Originally posted here:
Category Archives: Censorship
Twitter and Democrats lied about censorship – nypost.com
1984 author George Orwell warned that if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.That line has never been more relevant than in the aftermath of the second release of Twitter documents this week.
Many liberals had denied the social media giant was engaging in censorship by using the more pleasant term content modification. Now documents show Twitter executives burying disfavored views as visibility filtering and amplification limits.
Calling executives the head of legal, policy, and trust (Vijaya Gadde) and the global head of trust & safety (Yoel Roth) doesnt alter their status as some of the greatest censors in history.
Yet the license for this massive system clearly came from Twitters very top. Shadow banning and visibility filtering are consistent with the policies of ex-CEO Parag Agrawal, who pledged the company would focus less on thinking about free speech because speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.
So we now know that Twitter was not only banning dissenting voices on subjects ranging from COVID to climate change but was throttling or suppressing the traffic for disfavored writers.
Among those targeted was Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who wrote about how COVID lockdowns would harm children. He and others have been vindicated in flagging those worries, but Twitter secretlyplaced him on a Trends Blacklistto prevent his tweets from trending. Its a telling list because it reflects an acknowledgment that such tweets would trend with users if the company didnt suppress them.
Some of us have been raising concerns over Twitters massive censorship system for years, including what I called the emergence of a shadow state where corporations carry out censorship that the Constitution bars the government from doing.
Whats striking is leading Democrats have been open about precisely this type of corporate manipulation of political speech on social media. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called upon these companies to useenlightened algorithms to protect usersfrom their own bad reading choices.
Even President Biden called for such regulation of speech and discussions by wise editors. Without such censorship and manipulation, Biden asked, How do people know the truth?
It is still early to determine possible legal implications of these files, but there are some areas likely to be of immediate concern for counsel.
First,Elon Musk has suggestedthat some material may have been intentionally hidden or destroyed despite inquiries from Congress. Twitter was told to expect a congressional investigation into these areas.
Its not clear if this was material allegedly deleted as part of a regular process or a specific effort to destroy evidence of censorship or throttling. Such obstruction cases, however, can be difficult to bring without clear evidence. In 2005, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersens conviction for its destruction of documents under a standard record management system.
Second, destruction of documents could also prove relevant as part of an investigation into whether false statements were given under oath. Twitter executives denied such secret suppression efforts both in public and before Congress. Indeed, arecentfederal filingrevealed a 2021 email between Twitter executives and Carol Crawford, the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions digital media chief. Crawford wanted to censor unapproved opinions on social media; Twitter replied that with our CEO testifying before Congress this week [it] is tricky.
At that hearing, social media companies were asked about my priortestimony on private censorshipin circumventing the First Amendment. In response, CEO Jack Dorsey insisted that we dont have a censoring department. Dorsey alsoexpressly deniedunder oath that there was shadow banning based on political ideology.
Likewise, in 2018, Gadde and head of product Kayvon Beykpour expressly declared, We do not shadow ban. And we certainly dont shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.
It turns out you dont need a department if the entire company was acting as a massive censorship and suppression machine. Moreover, one department Dorsey did not mention was the Strategic Response Team Global Escalation Team, or SRT-GET, that operated above what journalist Bari Weiss described as official ticketing. That groupreportedlyincluded Gadde, Roth, Dorsey, Agrawal and others.
Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more.
Third, theres the growing question ofcensorship by surrogate. The new documents suggest the effort to control political speech went far beyond the banning or suspending of particular figures. Those highly publicized controversies likebanning LibsofTikToknow appear to be the tip of a censorship iceberg with secret efforts to blacklist, throttle and suppress disfavored viewpoints.
There were even search blacklists to make it difficult for people to link to disfavored views. Those blacklisted may revive lawsuits alleging Twitter was acting as an agent of the government in manipulating public debates and discussions.
Of course, legal ramifications will continue to be blunted by a media and administration that have overwhelmingly supported censorship. Liberal writers and officials have surrendered much in the last few years in supporting censorship and pushingblacklists of conservative figures, includingSupreme Court justices.
Musk has forced citizens to take sides on the free-speech fight. He has both the public and free speech on his side. Not only are users signing up in record numbers, but a recentpollshows a majority of Americans support Elon Musks ongoing efforts to change Twitter to a more free and transparent platform.
The public is simply not buying the liberal narrative. What media figures once called a canard and a conspiracy theory is being exposed to full public view.
All the Orwellian euphemisms and cheery titles will no longer disguise Twitters raw censorship. Once empowered by Agrawal to determine who can be heard, Twitter executives showed how censorship can become an insatiable appetite for speech controls. Sitting in the San Francisco headquarters, the Trust officials found an array of conservative views unworthy to be heard. The filtering of free speech quickly became a choice on what views are worthy of attention.
After all, if you cannot trust Trust professionals, whom can you trust?
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
See the original post:
Censorship History, Types & Examples – Study.com
Censored
'Bleep, bleep, bleep.' What's going on? Is this a lesson on profanity? No - that right there is the sound of censorship, or the suppression of information. Censorship can take many forms, from burning books to restricting what information is available on the Internet for the citizens of an entire country. At its most basic, it's all about the control of information. Whoever owns the access to information can decide what people learn and what they do not. This can be governments, private companies, mass media - any group that in some way controls access to information.
But why? Well, a government or a private company may not want people finding out too much about their policies because the result could be a rebellion. Knowledge can be power. But can censorship be a good thing, too? Well, let's take a look, and then you can decide for yourself. We promise not to censor you.
In general, there are four major types of censorship: withholding information, destroying information, altering or using selective information and self-censorship.
Withholding information is a common form of censorship used by many governments throughout history. For many years, the United States government heavily censored information that came out of war zones because the government did not want citizens to turn against the war. The less citizens saw of the war, the more likely they were to believe it was a good thing.
Another common one is the destruction of information, like the book burnings used by the Nazis to physically eliminate information that went against their ideas. The act of trying to erase someone from history has a long precedent as well; ancient Egyptian pharaohs were known to destroy any records of rival pharaohs, even to the point of making their names illegal.
What else? Oh yeah, altering information is a good one. The former dictator of the USSR, Josef Stalin, was known to have photographs altered to remove images of people whom he had executed.
More commonly, altering information comes back to education, rewriting textbooks so that history only shows what you want it to. For many years, American history textbooks ignored the atrocities committed against Native American communities, and Japanese textbooks used to gloss over their brutal invasion of China during WWII.
And of course, there is also self-censorship, when people monitor themselves and stop themselves from giving the entire truth. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps you are afraid that the government will kidnap you for speaking against them, or perhaps you are afraid that you will be fired because a viewpoint is not supported by your employer. Encouraging self-censorship is one of the most effective ways for those in power to keep information quiet.
Regardless of how it's achieved, all censorship is seen as justified by somebody. Political censorship, for example, is used by governments to control the image of the state. For example, during the Cold War, the USSR needed the areas under their control to believe that they were winning and that life in communist Eastern Europe was better than life in the United States or capitalist Western Europe. So, the USSR carefully monitored writers, newspaper editors, television programs and other sources of information to ensure that only positive aspects of communism were depicted, along with the negative aspects of capitalism.
Another frequent source of censorship across history is religious censorship, where information is forbidden because it goes against religious ideas. One famous example of this was the trial and imprisonment of Galileo in 1633 for proposing that the Earth revolved around the Sun, which at the time was seen as heresy.
So, people in power who are afraid of the truth obviously like censorship. That means it must be pretty bad, right? Actually, many forms of censorship are not only accepted but embraced. For example, information regarding national security and military defense are often censored from the public. Many argue that if information on the movements of the United States military, for example, were made public, that an enemy would have an advantage and could launch brutal attacks.
And then there's moral censorship. The vast majority of TV networks are not permitted to show excessive violence or nudity, but it's not because somebody's trying to hide the truth from you, it's because somebody is trying to prevent kids from being exposed to things that kids shouldn't see. And then there are issues like child pornography, which we've decided is so immoral that it's actually illegal. Is it wrong of the government or mass media to censor child pornography? These are areas where censorship becomes a fine line where we, as a community, allow information to be suppressed for a sense of greater good.
Now, for some, the Internet is seen as something that should be unlimited, unrestrained and completely uncensored. It is the ultimate portal for sharing information, and we've seen how powerful that can be. The Arab Spring, a series of revolutions in the Arabic-speaking world that toppled entire governments, was sparked by social media. But again, where do we draw the line? Are racism, violence and hate suddenly acceptable just because they are on the Internet? Sometimes we decide that we need more access to information, and sometimes we decide that we need just a few more 'bleeps.'
Censorship is defined as the 'bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep.' Actually, that's just censorship in action. The suppression of information is something that has occurred throughout most of human history in some form or another. Censorship has been used to protect military secrets, hide truth from people to keep them oppressed, prevent ideas that contradicted accepted religious or scientific ideas or even preserve common morals. Censorship can be imposed by someone in power, or it can be a personal choice. A lot of censorship is seen as oppressive, but most societies agree on some level of censorship against immoral and illegal ideas. So, where's the line? 'Bleep.'
When you are finished, you should be able to:
Read the original:
Lawsuit reveals vast censorship scheme by Big Tech and the federal …
A little-noticed federal lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden, is uncovering astonishing evidence of an entrenched censorship scheme cooked up between the federal government and Big Tech that would make Communist China proud.
So far, 67 officials or agencies including the FBI have been accused in the lawsuit of violating the First Amendment by pressuring Facebook, Twitter and Google to censor users for alleged misinformation or disinformation.
Victims of the Biden-Big Tech censorship enterprise include The Post, whose Hunter Biden laptop expos was suppressed by Facebook and then Twitter in October 2020 after the FBI went to Facebook, warning it with great specificity to watch out for a dump of Russian disinformation, pertaining to Joe Biden, with an uncanny resemblance to our stories.
We allege that top-ranking Biden administration officials colluded with those social media companies to suppress speech about the Hunter Biden laptop story, the origins of COVID-19, the efficacy of masks, and election integrity, is how the lawsuit was summarized by intrepid Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who is leading the action.
The censorship related to alleged misinformation about pandemic lockdowns, vaccines and COVID-19, and included material from the esteemed infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists associated with the Great Barrington Declaration, which proved over time to be correct and eventually much of which was adopted as official policy by the CDC.
Defendants include FBI special agents Elvis Chan and Laura Dehmlow, who gave Facebook that detailed disinformation briefing right before The Post was censored; White House press secretaries, current and former, Karine Jean-Pierre and Jen Psaki; Dr. Anthony Fauci, the presidents chief medical adviser, and former White House senior COVID-19 adviser Andrew Slavitt; counsel to President Biden Dana Remus; the DHS over the disbanded Disinformation Governance Board; the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; the FDA; the State Department; and the US Election Assistance Commission.
Last month a federal judge ordered a reluctant Fauci and Jean-Pierre to hand over their records, so the case is progressing nicely.
This civil action by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, in partnership with such red-pilled lawyers as Jenin Younes at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, overlaps with a separate lawsuit by former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, whose legal victories so far have forced Twitter to reinstate his account after he was banned (although the cat-and-mouse game continues as he is currently suspended again).
Berensons legal discovery unearthed internal Twitter documents and Slack conversations showing Biden administration officials instructed the social media company to de-platform him because he was dissenting from the official line on school lockdowns and the efficacy of vaccines.
He was viciously attacked for tweeting that schools should be opened: people called me a ghoul a lot. [But] Twitter and Facebook prevented a real debate and discussion about the value of school closures Is there anyone who thought we did the right thing in fall of 2020 and 2021 by allowing teacher unions and Democrats to keep schools closed?
His evidence-backed view that school lockdowns were being driven by teacher unions, not data, and would do long-term harm to children, has been proven correct. Similarly, his view was correct that vaccines were not stopping the transmission of COVID and thus mandates were pointless. Yet he was silenced, and no debate was allowed.
Whether Im right or wrong you have to have an open discussion. The First Amendment protects even lies. Thats how it should be on these platforms. The efforts to regulate speech and call something disinformation is demonizing folks and saying theyre un-American [for dissenting], he said. What I have is evidence that I was specifically targeted in private communications because I was being an ahole on Twitter.
In a White House meeting in April 2021, Twitter representatives were asked one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasnt been kicked off from the platform, a Twitter employee wrote.
Slavitt, then with Bidens COVID response team, complained specifically about Berenson, even though Twitter said he had broken no rules.
They really wanted to know about Alex Berenson, the Twitter employee wrote on Slack.
Andy Slavitt suggested they had seen data [visualization] that had showed he was the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public, the employee wrote. Ive taken a pretty close look at his account, and I dont think any of its violative.But over the next four months, as opposition to vaccine mandates grew, the Biden administration ratcheted up the pressure.
Berenson identifies as the final blow a public statement by Biden on July 16, 2021, that social media companies were killing people by encouraging vaccine hesitancy.
A few hours after Bidens comment, Twitter suspended my account for the first time. On August 28, 2021 Twitter banned me for a tweet that it has now acknowledged should not have led to my suspension, he said. My argument is that the White House turned these companies into extensions of the state. By putting explicit pressure on Twitter, they made it an extension of the state, whether willingly or not.
The Biden administration violated my First Amendment rights.
Last month, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Twitter and other social media platforms dont have an unlimited right to discriminate against speech they dont like.
The Platforms are not newspapers. Their censorship is not speech, the court said. The First Amendment protects speech: it generally prevents the government from interfering with peoples speech.
Berenson has another lawsuit afoot, against the Biden administration, vaccine manufacturer Pfizer, and Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb, the former head of the FDA who was instrumental in getting him banned, as documents from his legal discovery show.
This month, Berenson published on his substack an email that Gottlieb wrote to Twitter in August 2021, complaining about his various tweets criticizing Fauci, and claiming, This is why Tony needs a security detail.
But nothing Berenson said about Fauci would create any need for extra security. He just called Fauci arrogant, a skilled courtier and mocked his claim that attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.
Berenson was hardly alone in criticizing Fauci. At least half the country felt the same way. In any case, he was entitled to voice his opinion, so hes suing Gottlieb.
Gottlieb has not denied Berensons claims in his frequent TV appearances. Just this Sunday he was interviewed on the CBS flagship program Face the Nation, to break down the false claims being spread online about COVID vaccine mandates for children.
But CBS never disclosed that Gottlieb is a member of Pfizers board, earning close to $400,000 for his trouble. That is more relevant than his past FDA employment. Of course, Pfizer is a big advertiser, so maybe CBS didnt want to draw attention to the fact that its favorite vaccine expert is compromised.
These lawsuits are the only obstacle between Americans and a frighteningly pervasive new federal censorship scheme on behalf of shadowy interests, using disinformation as a catchall excuse.
Continue reading here:
Lawsuit reveals vast censorship scheme by Big Tech and the federal ...
Censorship – History of censorship | Britannica
It should be instructive to consider how the problem of censorship has been dealt with in the ancient world, in premodern times, and in the modern world. Care must be taken here not to assume that the modern democratic regime, of a self-governing people, is the only legitimate regime. Rather, it is prudent to assume that most of those who have, in other times and places, thought about and acted upon such matters have been at least as humane and as sensible in their circumstances as modern democrats are apt to be in theirs.
It was taken for granted in the Greek communities of antiquity, as well as in Rome, that citizens would be formed in accordance with the character and needs of the regime. This did not preclude the emergence of strong-minded men and women, as may be seen in the stories of Homer, of Plutarch, of Tacitus, and of the Greek playwrights. But it was evident, for example, that a citizen of Sparta was much more apt to be tough and unreflective (and certainly uncommunicative) than a citizen of Corinth (with its notorious openness to pleasure and luxury).
The scope of a city-states concern was exhibited in the provisions it made for the establishment and promotion of religious worship. That the gods of the city were to be respected by every citizen was usually taken for granted. Presiding over religious observances was generally regarded as a privilege of citizenship: thus, in some cities it was an office in which the elderly in good standing could be expected to serve. A refusal to conform, at least outwardly, to the recognized worship of the community subjected one to hardships. And there could be difficulties, backed up by legal sanctions, for those who spoke improperly about such matters. The force of religious opinions could be seen not only in prosecutions for refusals to acknowledge the gods of the city but perhaps even more in the frequent unwillingness of a city (no matter what its obvious political or military interests) to conduct public business at a time when the religious calendar, auspices, or other such signs forbade civic activities. Indicative of respect for the proprieties was the secrecy with which the religious mysteries, such as those into which many Greek and Roman men were initiated, were evidently practicedso much so that there does not seem to be any record from antiquity of precisely what constituted the various mysteries. Respect for the proprieties may be seen as well in the outrage provoked in Sparta by a poem by Archilochus (7th century bce) in which he celebrated his lifesaving cowardice.
Athens, it can be said, was much more liberal than the typical Greek city. This is not to suggest that the rulers of the other cities did not, among themselves, freely discuss the public business. But in Athens the rulers included much more of the population than in most cities of antiquityand freedom of speech (for political purposes) spilled over there into the private lives of citizens. This may be seen, perhaps best of all, in the famous funeral address given by Pericles in 431 bce. Athenians, he pointed out, did not consider public discussion merely something to be put up with; rather, they believed that the best interests of the city could not be served without a full discussion of the issues before the assembly. There may be seen in the plays of an Aristophanes the kind of uninhibited discussions of politics that the Athenians were evidently accustomed to, discussions that could (in the license accorded to comedy) be couched in licentious terms not permitted in everyday discourse.
The limits of Athenian openness may be seen, of course, in the trial, conviction, and execution of Socrates in 399 bce on charges that he corrupted the youth and that he did not acknowledge the gods that the city did but acknowledged other new divinities of his own. One may see as well, in the Republic of Plato, an account of a system of censorship, particularly of the arts, that is comprehensive. Not only are various opinions (particularly misconceptions about the gods and about the supposed terrors of death) to be discouraged, but various salutary opinions are to be encouraged and protected without having to be demonstrated to be true. Much of what is said in the Republic and elsewhere reflects the belief that the vital opinions of the community could be shaped by law and that men could be penalized for saying things that offended public sensibilities, undermined common morality, or subverted the institutions of the community.
The circumstances justifying the system of comprehensive thought control described in Platos Republic are obviously rarely to be found. Thus, Socrates himself is recorded in the same dialogue (and in Platos Apology) as recognizing that cities with bad regimes do not permit their misconduct to be questioned and corrected. Such regimes should be compared with those in the age of the good Roman emperors, the period from Nerva (c. 3098 ce) to Marcus Aurelius (121180)the golden times, said Tacitus, when everyone could hold and defend whatever opinions he wished.
Much of what can be said about ancient Greece and Rome could be applied, with appropriate adaptations, to ancient Israel. The stories of the difficulties encountered by Jesus, and the offenses he came to be accused of, indicate the kinds of restrictions to which the Jews were subjected with respect to religious observances and with respect to what could and could not be said about divine matters. (The inhibitions so established were later reflected in the manner in which Moses Maimonides [11351204] proceeded in his publications, often relying upon hints rather than upon explicit discussion of sensitive topics.) The prevailing watchfulness, lest someone say or do what he should not, can be said to be anticipated by the commandment You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain (Exodus 20:7). It may be seen as well in the ancient opinion that there is a name for God that must not be uttered.
It should be evident that this way of lifedirecting both opinions and actions and extending down to minute daily routinescould not help but shape a people for centuries, if not for millennia, to come. But it should also be evident that those in the position to know, and with a duty to act, were expected to speak out and were, in effect, licensed to do so, however cautiously they were obliged to proceed on occasion. Thus, the prophet Nathan dared to challenge King David himself for what he had done to secure Bathsheba as his wife (II Samuel 12:124). On an earlier, perhaps even more striking, occasion, the patriarch Abraham dared to question God about the terms on which Sodom and Gomorrah might be saved from destruction (Genesis 18:1633). God made concessions to Abraham, and David crumbled before Nathans authority. But such presumptuousness on the part of mere mortals is possible, and likely to bear fruit, only in communities that have been trained to share and to respect certain moral principles grounded in thoughtfulness.
The thoughtfulness to which the Old Testament aspires is suggested by the following counsel by Moses to the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 4:56):
Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land which you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them; for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
This approach can be considered to provide the foundation for the assurance that has been so critical to modern arguments against censorship (John 8:32): And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. Further biblical authority against censorship may be found in such free speech dramas as that described in Acts 4:1321.
It should be remembered that to say everything one thought or believed was regarded by pre-Christian writers as potentially irresponsible or licentious: social consequences dictated a need for restraint. Christian writers, however, called for just such saying of everything as the indispensable witness of faith: transitory social considerations were not to impede, to the extent that they formerly had, the exercise of such a liberty, indeed of such a duty, so intimately related to the eternal welfare of the soul. Thus, we see an encouragement of the privateof an individuality that turned eventually against organized religion itself and legitimated a radical self-indulgence.
Perhaps no people has ever been so thoroughly trained, on such a large scale and for so long, as the Chinese. Critical to that training was a system of education that culminated in a rigorous selection, by examination, of candidates for administrative posts. Particularly influential was the thought of Confucius (551479 bce), with its considerable emphasis upon deference to authority and to family elders and upon respect for ritual observances and propriety. Cautiousness in speech was encouraged; licentious expressions were discouraged; and long-established teachings were relied upon for shaping character. All in all, it was contrary to Chinese good taste to speak openly of the faults of ones government or of ones rulers. And so it could be counseled by Confucius, He who is not in any particular office has nothing to do with plans for the administration of its duties (Analects [Lunyu], 7:14). It has been suggested that such sentiments have operated to prevent the spread in China of opinions supportive of political liberty.
Still, it could be recognized by Confucius that oppressive government is fiercer than a tiger. He could counsel that if a rulers words are not good, and if people are discouraged from opposing them, the ruin of the country can be expected (Analects, 13:5). Blatant oppressiveness, and an attempt to stamp out the influence of Confucius and of other sages, could be seen in the wholesale destruction of books in China in 231 bce. But the Confucian mode was revived thereafter, to become the dominant influence for almost two millennia. Its pervasiveness may well be judged oppressive by contemporary Western standards, since so much depended, it seems, on mastering the orthodox texts and discipline.
Whether or not the typical Chinese government was indeed oppressive, effective control of information was lodged in the authorities, since access to the evidently vital public archives of earlier administrations was limited to a relative few. In addition, decisive control of what was thought, and how, depended in large part on a determination of what the authoritative texts weresomething that has been critical in the West, as well, in the establishment of useful canons, both sacred and secular. Thus, Richard McKeon has suggested, Censorship may be the enforcement of judgments based on power, passion, corruption, or prejudicepolitical, popular, elite, or sectarian. It may also be based on scholarship and the use of critical methods in the interest of advancing a taste for literature, art, learning, and science.
Read more:
Censorship – Definition, Examples, Cases – Legal Dictionary
The term censorship refers to the suppression, banning, or deletion of speech, writing, or images that are considered to be indecent, obscene, or otherwise objectionable. Censorship becomes a civil rights issue when a government or other entity with authority, suppresses ideas, or the expression of ideas, information, and self. In the U.S., censorship has been debated for decades, as some seek to protect the public from offensive materials, and others seek to protect the publics rights to free speech and expression. To explore this concept, consider the following censorship definition.
Noun
Origin
380 B.C. Greek Philosopher Plato
The word censorship is from the Latin censere, which is to give as ones opinion, to assess. In Roman times, censors were public officials who took census counts, as well as evaluating public principles and moralities. Societies throughout history have taken on the belief that the government is responsible for shaping the characters of individuals, many engaging in censorship to that end.
In his text The Republic, ancient Greek philosopher Plato makes a systematic case for the need for censorship in the arts. Information in the ancient Chinese society was tightly controlled, a practice that persists in some form today. Finally, many churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, have historically banned literature felt to be contrary to the teachings of the church.
Many of Americas laws have their origins in English law. In the 1700s, both countries made it their business to censor speech and writings concerning sedition, which are actions promoting the overthrowing of the government, and blasphemy, which is sacrilege or irreverence toward God. The idea that obscenity should be censored didnt gain serious favor until the mid-1800s. The courts in both countries, throughout history, have worked to suppress speech, writings, and images on these issues.
As time went on, contention arose over just what should be considered obscene. Early English law defined obscenity as anything that tended to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and anything that might suggest to the minds of the young of either sex, and even to persons of more advanced years, thoughts of a most impure and libidinous character. This essentially meant anything that might lead one to have impure thoughts. This definition carried over into early American law as well.
However, that definition was vague enough to raise more questions than it answered in many circumstances. These included:
Censorship in America took a turn in 1957, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that adults cannot be reduced to reading only what is fit for children, ruling that it must be considered whether the work was originally meant for children or adults. Still, the Court acknowledged that works that are utterly without redeeming social importance can be censored or banned. This left another vague standard for the courts to deal with.
Censorship in America is most commonly a question in the entertainment industry, which is widely influential on the young and old alike. Public entertainment in the form of movies, television, music, and electronic gaming are considered to have a substantial effect on public interest. Because of this, it is subject to certain governmental regulations.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits suppression of an individuals right to free speech, stating Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press This is a principle held dear by those protesting censorship in any form. In the U.S., censorship of obscene materials in entertainment is allowed, in order to protect children from pornography and other offensive things. The problem with government sanctioned censorship is the risk of violating the civil rights of either those producing the materials, or those wishing to view them.
The issue of censorship in the film industry has, at times, been quite contentious. In an effort to avoid the censorship issue, while striving to protect children and conform to federal laws, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) instituted a self-regulating, voluntary rating system in 1968. In the 1990s, the MPAA updated its rating system, making it easier for parents to determine what is appropriate for their children, based on the childrens ages.
The MPAA rating system has a number of ratings:
Rather than censoring movies or their content by exclusion of content, MCAA ratings are assigned by a board of people who view the movies, who consider such factors as violence, sex, drug use, and language when assigning ratings. The board strives to assign a rating that a majority of parents in the U.S. would give, considering their needs to protect their children.
An X rating was part of the MCAAs original rating system, and signified that no one under the age of 16 would be allowed, regardless of parental accompaniment. The X rating was replaced by the NC-17 rating in 1990.
Internet censorship refers to the suppression of information that can be published to, or viewed on, the internet. While many people enjoy unfettered access to the broad spectrum of information racing across the information highway, others are denied access, or allowed access only to government approved information. Rationales for internet censorship range from a desire to protect children from content that is offensive or inappropriate, to a governments objective to control its peoples access to world news, opinions, and other information.
In the United States, the First Amendment affords the people some protection of their right to freely access the internet, and of the things they post to the web. Because of this, there is very little government-mandated filtering of information that originates in the U.S. The issue of censorship of certain content, especially content that may further terrorism, is constantly debated at the federal government level.
As an example of censorship, the following countries are known for censoring their peoples internet content:
In the mid-1960s, Sam Ginsberg, who owned Sams Stationery and Luncheonette on Long Island, was charged with selling girlie magazines to a 16-year old boy, which was in violation of New York state law. Ginsberg was tried in the Nassau County District Court, without a jury, and found guilty. The judge found that the magazines contained pictures which, by failing to cover the female buttocks and breasts with an opaque covering, were harmful to minors. He stated that the photos appealed to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest of minors, and that the images were patently offensive to standards held by the adult community regarding what was suitable for minors.
Ginsberg was denied the right to appeal his convictions to the New York Court of Appeals, at which time he took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, on the basis that the state of New York had no authority to define two separate classes of people (minors and adults), with respect to what is harmful. In addition, Ginsberg argued that it was easy to mistake a young persons age, and the law makes no requirement for how much effort a shop owner must put into determining age before selling magazines intended for adult viewing. The Court did not agree, holding that Ginsberg might be acquitted on the grounds of an honest mistake, only if he had made a reasonable bonafide attempt to ascertain the true age of such a minor. The conviction was upheld.
Link:
‘Censorship has been imposed’: Congress reacts after BJP blocks BBC film on PM Modi – India Today
Poll: Majority of Americans Say Big Tech Censorship of Hunter Laptop …
Over half of Americans believe media censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story constitutes election interference, a new survey finds.
The survey from the Media Research Center found 49 percent of respondents said it was inappropriate for social media sites to suppress an October 2020 New York Post report that showed Hunter promised Ukrainian business partners access to his father. Twitter suspended the Posts account following publication and blocked users from sharing the link. Fifty-two percent of respondents said the blackout constituted election interference.
Big tech has come under fire over the past year for censoring posts on hot-button issues. Facebook has regularly removed or suppressed content that suggests COVID-19 escaped from a Chinese lab. The platform also removed posts from a Gold Star mother critical of Biden's handling of the death of her son. Twitter this month suspended the account of Rep. Jim Banks (R., Ind.) after he referred to a transgender Biden official as a man.
The Media Research Center survey found that the ban on the Hunter Biden story also shaped voters' perceptions of Joe Biden. Almost 30 percent of respondents said they would have been less likely to vote for Biden if they had been aware of evidence Biden lied about "knowledge of his son Hunter's overseas business dealings."
When the story first broke, media outlets labeled it Russian disinformation, even though there was no evidence that Russian agents were behind the story or that the emails had been falsified. The survey found that line has stuck with many voters, with 30 percent still saying the story was Russian disinformation.
Dan Gainor, a vice president at the Media Research Center, said the survey showed "people are finally catching on to how much we're getting manipulated by big tech." He framed the survey results as a reflection of widespread concerns about self-rule, asking the Washington Free Beacon, "How can democratically elected countries survive if big tech decides it wants to pick who wins the election?"
Read more:
Poll: Majority of Americans Say Big Tech Censorship of Hunter Laptop ...
Doctors slam COVID government censorship exposed in ‘Twitter Files’: ‘On the road to totalitarianism’ – Fox News
- Doctors slam COVID government censorship exposed in 'Twitter Files': 'On the road to totalitarianism' Fox News
- Twitter Files 9.0 reveals a web of social media surveillance, censorship by not just FBI, other agencies too WION
- 'Twitter files' data reveals Biden admin pushed to censor Covid info, suspend some accounts India Today
Read the rest here: