he said. Even the old Borscht Belt comics, the Take my wife, please [material]. You dont really want someone to take your wife, but sometimes you have this feeling where, yeah, if somebody took herand thats funny to you.

How can this paradox exist within me? Thats humor.

Schulz credits Jon Stewart of The Daily Show fame for the shift.

He set an expectation for comedy to be true. And a whole bunch of kids grew up watching it, going, oh, thats what comedy is supposed to be, its supposed to be true, to speak truth to power.'

He also explained why the new wave of progressive humor often is reduced to clapter, not laughs.

Victimless comedy doesnt even exist, thats why its so hard to be funny and woke because nobodys a victim, then what are we gonna make fun of? he said.

More here:

Andrew Schulz: 'The Future is Ownership, Not Censorship' - Hollywood in Toto

The iconic anti-Duplessis Editor-in-Chief of Le Jour Jean-Charles Harvey wrote that, Liberty cannot accommodate a policy that tells people what to think and how to speak. Events of the past week brought those words back in critical relief.

Patrick Provost, a tenured, published and respected Professor of Immunology at Universit Laval who specializes in micro RNA, was suspended without pay for eight weeks for comments he made at a conference last December where he questioned the need for vaccinating children. The FDA, CDC and Health Canada themselves had at various times questioned the same issue. Provost said, I was just doing what I was hired to do. I searched the literature and gave a speech. Being censored for doing what Ive been trained to do and hired to do is hard to believe. But now we are all apparently supposed to be in lockstep groupthink. Thankfully his union has asked for his reinstatement with back pay.

In another incident, the federal CRTC has ordered Radio Canada to apologize because a complaint was received about a radio talk show in 2020 where two participants spoke the full name of Pierre Vallires book White N..... of America. The CRTC said the N word was not used in a, discriminatory manner but Radio Canada did not do enough to mitigate the effect the word could have on its audience. Thankfully again, some 50 leading Quebec journalists signed an open letter defending free speech and attacking censorship. Quebecs professional journalists association called the CRTC decision, a dangerous precedent that imposes censorship upon media that is as exaggerated as it is unjustified.

There is a dangerous current running through society that for the sake of not offending anyones sensibilities, it is acceptable to engage in censorship.Public sanctioning of individuals daring to use certain words and express unpopular opinions.

This is wrong and dangerous. It kills free speech and buries the lessons of history. The only objective standard for limiting freedom of expression is overt incitement to violence. Every other standard is totally subjective and depending on who wields power, censorship can and has been used against the just and the innocent.

Do we really want to mitigate the effect of anti-Black racism and antisemitic diatribes? No! The only way to raise the consciousness of the public is to allow the full thrust of hate to hit people like a hammer. Attempts to water down the reporting of hate speech or unpopular opinion will have the opposite effect and suppress the revulsion that people should feel and the open debate that we must be allowed.

Our new era of woke censorship is a dangerous slippery slope. And it is paternalistic, having at its core a belief that people dont have the intelligence - or the right - to make up their own minds. It was not too long ago that the writings of D.H. Lawrence and Henry Miller were banned because they were too sexually arousing and portrayed lesbianism and homosexuality. They supposedly irritated sensibilities. It was not too long ago when the Rev.Martin Luther King, Jr. was charged and jailed for disrupting the public order for organizing the Birmingham Bus Boycott and for leading civil rights marches. It was not too long ago that Premier Maurice Duplessis passed the Padlock Law to attack Jehovahs Witnesses because he felt they would,corrupt Quebecs Catholic sensibilities. And it was not too long ago that three school commissions in Britain stopped teaching the Holocaust because they felt that since they had a large number of Muslim students it would possibly incite hate against them.

This kind of censorship - self-imposed or legislated - is anathema in a free society. When we censure Professors for opinions we negate the role of scholarship. When we seek to protect emotions from words, we create a nation of dullards. Life is not pleasant. Thats the reality. But open debate empowers and arms the minds of the public which is the surest protection against hate and disinformation. It must be done in a free battlefield of ideas. Not in state and societally imposed prisons of the mind. We have done enough damage making history only an elective in Sec.V. We have ignored the warning that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Never forget, those who today censor to be correct can tomorrow be replaced by those who censor to be corrupt.

See the original post:

Censorship will kill free speech and bury the lessons of history - The Suburban Newspaper

Recently, I read with interest the Fauquier Times article titled Some parents want Kettle Run library to remove 3 books they see as pornographic, violent, datedJuly 6.The local chapter of Moms for Liberty indicates it is targeting three books for removal.

Our school libraries have a policy in place for parents to ensure their own children cant check out books they find offensive, or otherwise inappropriate for their children.It seems like a good solution, but thats not enough for Moms for Liberty.

Amie Bowman, treasurer for the Fauquier County chapter of Moms for Liberty, proclaims the books are inappropriate for all students.

Im always a bit suspicious when an organization becomes the self-appointed censors of what is good for other people, or other peoples children.Somehow, they not only know what is right for themselves, but also for everyone else. They know more than the library staff, and they know more than the other parents.We should all be so skilled.

We all know that historically, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Communists banned books in their respective countries.As a soldier who stood against Communism in the 80s, and the son of a soldier who fought the Nazis in WWII, I didnt think I would need to stand up against censorship right here in Fauquier County.

Unfortunately, it appears that is where we are.

Max N. Hall, Marshall

Read the original post:

LETTER: Call it what it is: Censorship | Opinion | fauquier.com - Fauquier Times

Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote to leadership at Meta last week to press the company about reports it has been "censoring posts containing accurate information about abortion" since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to a letter shared exclusively with Axios.

Driving the news: Klobuchar and Warren wrote to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri July 7.

What they're saying: "It is more important than ever that social media platforms not censor truthful posts about abortion, particularly as people across the country turn to online communities to discuss and find information about reproductive rights, Sens. Klobuchar and Warren wrote.

Details: They ask Mosseri and Zuckerberg to answer a number of questions about their policies by July 15, including:

The other side: Meta spokesman Andy Stone had said last month some of the posts were taken down due to improper application of Meta's policy against buying, selling, trading, gifting or requesting pharmaceuticals.

Our thought bubble: This is just the beginning of the challenges online platforms will face from all sides in moderating content related to reproductive medicine as many states move to outlaw abortion.

Continue reading here:

Klobuchar, Warren press Meta on "censoring" of abortion posts - Axios

Now everyone is walking around wondering what they can say and censoring themselves and, as a result, lowering the standards of discussion and thought. Sounds like 2022, but the guy who said this was arrested 50 years ago this week on a charge of disorderly conduct, profanity. Weve come a long way but seem to be looping back.

Comedian George Carlin was performing at Summerfest in Milwaukee on July 21, 1972, doing his then-current routine noting the absurdity that there are more ways to describe dirty words than there are dirty words: dirty, bad, filthy, foul, vile, vulgar, off-color, blue, naughty, bawdy, saucy, raunchy, street language, gutter talk, locker-room talk, barracks language, indecent, in poor taste, suggestive, cursing, cussing, swearing, profanity, obscenity, and all I could think of were... He then listed what will forever be known as the seven words you cant say on television. I wont repeat them, but I bet many of you can rattle them off from memory.

Original post:

The Lesson of Carlins Dirty Words - The Wall Street Journal

The announcement is the latest escalation in an ongoing battle between NSW police and rappers largely based in western Sydney. In 2019, Mount Druitt-based artists OneFour became the focus of police ire. They release drill music a sub-genre of hip-hop that emerged from Chicago a decade ago, before spreading to London, and eventually landing in Australia.

Drill is known for its faster, heavier sound and raw lyrics that focus on the grittiness of street life violence, drug-dealing and run-ins with the police. Musically its different to what NWA and Tupac sounded like, but thematically its similar: artists born and raised in low-income suburbs, stigmatised by politicians and the media, who have a lived experience of the justice system and living in overly policed communities, turning to music and art to tell their stories.

Loading

NSW police have gone to extraordinary lengths to stop OneFour from performing. Theyve claimed the group are linked to outlaw bikie gangs, and that their lyrics which reference the so-called postcode wars between gangs associated with different suburbs are inciting violence.

Police have admitted to doing everything in [their] power to make the groups life miserable until they stop rapping about these topics. So far, that has included shutting down their shows before they can perform, raiding the homes of the artists, issuing their management with legal orders preventing them from associating with the members of the group, and trying to get their music pulled from streaming platforms.

Its an intervention without precedent in Australian music history. Whats even more remarkable is that its happening decades after similar debates in the US as though police in Australia have paid zero attention to the real causes of social harm and gang violence (inequality, a lack of opportunity, intergenerational poverty). According to the University of Sydneys Professor Murray Lee, who researches the connection between criminology and drill music, the genre is a symptom of cultural violence, not a cause.

Its a realisation that seems to be well understood in the US, where hip-hop has become the most popular form of music, and as a result of that popularity has helped mainstream discussion around police violence and racism. The fact that Australia appears to be three decades behind that conversation is an indictment on the power weve bestowed on police to control what kind of art can be created and expressed, and an indictment on the politicians whove let them get away with it.

The fact an FBI letter trying to intimidate NWA hangs in a museum is symbolic of where that kind of attempt to crush artistic and social expression leads. Maybe one day there will be a similar museum piece for Australian hip-hop artists. On the current trajectory though, I wouldnt count on it.

A cultural guide to going out and loving your city. Sign up to our Culture Fix newsletter here.

Read this article:

Decades after NWA fought off censorship, Australia has declared its own war on hip-hop - Sydney Morning Herald