Oklahoma Sued By ACLU Over Concerns Of Censorship On Critical Race Theory Topics – news9.com KWTV

A house bill that passed this spring is now coming under fire by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) over concerns it censors some topics in public schools.

When House Bill 1775 went into emergency effect this summer, it was unclear what impact the legislation would have on Oklahoma classrooms.

The bill was passed along party lines by Republican lawmakers who sought to limit conversations about race or gender at public schools.

Now the ACLU cites specific examples in its lawsuit against the state saying the broad language in the law chills free speech and violates the states education standards.

The harm is coming from how broadly the bill is written, how confusing the language is, and how steep some of the consequences are for violating that very broad language, said Megan Lambert, ACLU of Oklahoma Legal Director.

Lambert said educators are removing content on race and gender out of an abundance of caution, because community members can have their credentials pulled for violating the law, through a complaint process thats open to the public.

Edmond Public Schools is named in the suit for cancelling diversity trainings and changing its booklist to follow guidance from the bill.

The district removed books by women and Black authors, like To Kill A Mockingbird, A Raisin In The Sun, Their Eyes Are Watching God, I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, and Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglas.

Anthony Crawford, an English teacher at Millwood Public Schools,is one of the plaintiffs. He said the law is unclear to teachers and contradicts the Oklahoma Education Standards.

Everything they are telling us we cannot teach is in the Oklahoma Standards, he said.

Crawford said he is concerned about the harsh penalties to teachers.

I was scared. Im not going to lie to you. I was petrified, I got a daughter on the way, so I was really scared, he said.

But, without being able to teach about themes like systemic racism or diversity, he said students will be unprepared as adults.

Without that piece of information, without that history, then they will go into the real world blindsided, Crawford said.

At the Capitol, some are standing by the law.

Secretary of Education Ryan Walters said in a statement the bill ensures students are taught an honest depiction of the past and knows teachers can teach that without prejudging those who are responsible for our future.

There were several other states that passed similar bills during spring of 2021 seeking to ban a concept called critical race theory, even though the concept isn't taught in K-12 schools or well-defined in K-12 settings.

The ACLU said Oklahoma's restrictions are the most severe.

Read the complaint in full below.

Read this article:

Oklahoma Sued By ACLU Over Concerns Of Censorship On Critical Race Theory Topics - news9.com KWTV

Big Tech Censorship: Is Free Speech Dead, or Will Heartland Prevail? – The Heartland Institute

The Declaration of Independence explicitly states that governments are instituted among men to secure our unalienable rights from those who would seek to suppress them. Free speech is clearly one of our unalienable rights. In todays world, social media is the primary means by which people share political speech and opinions with one another. Yet, a few giant multinational corporations have captured the social media marketjust three social media giants control 97 percent of U.S. social media activityand have utilized their oligarchical power to suppress our free-speech rights.

Big Tech has aggressively targeted and stifled anybody and any political viewpoint that challenges Big Government and leftist agendas. Facebook proudly boasts that it censors and removes content that questions ever-shifting World Health Organization COVID narratives. Big Tech censors and removes material that challenges governmental directives on face masks, vaccines, economic shutdowns, and social distancing. YouTube censors and removes videos in which climate scientists present objective data casting doubt on United Nations climate narratives. Worse, Big tech has blocked, suspended, and permanently banned accounts of American citizens and our elected representatives merely for posting views promoting personal freedom and opposing to leftist ideology.

Adding fuel to the fire, President Joe Bidens press secretary, Jen Psaki, admitted the Biden administration works closely and actively with Facebook and other Big tech entities to identify, censor, and remove social media posts the president and his team do not like.

Against this backdrop, you might think that conservative and libertarian public policy organizations would stand up for our unalienable free speech rights. Yet, you would be wrong.

Big Tech gives prodigious amounts of money to conservative and libertarian public policy organizations, and most of those organizations have remained silent against the web giants assault on our liberties or have actively gone on the attack on behalf of Big Tech. How deeply have some of these organizations been funded and compromised? Many have personnel and even entire departments dedicated to supporting Big Tech. Astonishingly, some of these organizations have explicitly arguedand I quoteBig Tech is not engaging in Coronavirus censorship, even though Facebook openly admitted to removing more than 18 million posts that countered government COVID-19 narratives.

The Heartland Institute remains undaunted and is fighting like wildcats to ensure Big Government and Big Tech do not eradicate our free-speech rights. Heartlands government relations staff personally discussed tech censorship with legislators in all 50 states this year, giving them the ammunition to go on the offensive against Big Tech censorship. This included in-person legislative testimony in 19 states. In many of these legislative hearings, Heartland was the only public policy organization testifying against Big Tech censorship. Thanks in large part to our efforts, 33 states introduced legislation, and two statesFlorida and Texasenacted laws to protect online free speech. Several others are poised to enact similar laws in 2022.

Still, that is just the tip of the iceberg. Heartland hosted four tech censorship Zoom webinars for state legislators and the media. We published several editorials and numerous web articles on the topic. We wrote a Big Tech censorship resolution that legislators passed by majority vote at the American Legislative Exchange Council.

As I write this, Heartland is ready to host dozens of state legislators at an Emerging Issues Forum on tech censorship in October. The Forum will provide policymakers with all the ammunition they need to take the fight to Big Tech in 2022.

Free speech will not die at the hands of Big Tech or Big Governmentso long as The Heartland Institute remains in the fight!

Read this article:

Big Tech Censorship: Is Free Speech Dead, or Will Heartland Prevail? - The Heartland Institute

EXCLUSIVE: CBD Censorship Continues Amidst Ongoing Cannabis Legalization Trend – Benzinga – Benzinga

Which word does not belongin thisgroup? Sex, hate, alcohol, firearms, CBD or tobacco?

Well, opinions differ, right?

According tothe Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association(CTIA), a non-profit tradeorganization that monitors and reportscontent violations on sex, hate, alcohol, firearmsand tobacco, or SHAFT, the wordgrouping is finethat is, allfiveconcepts belong.

In July, the CTIA classified CBD under the SHAFT umbrella, which means that CBD can no longer be promoted via SMS messaging.It is now considered inthe same category as hate speech, alcohol and guns.

These newly-imposed SMS marketing restrictions add to the confusion in the hemp and cannabis industries. WhileCongress gave thegreen light to legalizehemp and hemp-derived products back in 2018, theFDA still needs to create clear guidelines or policies regarding hemp-derived CBD.

Whats ironic is that these hemp-related restrictions are being imposed during the ongoing cannabis legalization trend across the U.S.

The solution:Fight against beingcensored and stamped with a hateful classification.

Stripped of an important marketing tool, more than 20 CBD brands(including Prima, Foria, Recess, Miss Grass, Onda, Quim, Plant Peopleand many more)have joined together ina coalition. Theirfirst task was tolaunch a petitionadvocating for:

Benzinga wanted to learn more about the struggles CBD companies have had since CBD was put on the SHAFT listso we reached out toJessica Assaf, CEO & co-founder of Primaas well asJon Brandon, CEO & co-founder of Foria.

Prima is a Los Angeles, California-based CBD wellness brand that makes skincare and supplements with hemp CBD and therapeutic botanical ingredients. Foria is also a CBD company with a primary focus on sexual wellness, which according to claims, isthe first to launch CBD products specifically designed for that purpose.

SMS was avery important marketing tooland channel for us, as it enabled us to connect 1:1 with our customers. This misclassification also impacts our ability to get into certain retailers, as well as our ability to advertise, Assaf told Benzinga.

Previously SMS messaging was a key component of Forias marketing strategy, helping themreach customers they might not otherwise have found, Brandon added.

The classification of CBD as SHAFT content is not only inaccurate, but its unjust, they both agreed, noting thatCBD censorship by theCTIA isadding to misinformation around CBD and limiting importanteducation.

Even without the SHAFTregulations, CBD companies are alreadyfacingchallenges, especially when it comes to reaching and educating consumers, due toa lack of clear regulations by the FDA.

Restrictive and widely disparate policies have been implemented by independent organizations like CTIA on howFacebook(NASDAQ:FB),Amazon(NASDAQ:AMZN),

Google(NASDAQ:GOOG),Shopify(NYSE:SHOP),TikTok,Twilio(NYSE:TWLO) and many more,can market, communicateand sell their hemp-derived CBD products, Brandon explained.

These platform restrictions have left CBD brands with few options for marketing and educating people. The confusion around CBD has been present for a long time, mostly, because the compound can also be found in the cannabis plant, whichcontains THC. But, it is important to note that while THC can get you high, CBD cannot and does not. It is a non-intoxicating compound also found in hemp.

CBD has been safely used for years as a natural remedy for better sleep, reducing stress, minimizing menstrual cramps, aiding skin health, relieving pain, and for general anti-inflammatory purposes, Brandonpointed out.

The petition is only the beginning for the CBD Brand Coalition, said Assaf, adding that their goal is to remainas an ongoing coalition and to holdquarterly meetings to talk about the most important matters in the industry.

The majorissue is now the new SMS restriction, Assaf said, adding that they willalso collaborate on a campaign around Facebooks limitations. The petition already has more than 13,600 signatures.

Whats so special and unique about this initiative is that it isthe first time (in a long time, or ever) that a group of some of the biggest CBD and cannabis brands is choosing collaboration over competition, joining forces to spread awareness about an issue that affects us all, Assaf explained.

Our goal is much bigger than the SMS matter, she added we areon a mission to destigmatize CBDand advocate for regulations that legitimize and validate the industry and end the legal ambiguity that restricts what we can do. We all believe wholeheartedly in the therapeutic potential of the cannabis plant and we want to open up more peoples eyes to its role in health and wellbeing.

Photo: Courtesy of CRYSTALWEED cannabis on Unsplash

Here is the original post:

EXCLUSIVE: CBD Censorship Continues Amidst Ongoing Cannabis Legalization Trend - Benzinga - Benzinga

Censorship by PIO – Editor And Publisher Magazine

Alisa Cromer | for Editor & Publisher

Ask any journalist what makes their blood pressure go up on deadline. It is being routed to a public affairs office without getting the interview, missing a deadline, or just getting a pre-screened department-organized message. Theres no opportunity for follow-up questions or even an off-the-record conversation.

Lately, the public and even local reporters who have not covered a Washington, D.C. beat are unaware of how restricted access has become at the federal level.

District journalists are no longer allowed into federal buildings without an escort and appointment. It is assumed that every interview will be coordinated through public affairs representatives, who are political appointees. If the public information officer (PIO) is not interested in a story or the reporter, they ignore their inquiries or slow-roll it so that the reporter misses the deadline. Its now common practice for PIOs to join calls and monitor live interviews.

And then there are the gag orders, implied or by memo, so federal government employees cannot talk directly to the press without imperiling their career.

These practices are now deeply embedded into government culture and getting worse every year, leaders of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) told E&P during a recent vodcast on the topic. SPJ, a group with 6,000 members, calls it censorship by PIO. Its such a bane that the association created an entire web page dedicated to the issue.

In July 2021, SPJ and 24 more journalists' associations wrote a letter to the White House with specific demands: To be allowed direct contact with sources, access to federal buildings, and that requests for interviews be granted.

At the local level, access to officials and information is less controlled; however, dozens of police departments and state agencies have explicit and implicit gag orders preventing employees from talking to the press, according to new research by the Brechner Center.

Science reporting has also been at the heart of the national controversy, Matthew T. Hall, opinion editor at The San Diego Union-Tribune., told E&P. This was especially true during the Trump administration, when the pandemic surged and the CDC was late with information. Last year, The Washington Post decried its gag order to prevent employees from talking, surfaced by a Freedom of Information Act request after a lawsuit.

The Biden administration promised openness, but by July 2021, after just six months in office, the EPA faced its first stress test and folded. When whistleblowers reported a rubber-stamping of toxic chemicals, the chief of staff in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Allison Pierce, sent a memo reminding employees not to talk to the media without going through public affairs.

Tim Wheeler, chair of the Society of Environmental Journalists Freedom of Information Task Forcechair of the and an editor at the Chesapeake Bay Journal, says none of this is shocking nor new.

An army of PIOs is managing the information, he said. You are getting your information filtered as often as not, or they dont get back to you at all.

March 2021 Let the Sunshine In webinar

Just after the Biden administration settled in, Wheeler hosted a webinar with the pithy title, Let the Sunshine In. Will EPA reopen its doors to the press? for SEJ members to meet the new office of public affairs at the Environmental Protection Agency.

He started by talking about Bidens promised openness and the executive order to restore scientific transparency. How do you intend to restore transparency? Does that include the ability for reporters to interview staff and get a timely start on answers to questions?

Lyndsay Hamilton, enthusiastic, whip-smart and just two months on the job as associate administrator for the office, took the lead. Nick Conger, the EPAs press secretary, was playing back-up.

Hamilton said her goal is a positive, transparent relationship. She views media relations as a service we provide ... We are committed to sharing timely, accurate information to the best of our ability ... it is your job to always ask for more. If we cant (get you what you need), dont be afraid to ask about the why.

Conger started with, Can we just say happy Sunshine Week? He talked about empowering regional executives to answer media questions but still coordinated with public affairs.

Next question.

Wheeler asked, There was a time when reporters did not have to go through a PIO for permission or have minders present at the interview. Can we go back to that, and if not, why not?

Hamilton responded, Im not going to debate the word minders with you, and explained that staffers sit in on interviews to be helpful. She said the role of media relations is to make sure journalists are connected to the right source, that sources are comfortable talking to media, to let conversations play out, and to follow up on items we need to do. Accuracy is another issue.

Besides, she has allowed interviews without a staffer listening in. They are not on every call.

Wheeler had brought some messages from environmental journalists who could not attend. One wrote that she was so excited about getting a thorough response by email from a scientist that she was giddy. Three more said that they never got their requested interview. Two were regional reporters, but a district reporter said he had not had an on-the-record interview with someone at the EPA since the Obama administration.

Hamilton responded that the new EPA would strive to do better. She gave out her and Congors emails as go-tos in case of a problem, noting that theirs is still a small team of political appointees.

There may be other reasons for no response. For example, scientists may not want to talk, and We dont require them to. We are certainly straining to do our best We might miss an email here and there.

Wheeler had another question, The two scientists recently talked to me on the record without coordinating (with your office). Did they violate EPA policy?

Well, Im not going to track them down unless you want me to, Hamilton answered. We do ask (them) to coordinate with public affairs, but Im glad you got the information.

What if a scientist is speaking at a scientific conference, and I approach them afterward, during a break. Are they allowed to talk to me? he asked.

Hamilton stuttered a bit. Sure, I mean. Absolutely. Sure. I mean, they are in a public forum already. Yeah, absolutely.

Well, Wheeler noted, Ive seen a PR official swoop into the conversation in some instances ... Just so you know.

Hamilton added that she does this, too. As the PR person on site, I do sometimes join a conversation to know who the reporter is, where they are from We do like to know what people are saying about the agency.

What about the Executive Order that Biden signed 24 hours into his presidency, directing agencies to review scientific integrity practices and identify more effective ways of interacting with the media.

Did he mean going through a spokesperson? asked Wheeler.

Not sure we have a full answer, Hamilton said. We will soon.

Todays censorship

Censorship by PIO is so insidious in part because the media have quietly gone along. No reporters have faced arrest for pushing back. Stories get published. Even if the information is managed, the job gets done.

We are not printing blank pages, but part of the story is missing, explains Kathryn Foxhall, who covered the medical and science beat, including the CDC, for decades.

It will be correct; probably it will be interesting. It will suffice, but there will be all kinds of things that are not mentioned, like budget, political pressures, differences of opinion within the agency, she said.

Foxhall, who has referred to PIOs as censors, minders, controllers and spies in articles and speaking engagements, was one of the earliest and still one of the fiercest proponents for press access. In September, she was awarded SPJs Wells Memorial Key award for her efforts.

To give an example of how covering Washington changed during her career, she likes to tell a story from the Reagan era, when she could talk to a source unsupervised. She was interviewing a high-level source at the CDC about recent budget cuts just as the AIDS epidemic unfolded.

He was saying, Well make do and blah blah blah, Foxhall recalled. I was trying to get off the phone, when I asked what he would say if he were off the record. He reversed course and absolutely exploded. The story I wrote massively changed, and those changes could have saved lives.

Today, these confidential conversations have been largely eliminated. We now have over 4 million pandemic dead, she said.

For over two decades, public health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, have controlled public scrutiny of themselves.

So how did this happen?

Foxhall says she first noticed sources redirecting her to official channels in the early 1990s. The newsroom talked about these blocks and what to do about it. There was some eyeball rolling. but you could still get around it with some people skills, she said. Over the years, it got tighter and tighter.

Another reason is the way governments are organized. Department heads are political appointees, while the staff, scientists and lower-level public affairs officers are career employees and subject matter experts.

Over time, each presidential administration inserted a growing layer of political appointees of PIOs on top of the careerist departments and started pulling strings, steering coordinating all speech to reporters.

Ironically, Obama was more of a micromanager of information released by lower-profile federal agencies than Trump. Despite his rhetoric, Trump was primarily interested in controlling departments involved in high-profile news stories and essentially left the lower-profile departments alone, sources say.

With Biden, micro-management has returned. PIOs, who are political appointees, have started to weigh in on every piece of information and interview that goes out, including which reporters and news outlets get access, and rewriting press releases with political messages in mind.

It hasnt helped that the news media shed thousands of journalists who migrated over to these expanded public affairs offices.

Wheeler does not blame these former journalists. It is not always the PIO, but the president and governors and people they appoint who control dissent and contraindications, Wheeler said, adding, Some of my best friends are PIOs.

And there are other factors. After 9/11, access to federal buildings was restricted, so credentialed reporters could no longer enter without an appointment and escort. COVID-19 shut down most public meetings and other events that provided face-to-face opportunities for journalists to meet public officials without a chaperone.

To report this story, we contacted eight government PIOs by email. One went off the record, on deep background. One was afraid to talk because she was new. Finally, one said she would get back to me with a time but missed the deadline.

The other PIOs at the CDC, EPA, the Department of Interior, the National Association of Government Communicators, and Health and Human Services had not responded by deadline.

A case to battle restricted access

If the media is going to challenge the culture of restricted access, the battle will probably be fought in the courts.

Frank LoMonte, the First Amendment attorney at the Brechner Center, who has written a white paper on case law as a roadmap for news media to use in the future, feels the courts have favored employees talking about their jobs despite blanket gag orders.

The reality is that the employee always wins. We have dug back as far as we can, and the judges say the gag orders are too broad every time. These are 24 cases and all kinds of judges, he said. The bottom line is that (legally) you cannot enforce a gag order preventing an employee from discussing their work with the news media, he said.

The most important Supreme Court case, United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, circa 1995, only confirmed the legal status on which the lower courts have always agreed.

We know (blanket gag orders) exist. We know they are pervasive across all levels of government. But Im here to tell you its a dead man walking. They are all illegal; they are just waiting for someone to sue, LoMonte said.

Whats missing is the perfect case.

Most plaintiffs in existing case law have been government employees, such as schoolteachers and police officers. However, with the decline of labor unions who supplied the money and the lawyers, these cases dried up.

So today, LoMonte is setting the stage for a media organization to file suit eventually. It just must be the right case to avoid creating a legal precedent that could worsen things.

So what would the perfect case look like?

According to LoMonte, the media should look for a government agency with a blanket gag order policy that is clear and in writing. An employee handbook is better than a mass email. A mass email is better than a series of single ones, and any email is better than a verbal rebuke. The CDC emails, though explosive at the time, he said, did not make the cut.

Asked if hes worried that governments wont just vague up their cultural policies after reading this article thinking here of the EPAs broad guidelines to please coordinate he said not to worry. Plenty of government agencies at the state and local level outline exactly what employees cant say.

His new research has already turned up a couple of dozen illegal policies at police departments, including the NYPD, despite the fact it has already been sued once on the issue and lost. Sixteen state agencies in Georgia also have explicit gag order policies.

His advice to journalists is to start documenting.

Ask the (sources) who were gagged, Did you see a memo? Run it to the ground and document it, he told SPJ attendees on the stage with Foxhall. Get the agency on the record. Where did it come from, who made it?

Another culprit in Censorship by PIO is the media itself.

The press acquiesced, Foxhall contended. Why isnt the news industry fighting the controls? One of the top reasons, in my opinion, is that we need their stuff. Its easier and inexpensive to quote an official source. If the press parrots (an official source), it takes about an hour to write it up. (But) we dont want to discredit our own story by saying how little we know.

She suggested that journalists need to start consistently writing about their access and make it part of the story. Lose the embarrassment that journalists are supposed to know everything, and therefore we cant admit that these people are successfully blocking our newsgathering.

The San Diego chapter of SPJ gives Brick and Window awards once a year to highlight the access issue.

We need to call attention, Matthew T. Hall said. Im hoping someone at the Biden administration watches when this is published and picks up the phone.

Alisa Cromer is the editor of LocalMediaInsider, an online trade journal covering the media industry. She grew up in Washington, D.C.

Read more:

Censorship by PIO - Editor And Publisher Magazine

One from the road: Fact-checking on Facebook – who is the authority and why? – Pratt Tribune

Ron Moore| St. John News

My cousin Robin shared a video from Nurse Nicole Whitley on Facebook. I thought it had some good information so I shared it. Soon after that, Facebook shut down the video and wrote on the post, "False information. Check by independent fact-checkers". I decided to read what the fact-checkers had to say.

First they said that Nurse Whitley didn't show any proof that she was a nurse. What proof do we have that says that these fact-checkers are who they say they are? We are to take their word that they have a degree in fact-checking.

The fact-checker next wrote that Nurse Whitley video was first released on Dr. Sebastian Gorka Facebook page. What does this have to do with the video? Dr. Gorda was a military and intelligence analyst who served as Deputy Assistant to President Trump. Those independent fact-checkers have a bias and hate for President Trump and anyone who worked with and for him. Now you can see where this is heading.

Nurse Whitley said that Ivermetcin, a drug that is safe and highly effective, can not be found in the US. This is a preventive drug and my daughter asked her doctor about it and was told that if they could get it, it would be months away. Maybe Nurse Whitley knows something.

She showed charts and graphs where the drug was administered in areas of Peru. The number of cases were reduced drastically from other areas that didn't use the drug. The fact-checkers said this was a purely correlation observation, and correlation alone doesn't mean that there is a casual relationship between the two.

They went on to say that Nurse Whitley failed to account for other factors, such as lock downs, mask wearing, and physical distancing. Where are the facts that this had happened? This is a correlation on their part that they believe is right.

Nurse Whitley went on to say that the PCR test is unreliable. It is a sensitivity test where they can set cycle thresholds in order to detect the presence or absence of a virus. The creator of the PCR test said that this is not a diagnostic and not to be used for that and yet, they are.

The fact-checkers said that this test doesn't have a false positive and if it is, it's possible that it was contaminated by other samples with the virus during the handling. I wonder if Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh thinks the test is accurate? He tested positive and isn't showing any signs of illness. His family tested negative. Have you seen the Cologuard commercial? They always mention there could be a false positive result. You don't think that the scientists didn't try to make a perfect test?

Nurse Whitley then said on January 20th, inauguration day this year, the World Health Organization reduced the testing cycle. I remember hearing that it went from 50 cycles to 30 cycles. According to my own research offact-checkers, this did not happen. It was in a blog by virologist Ian Mackay. He reminded the laboratory staff to read the instructions and understand the purpose of testing. Do you remember hearing this last January?

I could go on with more about fact-checking but this isn't about the facts. It's about censorship. They are nothing but a very biased group of people that will censor you if you don't believe what they do. It's not happening only on Facebook but innewspapers as well. Many of the large conglomerate holdingswill use the fact-checker or sensitivity groupsto keep articles out of print that don't agree with their perspective. It has happened and it will continue.

I wonder if this article will make it out to the public. Let me know if you see it!

* Ron Moore is an over-the-road truck driver based in Stafford County, Kansas. He is a grandfather, husband, rural community supporter and writer.

See original here:

One from the road: Fact-checking on Facebook - who is the authority and why? - Pratt Tribune

FX Censors Controversial Family Guy Scene Featuring The Simpsons – ComicBook.com

Two animated comedies that are always pitted against one another are Family Guy and The Simpsons. The latter turned FOX into must-see television on Sunday nights, leading the way for the creation of the network's "Animation Domination" animated block of programming. Family Guy, created by Seth MacFarlane, is arguably the second biggest animated hit for FOX behind The Simpsons. So naturally, both shows like to take not-so-subtle jabs at each other, though one such occurrence has been censored by the FX Network for a controversial scene.

The Family Guy scene in question comes from Episode 2 in Season 6, titled "Movin' Out (Brian's Song)." It begins with Peter, Lois and Brian together in the family living room. Lois is chastising Brian for using a woman only for sex, and believing he is above that type of behavior. As this speech is taking place, a banner appears at the bottom of the screen promoting "The Simpsons Sundays on FOX" with a miniature Marge Simpson waving to the audience. Okay, nothing out of the ordinary so far. However, Quagmire quickly returns and tackles Marge from behind. Quagmire then proceeds to kiss all over Marge's face while she tries to push him off of her, eventually pummeling him with her fists.

At one point during their struggle, Quagmire unbuckled his pants. This gives Marge just enough of an opening to kick him away, allowing her to run off while Quagmire trots after her with his pants around his ankles. Keep in mind Peter, Lois and Brian are still holding a conversation in the background, but at this point, no one is paying attention to their dialogue as all eyes follow Marge and Quagmire. Once they run off-camera, the banner for The Simpsons disappears and we hear Brian mention how he'll invite Gillian to move in with him. Now Marge and Quagmire re-enter, with the Family Guy trio now noticing them at the bottom of the screen. Apparently, Quagmire was successful in his sexual pursuit of Marge, and they walk off together to pick up Round 2 at The Simpsons' residence.

The FX censorship cut out the entire Simpsons and FOX logo graphic at the bottom of the screen, including the Marge/Quagmire altercation. Those watching on FX miss out on Round 2, where Homer walks in on the two of them in bed together (off-camera). We only see the outside of the Simpsons house, as Quagmire uses a gun to murder Homer, Bart, Lisa and even Baby Maggie when they each walk into the bedroom.

Comedy was at a much different place in September 2007, which is when "Movin' Out (Brian's Song)" originally aired. Television shows could get away with including sexual misconduct for laughs, but with the #MeToo movement and women stepping forward to call out sexual predators, it doesn't make sense for FX to air that segment of the episode as-is. Examples of networks and streaming services pulling other controversial content includes Netflix removing episodes and scenes from Community and The Office that included blackface.

When it comes to Family Guy and The Simpsons, which series is your favorite? Let us know in the comments section below.

Follow this link:

FX Censors Controversial Family Guy Scene Featuring The Simpsons - ComicBook.com

A Statement Regarding the Petition Against Censorship at Bates – The Bates Student

The Bates Student would like to address the petition released on Oct. 15 (and subsequent articles by News Center Maine and The Intercept) regarding censorship of The Bates Student by the Bates College administration.

The Bates Student was not coerced or censored by any member of the Bates administration, the Bates Communication Office, or any other member of the Bates community in the writing or republishing of Elizabeth LaCroixs article from Oct. 13.

Mary Pols, Bates media relation specialist, asked The Student to temporarily take down the original article, pointing to several misleading statements and reporting inaccuracies. The Student made the decision on its own accord to honor this query. Mary Pols handles all media relations for the college; therefore, The Bates Student, like all other media outlets, is unable to access school administrators in all departments without first communicating with Pols. However, Pols has no authority to require changes or read articles before publishing and did not attempt to exercise such authority.

Nearly all edits made to the originally published article were additions. Information regarding neutrality statements was reworded for clarity. Additionally, a quote provided by Francis Eanes was paraphrased, as it relayed second-hand information that could not be verified. Commentary provided by employees with first-hand experience was unaltered, or in Jon Michael Foleys case, expanded.

Every edit or change in the article was discussed between Elizabeth and myself and approved by me as editor-in-chief of The Bates Student. We corrected inaccuracies that were misleading or confusing, and we allowed additions to both the union and administration side of the story, as shown in the document outlining edits made to the original article linked in the petition.

The staff of The Bates Student takes immense pride in our editorial independence. We are given full autonomy on what is and is not published. In the interests of informing the Bates community, we stand by the edits we made.

If you have any questions regarding the events of the past week, please send us an email ([emailprotected]).

Jackson Elkins 22 and Elizabeth LaCroix 23

Editor-in-Chief and Managing News Editor at The Bates Student

Go here to see the original:

A Statement Regarding the Petition Against Censorship at Bates - The Bates Student

Throttling free speech is not the way to fix Facebook and other social media | TheHill – The Hill

Caution: Free Speech May Be Hazardous to Your Health. Such a rewording of theoriginal 1965 warningon tobacco products could soon appear on social media platforms, if a Senate hearing this week is any indicator. Listening toformer Facebook product manager Frances Haugen, senators decried how Facebook is literally killing people by not censoring content, and Haugen proposed a regulatory board to protect the public.

But before we embrace a new ministry of information model to protect us from dangerous viewpoints, we may want to consider what we would lose in this Faustian free-speech bargain.

Warnings over the addiction and unhealthy content of the internet have been building into a movement for years.In July,President BidenJoe BidenMajority of Americans concerned about cyberattacks on critical groups: poll Labor secretary says 194K jobs added in September was 'not the best number' Biden task force has reunited 52 families separated under Trump: report MORE slammed Big Tech companies for killing people by failing to engage in even greater censorship of free speech on issues related to the pandemic.On Tuesday, many senators were enthralled by Haugens testimony because they, too, have long called for greater regulation or censorship. It all began reasonably enough over concerns about violent speech, and then expanded to exploitative speech. However, it continued to expand even further as the regulation of speech became an insatiable appetite for silencing opposing views.

In recent hearings with social media giants, members like Sen. Chris CoonsChris Andrew CoonsDemocratic lawmakers, Yellen defend Biden on the economy Sunday shows - Scalise won't say if election was stolen under questioning from Fox's Chris Wallace Democrat on controversial Schumer speech: Timing 'may not have been the best' MORE (D-Del.) were critical of limiting censorship to areas like election fraud and insteaddemanded censorship of disinformation on climate changeand other subjects. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) has repeatedly called for robust content modification to remove untrue or misleading information.

Haugen lashed out at what she said was the knowing harm committed against people, particularly children, byexposing them todisinformation or unhealthy views. Haugen wants the company to remove toxic content and change algorithms to make such sites less visible. She complained that sites with a high engagement rate are more likely to be favored in searches. However, the problem is that sites deemed false or harmful are too popular. Haugen said that artificially removing likes is not enough because the popularity or interest in some sites will still push them to the top of searches.

It was a familiar objection. Just the week before,Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenBuilding back better by investing in workers and communities Throttling free speech is not the way to fix Facebook and other social media Senate poised to stave off debt crisis MORE (D-Mass.) called for Amazon to steer readers to true books on climate change.Her objection was that the popularity of misleading books was pushing them to the top of searches, and she wants the algorithms changed to help readers pick what she considers to be healthier choices meaning, more in line with her views.

Similarly, Haugens solution seems to be well, her:Right now, the only people in the world who are trained to analyze these experiments, to understand what is happening inside there needs to be a regulatory home where someone like me could do a tour of duty afterworking at a place like [Facebook],and have a place to work on things like regulation. Censorship programs always begin with politicians and bureaucrats who in their own minds have the benefit of knowing what is true and the ability to protect the rest of us from our harmful thoughts.

Ironically, I have long been a critic of social media companies for their rapid expansion of censorship, including the silencing ofpolitical critics,public health expertsandpro-democracy movementsat the behest of foreign governments like China and Russia. I am unabashedly aninternet originalistwho favors an open, free forum for people to exchange ideas and viewpoints allowing free speech to be its own disinfectant of bad speech.

Facebook has been running a slick campaignto persuade people to embrace corporate censorship.Yet, now, even the Facebook censors are being denounced as too passive in the face of runaway free speech. The focus is on the algorithms used to remove content or, as with Haugen and Warren, used to flag or promote popular sites.

Haugen describes her approach as a non-content-based solution but it is clearly not that.She objects to algorithms like downstream MSI which tracks traffic and pushes postings based on past likes or comments. Asexplained by one site, it is based on their ability to engage users, not necessarily its usefulness or truthfulness.Of course, the objection to those un-useful sites is their content and claimed harm.

Like Warren, Haugen is calling for what I have criticized as enlightened algorithms to protect us from our own bad choices.Our digital sentinels are non-content-based but will magically remove bad content to prevent unhealthy choices.

There is no question that the internet is fueling an epidemic of eating disorders and other great social problems. The solution, however, is not to create regulatory boards or to reduce free speech. Europe has long deployed such oversight boards inremoving what it considers harmful stereotypesfrom advertising andbarring images of honey or chips but the results have been underwhelming at best.

It is no accident that authoritarian countries have long wanted such regulation, since free speech is a threat to their power. Now, we also have U.S. academics writing that China was right all along about censorship, and public officials demanding more power to censor further. We have lost faith in free speech, and we are being told to put our faith into algorithmic guardians.

We can confront our problems more effectively by using good speech to overcome bad speech. When it comes to minors, we can use parents to protect their children by increasing parental controls over internet access; we can help parents with more or better programs and resources for mental illnesses. Of course, it is hard to advocate for restraint when the image of an anorexic child is juxtaposed against the abstract concept of free speech. However, that is the sirens call of censorship: Protecting that child by reducing her free-speech rights is no solution for her but it is a solution for many who want more control over opposing views.

Free speech is not some six-post-a-day addiction that should be cured with algorithmic patches. There is no such thing as a content-neutral algorithm that removes only harmful disinformation because behind each of those enlightened algorithms are people who are throttling speech according to what they deem to be harmful thoughts or viewpoints.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

Excerpt from:

Throttling free speech is not the way to fix Facebook and other social media | TheHill - The Hill

What Facebook ‘whistleblower’ Frances Haugen really wants: more censorship of conservative views – New York Post

How convenient that Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen just gave the social network another excuse to crack down on conservative content.

In her congressional testimony Tuesday, Haugen, a data scientist, called on Congress to enact more regulations on her former employer to combat misinformation on the platform, saying the company puts profits over public safety.

At issue for Haugen is Facebooks algorithm, which in 2018 the company changed to prioritize high-engagement content, thereby contributing according to Haugen to increased divisiveness and polarization among users. Haugen even went so far as to say that Facebooks switching off of safeguards after the 2020 election led to the Jan. 6 US Capitol riot.

Fast forward a couple months, we got the insurrection, she said in an interview with 60 Minutes on Sunday.

Whatever you think of the Capitol riot, Facebook did not cause it. The way Haugen used the word insurrection hinted of her likely progressive-lefty politics revealing her true motives. And what Haugen means by safeguards is no doubt censoring of conservative content, in a way Post readers know all too well.

Thats her main objective: censorship. She wants a complete overhaul of the content-moderation rules on Facebook, including an independent governmental body overseeing such changes. And as a good progressive, she pushes these new regulations under the guise of safety.

Facebook has demonstrated they cannot act independently, Haugen told 60 Minutes. The company over and over again chooses its profits over safety. It is subsidizing it is paying for its profits with our safety, and Im hoping that this will have a big enough impact on the world that they get the fortitude and the motivation to actually go put those regulations into place.

Like clockwork, a couple of hours after Haugens congressional testimony, Facebooks Director of Policy Communications Lena Pietsch jumped on Haugens push for more regulations.

We dont agree with her characterization of the many issues she testified about, Pietsch said in a statement. Despite all this, we agree on one thing; its time to begin to create standard rules for the Internet. Its been 25 years since the rules for the Internet have been updated, and instead of expecting the industry to make societal decisions that belong to legislators, it is time for Congress to act.

It seems like Haugen and Facebook have been on the same side this entire time. And it makes sense, as Haugen doesnt actually want to break up Facebook.

Instead, shed like the company to remain a billion-dollar monopoly imposing extreme-content regulations on its users. All while this is overseen by a federal agency created at her behest and staffed, no doubt, by former Facebook employees.

Haugen did leak some important information on Facebooks coverup of Instagrams negative effects on teen girls mental health (although who doesnt know this to be true?) and its lax treatment of drug cartels and human traffickers on its platform. But her drive for censorship wont remotely fix those issues.

Her objective is censorship. She wants Facebook and Instagram and all social-media companies, for that matter to enact safeguards to combat misinformation and hate.However, given the hyper-politicized arena and the Democrats past form for weaponizing supposedly impartial government agencies to push a progressive-elitist agenda, many will assume thismeans banning of conservative content or that which is negative to the Democratic Party.

It is one thing to propose an independent body to force Big Tech platforms to reveal the mechanics behind their algorithmicmachines of virality to spark a transparent discussion about how information is distributed and controlled. But it is far more perilous to police what is acceptable or fact. Without proper independence and rigor, it has been proven time and again that what is deemed fact and what is not merely depends on whether the person in charge wants it to be.

In this case, without once defining either misinformation, or hate, (again, the subtext was clearly right-wing content all along), Haugen opened the door for all content Silicon Valley dislikes to be banned.

If that happens, say goodbye forever to stories like The Posts expos of Hunter Bidens e-mails, which Facebook banned. Or suggestions that COVID may have originated at the Wuhan lab the theme of another squelched Post column long before the idea gained broader acceptance.

Some whistleblower, Frances Haugen. She just gave Big Tech and its progressive buddies the go-ahead to ramp up its censorship and control of the American public.

Victoria Marshall is the Collegiate Network Fellow atThe Post.

See the original post here:

What Facebook 'whistleblower' Frances Haugen really wants: more censorship of conservative views - New York Post

Former Facebook Engineer On Censorship And The Future Of Big Tech – The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, the Daily Wires Ian Haworth, host of the Ian Haworth Show and a former Facebook software engineer, joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss hisarticle Facebook Releases Content Distribution Guidelines, Will Target Untrusted News and his time on the fact-checking and misinformation teams at Facebook.

The whole point of the fact-checking organization or arm of the company was to add a layer of truth to things. Whether or not you agree with fact-checking it at all, the goal was to push something forward as is this true or not true? and give people more tools to handle information. But now if theyre demoting things via the fact-checking arm without actually fact-checking, then its really just an abuse of power in another way thats going to impact conservatives even harder, Haworth said.

Haworth said its right to be skeptical of Big Techs influence and inclination towards censorship but he is optimistic about change.

I think there are a lot of people who just want their tools to be used for people for the good. And I think if we can create a culture that mirrors what we believe to be a bit more moderate than what we have right now, I think some elements of Big Tech will follow suit. Id like to be slightly optimistic in that manner, Haworth said.

Read the original post:

Former Facebook Engineer On Censorship And The Future Of Big Tech - The Federalist