Iran: Women to not eat pizza under new TV censorship rules  |  Photo Credit: iStock Images

We see a lot of commercials featuring women enjoying pizzas and drinks. Have you ever thought that there can be a restriction on women eating pizza in commercials? Or a ban on men serving tea to women?

New Iranian TV censorship rules have banned women from eating pizza and sandwiches on screen, according to opposition sources. Not only this, men should not be shown serving tea to women in workplaces and women must not be shown drinking any red-coloured drinks. Women must also not wear leather gloves on screen.

The new guidelines have been issued by government officials to broadcasters and film-makers following an audit, according to IranWire.

Any scenes or photographs showing men and women in a domestic setting will be cleared by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) before broadcast to ensure that the new guidelines are followed, Amir Hossein Shamshadi, head of PR at IRIB said.

The IRIB is also responsible for licensing and overseeing Iranian home theatre and streaming platforms, via a subsidiary called Satra.

Some Iranian streaming sites will self-censor to avoid facing fines from authorities in Tehran.

The newcensorship rules were seen taking effect after Iranian talk show Pishgoo avoided showing actress Elnaz Habibis face on camera. Only her voice was heard during the show.

Veteran actor Amin Tarokh took to Instagram to complain, writing, "I wish the guest's name had been subtitled, at least. Because we didnt see her face at all, had the host not mentioned it [at the beginning], wed have no idea which artist was being talked about! What pleasure is derived from getting a close-up look at the creators of the program, and a far-off one at the guest, just because theyre a woman? Especially a lady like this whos very decent. All you get from the IRIB is a voice and no picture."

Link:

Women banned from eating pizza, men to not serve tea to ladies under bizarre TV censorship rules in Iran - Times Now

The Chinese government has banned all depictions of gay people on television, as part of a cultural crackdown on vulgar, immoral and unhealthy content.

Chinese censors have released new regulations for content that exaggerates the dark side of society and now deem homosexuality, extramarital affairs, one night stands and underage relationships as illegal on screen.

Last week the Chinese government pulled a popular drama, Addicted, from being streamed on Chinese websites as it follows two men in gay relationships, causing uproar among the shows millions of viewers.

The government said the show contravened the new guidelines, which state that No television drama shall show abnormal sexual relationships and behaviours, such as incest, same-sex relationships, sexual perversion, sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual violence, and so on.

The ban also extends to smoking, drinking, adultery, sexually suggestive clothing, even reincarnation. Chinas State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television told television producers it would constantly monitor TV channels to ensure the new rules were strictly adhered to.

The clampdown follows an increase in cultural censorship in China since Xi Jinping came to power in November 2012. In December 2014, censors stopped a TV show, The Empress of China, from being broadcast because the actors showed too much cleavage. The show only returned to screens once the breasts had been blurred out.

In September 2015, a documentary about young gay Chinese called Mama Rainbow was taken down from all Chinese websites.

The new regulations have angered gay activists in China, who have fought for two decades to overcome the substantial stigma in their country against homosexuality. It was only decriminalised in 1997 and was only taken off the official list of mental illnesses in 2001.

In November, one Chinese campaigner took the government to court over its description of homosexuality as a psychological disorder in textbooks.

Follow this link:

China bans depictions of gay people on television ...

Mary Ware Dennett wroteThe Sex Side of Life in 1915as a teaching tool for her teenage sons. Photo illustration by Meilan Solly / Photos courtesy of Sharon Spaulding and Newspapers.com

It only took 42 minutes for an all-male jury to convict Mary Ware Dennett. Her crime? Sending a sex education pamphlet through the mail.

Charged with violating the Comstock Act of 1873one of a series of so-called chastity lawsDennett, a reproductive rights activist, had written and illustrated the booklet in question for her own teenage sons, as well as for parents around the country looking for a new way to teach their children about sex.

Lawyer Morris Ernst filed an appeal, setting in motion a federal court case that signaled the beginning of the end of the countrys obscenity laws. The pairs victory marked the zenith of Dennetts life work, building on her previous efforts to publicize and increase access to contraception and sex education. (Prior to the trial, she was best known as the more conservative rival of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.) Today, however, United States v. Dennett and its defendant are relatively unknown.

One of the reasons the Dennett case hasnt gotten the attention that it deserves is simply because it was an incremental victory, but one that took the crucial first step, says Laura Weinrib, a constitutional historian and law scholar at Harvard University. First steps are often overlooked. We tend to look at the culmination and miss the progression that got us there.

Dennett wrote the pamphlet in question, The Sex Side of Life: An Explanation for Young People, in 1915. Illustrated with anatomically correct drawings, it provided factual information, offered a discussion of human physiology and celebrated sex as a natural human act.

[G]ive them the facts, noted Dennett in the text, ... but also give them some conception of sex life as a vivifying joy, as a vital art, as a thing to be studied and developed with reverence for its big meaning, with understanding of its far-reaching reactions, psychologically and spiritually.

After Dennetts 14-year-old son approved the booklet, she circulated it among friends who, in turn, shared it with others. Eventually, The Sex Side of Life landed on the desk of editor Victor Robinson, who published it in his Medical Review of Reviewsin 1918. Calling the pamphlet a splendid contribution, Robinson added, We know nothing that equals Mrs. Dennetts brochure. Dennett, for her part, received so many requests for copies that she had the booklet reprinted and began selling it for a quarter to anyone who wrote to her asking for one.

These transactions flew in the face of the Comstock Laws, federal and local anti-obscenity legislation that equated birth control with pornography and rendered all devices and information for the prevention of conception illegal. Doctors couldnt discuss contraception with their patients, nor could parents discuss it with their children.

The Sex Side of Life offered no actionable advice regarding birth control. As Dennett acknowledged in the brochure, At present, unfortunately, it is against the law to give people information as to how to manage their sex relations so that no baby will be created. But the Comstock Act also stated that any printed material deemed obscene, lewd or lasciviouslabels that could be applied to the illustrated pamphletwas non-mailable. First-time offenders faced up to five years in prison or a maximum fine of $5,000.

In the same year that Dennett first wrote the brochure, she co-founded the National Birth Control League (NBCL), the first organization of its kind. The groups goal was to change obscenity laws at a state level and unshackle the subject of sex from Victorian morality and misinformation.

By 1919, Dennett had adopted a new approach to the fight for womens rights. A former secretary for state and national suffrage associations, she borrowed a page from the suffrage movement, tackling the issue on the federal level rather than state-by-state. She resigned from the NBCL and founded the Voluntary Parenthood League, whose mission was to pass legislation in Congress that would remove the words preventing conception from federal statutes, thereby uncoupling birth control from pornography.

Dennett soon found that the topic of sex education and contraception was too controversial for elected officials. Her lobbying efforts proved unsuccessful, so in 1921, she again changed tactics. Though the Comstock Laws prohibited the dissemination of obscene materials through the mail, they granted the postmaster general the power to determine what constituted obscenity. Dennett reasoned that if the Post Office lifted its ban on birth control materials, activists would win a partial victory and be able to offer widespread access to information.

Postmaster General William Hays, who had publicly stated that the Post Office should not function as a censorship organization, emerged as a potential ally. But Hays resigned his post in January 1922 without taking action. (Ironically, Hays later established what became known as the Hays Code, a set of self-imposed restrictions on profanity, sex and morality in the motion picture industry.) Dennett had hoped that the incoming postmaster general, Hubert Work, would fulfill his predecessors commitments. Instead, one of Works first official actions was to order copies of the Comstock Laws prominently displayed in every post office across America. He then declared The Sex Side of Life unmailable and indecent.

Undaunted, Dennett redoubled her lobbying efforts in Congress and began pushing to have the postal ban on her booklet removed. She wrote to Work, pressing him to identify which section was obscene, but no response ever arrived. Dennett also asked Arthur Hays, chief counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to challenge the ban in court. In letters preserved at Radcliffe Colleges Schlesinger Library, Dennett argued that her booklet provided scientific and factual information. Though sympathetic, Hays declined, believing that the ACLU couldnt win the case.

By 1925, Dennettdiscouraged, broke and in poor healthhad conceded defeat regarding her legislative efforts and semi-retired. But she couldnt let the issue go entirely. She continued to mail The Sex Side of Life to those who requested copies and, in 1926, published a book titledBirth Control Laws: Shall We Keep Them, Change Them, or Abolish Them?

Publicly, Dennetts mission was to make information about birth control legal; privately, however, her motivation was to protect other women from the physical and emotional suffering she had endured.

The activist wed in 1900 and gave birth to three children, two of whom survived, within five years. Although the specifics of her medical condition are unknown, she likely suffered from lacerations of the uterus or fistulas, which are sometimes caused by childbirth and can be life-threatening if one becomes pregnant again.

Without access to contraceptives, Dennett faced a terrible choice: refrain from sexual intercourse or risk death if she conceived. Within two years, her husband had left her for another woman.

Dennett obtained custody of her children, but her abandonment and lack of access to birth control continued to haunt her. Eventually, these experiences led her to conclude that winning the vote was only one step on the path to equality. Women, she believed, deserved more.

In 1928, Dennett again reached out to the ACLU, this time to lawyer Ernst, who agreed to challenge the postal ban on the Sex Side of Life in court. Dennett understood the risks and possible consequences to her reputation and privacy, but she declared herself ready to take the gamble and be game. As she knew from press coverage of her separation and divorce, newspaper headlines and stories could be sensational, even salacious. (The story was considered scandalous because Dennetts husband wanted to leave her to form a commune with another family.)

Dennett believed that anyone who needed contraception should get it without undue burden or expense, without moralizing or gatekeeping by the medical establishment, says Stephanie Gorton, author of Citizen Reporters: S.S. McClure, Ida Tarbell and the Magazine That Rewrote America. Though she wasn't fond of publicity, she was willing to endure a federal obscenity trial so the next generation could have accurate sex educationand learn the facts of life without connecting them with shame or disgust.

In January 1929, before Ernst had finalized his legal strategy, Dennett was indicted by the government. Almost overnight, the trial became national news, buoyed by The Sex Side of Lifes earlier endorsement by medical organizations, parents groups, colleges and churches. The case accomplished a significant piece of what Dennett had worked 15 years to achieve: Sex, censorship and reproductive rights were being debated across America.

During the trial, assistant U.S. attorney James E. Wilkinson called the Sex Side of Life pure and simple smut. Pointing at Dennett, he warned that she would lead our children not only into the gutter, but below the gutter and into the sewer.

None of Dennetts expert witnesses were allowed to testify. The all-male jury took just 45 minutes to convict. Ernst filed an appeal.

In May, following Dennetts conviction but prior to the appellate courts ruling, an investigative reporter for the New York Telegram uncovered the source of the indictment. A postal inspector named C.E. Dunbar had been ordered to investigate a complaint about the pamphlet filed by an official with the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Using the pseudonym Mrs. Carl Miles, Dunbar sent a decoy letter to Dennett requesting a copy of the pamphlet. Unsuspecting, Dennett mailed the copy, thereby setting in motion her indictment, arrest and trial. (Writing about the trial later, Dennett noted that the DAR official who allegedly made the complaint was never called as a witness or identified. The activist speculated, Is she, perhaps, as mythical as Mrs. Miles?)

Dennetts is a name that deserves to be known.

When news of the undercover operation broke, Dennett wrote to her family that support for the case is rolling up till it looks like a mountain range. Leaders from the academic, religious, social and political sectors formed a national committee to raise money and awareness in support of Dennett; her name became synonymous with free speech and sex education.

In March 1930, an appellate court reversed Dennetts conviction, setting a landmark precedent. It wasnt the full victory Dennett had devoted much of her life to achieving, but it cracked the legal armor of censorship.

Even though Mary Ware Dennett wasnt a lawyer, she became an expert in obscenity law, says constitutional historian Weinrib. U.S. v. Dennett was influential in that it generated both public enthusiasm and money for the anti-censorship movement. It also had a tangible effect on the ACLUs organizational policies, and it led the ACLU to enter the fight against all forms of what we call morality-based censorship.

Ernst was back in court the following year. Citing U.S. v. Dennett, he won two lawsuits on behalf of British sex educator Marie Stopes and her previously banned books, Married Love and Contraception. Then, in 1933, Ernst expanded on arguments made in the Dennett case to encompass literature and the arts. He challenged the governments ban on James Joyces Ulysses and won, in part because of the precedent set by Dennetts case. Other important legal victories followed, each successively loosening the legal definition of obscenity. But it was only in 1970 that the Comstock Laws were fully struck down.

Ninety-two years after Dennetts arrest, titles dealing with sex continue to top the list of the American Library Associations most frequently challenged books. Sex education hasnt fared much better. As of September 2021, only 18 states require sex education to be medically accurate, and only 30 states mandate sex education at all. The U.S. has one of the highestteen pregnancy rates of all developed nations.

What might Dennett think or do if she were alive today? Lauren MacIvor Thompson, a historian of early 20th-century womens rights and public health at Kennesaw State University, takes the long view:

While its disheartening that we are fighting the same battles over sex and sex education today, I think that if Dennett were still alive, shed be fighting with school boards to include medically and scientifically accurate, inclusive, and appropriate information in schools. ... Shed [also] be fighting to ensure fair contraceptive and abortion access, knowing that the three pillars of education, access and necessary medical care all go hand in hand.

At the time of Dennetts death in 1947, The Sex Side of Life had been translated into 15 languages and printed in 23 editions. Until 1964, the activists family continued to mail the pamphlet to anyone who requested a copy.

As a lodestar in the history of marginalized Americans claiming bodily autonomy and exercising their right to free speech in a cultural moment hostile to both principles, says Gorton, Dennetts is a name that deserves to be known.

View original post here:

The Sex Education Pamphlet That Sparked a Landmark Censorship Case - Smithsonian

Video: New Hope's Wedgwood Inn haunted by 12-year-old girl, owners say

The spirit of a 12-year-old girl haunts New Hope's Wedgwood Inn, owners say. Psychics say she was a runaway slave lost on the Underground Railroad.

James McGinnis, Bucks County Courier Times

First, it was the masking of children that triggered a recent parent-led lawsuit against Pennsbury.

This time, allegedfree speech censorship is at issue as theschool district faceslegal action for the second time in a matter of weeks.

Four Pennsbury taxpayers Doug Marshall, Simon Campbell, Robert Abrams and Tim Daly filed a lawsuit asking that Pennsbury School Boards speech policies be deemed unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs are suing the school district, school board and the districts solicitors, Michael Clarke and Peter Amuso.

Equity, diversity and education director Cherrissa Gibson is also named as a defendant in the federal lawsuit.

Filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the suit claims Pennsbury repeatedly violated the First Amendment through its previous censorship of public school board meetings.

Each individually named defendant has either perpetuated the censorship of plaintiffs speech, personally directed that censorshipor exhibited actual knowledge of and acquiescence in the censorship, the court document reads, claiming Gibson acted as a prime ringleader.

Last spring,Pennsbury came under fire for its restricting and editing of certain public comments from its school board meetings.

Comments from the plaintiffs were cut short and removed from recordings of the public meetings, with the school board citing a violation of Pennsbury School Board Policy 903. The edited videos were then posted on district social media.

(The defendants) have done everything from shouting down citizens who dare question the official narrative; conspired to silence and denounce dissenters; and even memory holed speech based on its viewpoint, deleting speech from public records as though it was never spoken, the document stated.

Related: Pennsbury cut public comments in BOE meeting videos. When a resident blasted the move, it went viral.

In March and May, the comments of Marshall, Abrams and Daly were cut from the uploaded versions of the school board meetings, with the comments in May alsocut short during their live comments.

Following the March meeting,Gibson calledMarshalls commentsoffensiveandabusive" via emails obtained via Right-to-Know requests.

She asked that the comments, focused on diversity, equity and inclusion and critical race theory,be removed frompublic record as a Policy 903 violation.

Campbells fiery speech at the June meeting denouncing Pennsburys editing of the meetings gained national attention and his video went viral.

CRT talks in Pennsbury: Pennsbury equity and diversity plan again bashed as critical race theory agenda

Read more: Three Pennsbury parents sue school district over COVID-19 masking requirements

The 65-page lawsuit documentreferences Policy 903, part of which says the presiding officer can interrupt or stop a public comment if thestatement "is personally directed, abusive, obscene or irrelevant.

Defendants have also interpreted Policy 903 to allow them to excise such speech from the official recordings of Pennsbury School Board meetings, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs also called out the school board for editing the policy in June. Prior to that, speakers during both pre-vote and post-vote comment periods werent limited to discussing only agenda items.

At the June 17 meeting, the board updated the rule. Now, speakers during the first public comment period can only address agenda items and cant speak again during the second period about topics not on the agenda.

Thelawsuitalso claims the boards members dont believe public commenters have First Amendment protections, noting a March 2014 remark from Clarke to Abrams at a school board meeting.

The suit says Clarke had attempted to censor Abrams, speaking over him and declaring, you dont have First Amendment rights in here;this is public comment during a board meeting, and as Ive indicated before, if youre going to say things that are factually inaccurate, Im going to have to correct you.

The document cites several other instances where the plaintiffs felt Pennsbury was in violation of theFirst Amendment, including during the virtual meetings held during the pandemic.

The school board accepted written comments to be read at the online meetings during that period.

Daly asserts via the lawsuit that his criticism of the board for filling vacancies with controlled votes of members of their preferred political party was neither read or posted online at the Dec. 17, 2020 meeting.

Changes in Central Bucks: Divided Central Bucks School District board to choose new temporary member Tuesday

Abrams had also submitted a written comment that same meeting.

It accused the board of violating free speech and criticized Pennsburys academic and financial performance. The comment, like Dalys, was not read or posted online.

Pennsbury officials are trampling on the First Amendment rights of parents and residents to speak their mind about their schools, said Institute for Free Speechs vice president for litigation, Alan Gura, who is representing the plaintiffs.

Pennsbury'ssupervisor of public relations, Jennifer Neill, said as of Monday afternoon that the district had not yet been served with the lawsuit.

"We will respond appropriately through our solicitor if and when we are served," Neill said.

The rest is here:

Pennsbury hit with second lawsuit in two weeks. This one challenges censorship of board meetings - Bucks County Courier Times

By most accounts, Minamata is a pretty good movie. Its a dramatization of the story of real-life photojournalist W. Eugene Smith, who in 1971 was dispatched to the Japanese fishing village of Minamata to chronicle the impact of mercury poisoning by the Chisso Chemical Company.

What resulted was a shocking series of photographs that exposed the crime to the world, despite the company trying to block Smith at every turn. Ordinarily, this would be classic Oscar bait: a sober prestige picture about corporate greed with a heavyweight actor at the helm.

But, unfortunately for Minamata, that heavyweight actor is Johnny Depp. Depps reputation has crumbled over the last few years, particularly after the UK High Court ruled that it wasnt libelous to call him a wife-beater, promptly followed by him losing his appeal against the decision.

Minamatawas soon removed from festival schedules and director Andrew Levitas says MGM went out of their way to bury the movie in the US. Heres his letter to the studio:

In re-exposing their pain in the sharing of their story, this long marginalised community hoped for only one thing to lift history from the shadows so that other innocents would never be afflicted as they have and it seemed in that moment, with MGMs partnership, a decades-long wish was finally coming true. Now, imagine the devastation when they learned this past week, that despite an already successful global roll out, MGM had decided to bury the film (acquisitions head Mr. Sam Wollmans words) because MGM was concerned about the possibility that the personal issues of an actor in the film could reflect negatively upon them and that from MGMs perspective the victims and their families were secondary to this.

Australian photojournalist Stephen Dupont feels its particularly insulting that this story wont get the audience it deserves, saying that he enjoyed the movie, that the pain of the real-life victims of the poisoning has been ignored, and that MGM is engaged in censorship:

MGM is not just punishing Depp but everyone else, the other actors, the director, the cinematographer, writers, all those involved. Even if the allegations were true, I wouldnt change my opinion. With Depp what were talking about is a marriage breakdown, something that lots of people go through all around the world, the only difference is that theyre not celebrities. Its a sad state of censorship in a far too critical world where, god forbid, if you say or do anything the wrong way, or make a mistake, and youre crucified every which way. Lets get these things into perspective.

Its a fair point, though in my eyes theres a difference between saying something the wrong way and beating the crap out of your wife.

Anyway, theres a chance Minamata might one day get its moment in the spotlight. Depp is pinning his hopes on a titanic clash with ex-wife Amber Heard in 2022. Depp is suing Heard for $50M over a Washington Post op-ed she wrote about her experience as a victim of domestic violence. Shes filed a $100 million counterclaim, also alleging defamation and that Johnny was responsible for a social media effort to tarnish her career by getting her booted offAquaman 2.

Perhaps if Depp is vindicated in a domestic court he can begin rebuilding his reputation and Minamata will be reappraised by audiences. Though, honestly, I wouldnt get your hopes up too much.

See the rest here:

MGM Accused Of Censorship After Burying Johnny Depp's Latest Movie - We Got This Covered

The COVID-19 Pandemic has served the Democrats well. With a Karl Marx mentality, they agree with censorship of medical and legal professionals who disagree with the vaccine or how it should be administered. Seniors and those with other health issues should take the chance and get vaccinated. They are the ones dying in great numbers.

The vaccine proponents ignore those that are exempt, including congress, the senate, Hollywood actors, and Illegal immigrants, including millions in our sanctuary cities. We are not told all the ingredients in the vaccine or the side effects and not told why the manufacturers cannot be sued. Its the reason people like Bill Gates and now eight more new billionaires exist because Moderna, Pfizer and J&J are sure investments for them.

Tell us all the facts and dont censor anyone with the medical, scientific and legal credentials that dont agree with the likes of Biden, Fauci and their minions. With true transparency, we can choose to get our families vaccinated or not. Proponents claim the vaccine is safe. If true, make them liable, like with all other drugs. Then the distrust might dissipate. A simple solution that we should all agree on: Stop the censorship.

(Donald Siracusa is a Bay Terrace resident.)

Excerpt from:

Stop the vaccine censorship to gain our trust (letter to the editor) - silive.com

Sept. 30, 2021 4:27 pm ET

In Great Art Doesnt Care About Fairness, Equality or Identity (op-ed, Sept. 25), James Campbell writes, It is surely one of the strangest of recent cultural phenomena that, whereas it was traditionally young radicals who fought to throw off the shackles of censorship, it is their radical heirs who lead the campaign to fasten them on again.

There is nothing strange about it. Those young radicals of the 1960s to whom Mr. Campbell refers were not fighting for free speech. They were exploiting Americas commitment to free speech to spread their own radical leftist beliefs. Now that they have completed their long march through the institutions, giving them near-monopoly control of the propagation of ideas in the U.S., they find that freedom of speech has become something of an inconvenience. That pesky thing called truth keeps rearing its head. Better to stifle the opposition altogether. Welcome to the revolution.

The rest is here:

Censorship and the Possibility of Great Art - The Wall Street Journal

In a sweeping victory for free speech rights in cyberspace, the Supreme Court struck down the Communications Decency Act inReno v. ACLUin June 1997. The Court granted the highest level of First Amendment protection to the Internet, and cyber-activists are still dancing in the streets.

But is cyberspace really safe from the censors?

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, states are busy crafting censorship laws at home. At least thirteen states have passed legislationsince 1995. This year, New Mexico has already passed a draconian censorship law, and bills are pending in 10 other states.

Our state lawmakers need to understand the Internet -- not gag it.

This year the ACLU is fighting bills in the following states:

CaliforniaAssembly Bill 1793, sponsor Assembly Member Runner. Requires all public libraries that receive state funds to adopt a policy to prohibit minors from accessing harmful matter on Internet terminals at the library.

IllinoisAssembly Bill 2568, sponsor Assembly Member Novak. Makes it a felony to disclose on "an adult obscenity or child pornography site the name, address, telephone number, or e-mail address of a person under 18."

KansasSenate Bill 670, sponsor Senator Huelskamp. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software by all users on Internet terminals at state-funded public libraries, school districts, and state and local educational institutions, colleges and universities.

KentuckySenate Bill 230, sponsor Senator Karem. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software on Internet terminals at public schools.

MissouriSenate Bill 850, sponsor Senator Kenney. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software by all users on Internet terminals at public libraries.

New YorkAssembly Bill 5395, sponsor Assembly Member Mazzarelli. Criminalizes engaging in sexually explicit conversation with minors over the Internet.

Assembly Bill 6453, sponsor Assembly Member Klein. Requires all public libraries to establish a policy to restrict minors' Internet access to obscene materials.

OhioHouse Bill 565, sponsor Rep. Terwilleger. Criminalizes the dissemination of material on the Internet that is "harmful to minors."

Rhode IslandSenate Bill 2864, sponsor Senator Cicillino. Makes it a felony to transmit by computer "any notice, statement, advertisement, or minor's name, telephone number, [or] place of residence . . . for the purpose of engaging, facilitating, encouraging, offering, or soliciting unlawful sexual conduct and/or any felony or misdemeanor."

TennesseeHouse Bill 3353, sponsor Rep. Burchett. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software by all users on Internet terminals at public schools and libraries. Holds Internet service providers strictly liable for the dissemination of "obscene material, child pornography, or pornographic materials harmful to youth."

VirginiaHouse Bill 348, sponsor Rep. Marshall. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software by all users on Internet terminals at state-funded libraries. Imposes criminal penalties for communicating online material at libraries that is "harmful to minors."

California Assembly Bill 132, enacted 7/97.Sponsor: Rep. Bladwin.Requires schools to adopt an Internet access policy regarding student access to sites with material that is harmful to minors.

Connecticut House Bill 6883, enacted 6/95.Sponsor: House Committe on Judiciary.Creates criminal liability for sending an online message "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person."

Florida Senate Bill 156, enacted 5/96.Sponsor: Sen. Burt.Amends existing child porn law to hold owners or operators of computer online services explicitly liable for permitting subscribers to violate the law.

Georgia House Bill 1630, enacted 4/96.Sponsor: Rep. Don Parsons.Criminalized the use of pseudonyms on the Net, and prohibits unauthorized links to web site with trade names or logos. Overturned, in ACLU v. Miller

House Bill 76, enacted 3/95.Sponsor: Rep. Wall.Prohibits online transmission of fighting words, obscene or vulgar speech to minors, and information related to terrorist acts and certain dangerous weapons.

Kansas House Bill 2223, enacted 5/95. Expands child pornography statute to include computer-generated images.

MinnesotaHouse Bill 575/Senate Bill 585, enacted 7/97 (as part of the compromise education bill). Directs the Commissioner of Education to recommend computer software products to schools in order to block Intgernet access to speech that is indecnet or intended to promote violence.

Montana House Bill 0161, enacted 3/95. Expands child pornography statute to prohibit transmission by computer and posession of computer-generatged child pornographic images.

New MexicoSenate Bill 127, enacted 3/98. Criminalizes the transmission of communications that depict "nudity, sexual intercourse or any other sexual conduct." The ACLU has vowed to file a legal challenge to the law before it becomes effective on 7/1/98.

NevadaSenate Bill 13, enacted 7/97. Creates an action for civil damages against persons who transmit unsolicited advertising over the Internet.

New YorkSenate Bill 210E, passed 7/96.Sponsor: Sen. Sears; Rep. DeStito.Criminalized the transmission of "indecent" materials to minors. Overturned, inALA v. Pataki

OklahomaHouse Bill 1048, enacted 4/95.Sponsor: Rep. Perry.Prohibits online transmission of material deemed "harmful to minors."

House Concurrent Resolution 1097, passed 5/96.Sponsor: Rep. PaulkDirects all state agencies, including educational institutions, to remove all illegal obscene materials from their computer systems.

VirginiaHouse Bill 7, enacted 3/96.Sponsor: Rep. Marshall.Prohibits any government employee from using state-owned computer systems to send or access sexually explicit material. Overturned, inUrofsky v. Allen

Senate Bill 1067, enacted 5/95.Sponsor: Sen. CalhounExpands existing statute to criminalize electronic transmissions of child pornography.

Like the CDA, these state bills raise serious free speech concerns. They all overlook the unique nature of the online medium, and many censor speech that is protected by the Constitution for adults and older minors.

Laws that try to keep adult materials away from minors end up reducing all online content to that which is suitable for children -- the Supreme Court delclared this outcome unconstitutional inReno v. ACLU. Similarly, the use of blocking software at libraries prevents both adults and teenagers from getting access to valuable speech like sex education materials, abuse recovery discussions, and speech about lesbian and gay issues.

The draconian effect of state censorship bills doesn't stop at state borders. A message you post to the Internet today in New York City could travel the fifty states and the globe by tomorrow. You'd better be careful that the message isn't "indecent" in Oklahoma, "annoying" in Connecticut, or "vulgar" in Georgia.

These state laws pose a cumulative threat to online speech that may be even more powerful than the CDA, because every online user must comply with every state law -- or risk prosecution if their speech is accessed in a state that makes it illegal.

In addition to violating the First Amendment, many of these state censorship laws violate the Constitution's Commerce Clause because they criminalize online conversations that occur entirely outside the state's borders and burden interstate commerce. Earlier in this century, the Supreme Court struck down burdensome state laws that regulated the length of railway trains.

As the court recognized when striking down the NY censorship law inALA v. Pataki, the Internet is much like the railroad system, because it is used to transport speech and information all over the country. The New York law, like similar state laws, violated the Commerce Clause because it would have required a Texan who posts a web page or message to abide by New York standards, even if no one from New York ever saw the page or read the post.

The court inALA v. Patakiheld that internet users must be protected from "inconsistent legislation that, taken to its most extreme, could paralyze development of the Internet altogether."

The ACLU's nationwide network of local affiliate offices is ready and willing to counter state attacks on your right to speak freely online.

ALA v. Pataki: In a precedent-setting opinion, the court struck down a New York State online "indecency" law because it violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits states from regulating speech wholly outside their own borders and from imposing inconsistent state burdens on speakers.

ACLU v. Miller: This case struck down on free speech grounds a Georgia state law that made it a crime 1) to communicate anonymously or using a pseudonym on the Internet; 2) to create links to Web sites that use tradenames, trademarks, or logos.

Urofsky v. Allen: This case struck down a Virginia law that forbade state employees -- including university professors -- from using state-owned computers to access or transmit sexually explicit material.

See original here:

Online Censorship in the States | American Civil Liberties ...

Censorship is altering or blocking certain material from media, internet, and books. With the emergence of different communication technologies, this has been all-pervasive. This is applicable to various programs in plays, on television, print magazines, printed books, video games, movies and different things online. There are different disputes as to whether it more harmful than beneficial.

Censorship is common in modern societies, and it is also a very divisive issue. Many proponents think that the use of it will establish a balance in things that ought to be written and said, while opponents are criticizing on the foundation of threats that it poses to peoples right to speech. In this, it is important to explore its pros and cons to determine whether it is essential or not.

To help you determine the reason why people are supporting the issue, here are of its advantages you need to realize.

1. It prevents children from being exposed to offensive things like pornography and intense racism. There are various sensitive things that need to be kept from the innocent minds and eyes of children such as pornography and intense racism. Censorship is essential to do so. Racial hatred, terrorism, crime and others are international issues. This world would become a better place for people if these were censored indefinitely.

2. The surfeit of intense crime in TV and films is restricted by censorship. There are some sensitive topics or subjects that are not appropriate for people, especially to the children. Censorship restrains them from seeing such things and it protects the morals of the society. It also prevents violence through stopping broadcast of events that might trigger it. The prevention of public display of disrespect to community and individual is also one of most important things about censorship.

Censorship is advantageous but it also has several disadvantages that you need to take note of.

1. Intrudes upon the freedom of the press. The media has the right to disclose information that people needs to understand. Communities have complexities and flaws that need to be unveiled to many individuals but censorship does not allow them to do so. Limitations are set as to what kind of information they need to unearth which great intrudes upon the freedom of the press.

2. Freedom of Speech violation. Teenage audiences, artists and media corporations tend to believe that it is a freedom of speech violation. Many people think that it is a basic right of human to reveal their ideas in any way they want to. They also say that it violates the rights of people to obtain information. This is also viewed by some as a way for the government to control the flow of information.

Do you believe censorship is a way to control the information flow or is it a way to protect every individual? Individuals have different views regarding this issue, and this has been recognized as one of the most complex subjects to various people.

More:

Pros and Cons of Censorship | APECSEC.org

Disinformation, censorship, and propaganda are pillars of the Chinese Communist Partys grand strategy. CCP General-Secretary Xi Jinping has both added ballast to these capabilities as well as relied upon them even more to further his aims. Most recently, the Chinese Communist Party response to the COVID-19 pandemic shows us that disinformation, censorship, and propaganda are features, not bugs, of the CCPs system of government. A war on the truth is a central pillar of the CCPs strategy for survival.

In February 2016 on a tour of Chinese media outlets, Xi announced all the work by the partys media must reflect the partys will, safeguard the partys authority, and safeguard the partys unity. The job of Chinese media is not to inform the public and search for the truth. Rather, it is to report stories favorable to Xi and the party and censor those that are not.

The CCP has constructed a massive propaganda and censorship apparatus: it considers the truth to be dangerous. It does not want its citizens to know the extent of its corruption, its repression, its mismanagement of the economy, and of crises such as the current virus, the bird flu in 1997 and SARS in 2003. The below sample of a few organizations tasked with censorship and propaganda hints at how prominent a place these efforts hold in Chinas foreign and domestic policy:

1.The General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP) GAPP drafts and enforces restraint regulations;

2.State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television (SARFT) SARFT controls the content on radio, film, and TV aired in China;

3.Ministry for Information Industry (MII) MII regulates the Chinese telecommunication, software industries, and Internet related services;

4.State Council Information Office (SCIO) SCIO promotes Chinese media to a global audience and is also responsible for restricting news that is posted on the Internet;

5. Central Propaganda Department (CPD) CPD is the Party organ that works with GAPP and SARFT to monitor content;

6.Ministry of Public Security (MPS) MPS monitors and filters the Internet and punishes and detains those who speak out;

7. General Administration for Customs Customs collects books, videos, and other information that China does not want inside its borders; and

8. State Secrecy Bureau (SSB) SSB enforces state secrecy laws, which are often used to punish individuals who write undesirable content.

There are two major Internet censorship programs: The Great Firewall and the Golden Shield program. Both rapidly censor internet content produced within the Peoples Republic of China (PRC.) The PRC also seeks to assert new international legal prerogatives in the information domain, such as internet sovereignty, a concept that would give countries the right to control their domestic internet space, and data sovereignty, the idea that data is subject to the laws of the country where it was collected.

The PRC has proposed an International Code of Conduct on Information Security (with the support of the Russian Federation) to the United Nations that would put states in control of the Internet. These changes would not only significantly enhance the effectiveness of PRC control of the Internet, but also change the international rules governing it.

Chinese media portray specific criticisms the West has made against China, such as on human rights issues, as being anti-China, as if a story about the partys human rights abuses is an affront to all Chinese people. Recently, the Chinese propaganda machine has started manipulating Western sensibilities by calling any criticism of Chinese government actions racist against all Chinese. The goal is clear: to shut down such criticism.

Chinese media have long deliberately misrepresented events to attack the countrys perceived enemies. For example, during the 2008 Olympic Torch Relay, CCTV described all protestors in the West as Tibetan separatists and members of other anti-China groups who repeatedly assaulted torchbearers. This was simply not true. Almost all such protests were peaceful and joined by many different ethnic groups in the United States and other countries. The cause of religious and cultural freedom in Tibet has long been championed in the West.

More recently, China has accused the United States of sinister intentions after Congress passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019. Xinhua state news agency published a statement from the Hong Kong Liaison Office accusing Washington of supporting violence and instability. The truth is that Congress cares about the basic rights of Hong Kongers and about the CCP upholding its obligations. The CCP wants its people and targeted groups around the world to think that Hong Kong (like Taiwan) is simply an internal Chinese issue and that America acts imperialistically and with an unrelenting anti-Chinese bias.

The Chinese government monitors, harasses, and bans Western journalists who publish content portraying China in a negative light. Examples include:

1. China kicked threeWall Street Journalreporters out of the country afterThe Journalpublished an Op-Ed about China that spoke the truth about the risks Chinas system of government poses to the world;

2. China blocked access to The New York Timeswebsite afterThe Timespublished an article on party official Wen Jiabaos family wealth in 2012;

3. Bloomberg News self-censored an investigative report on the wealth of Princeling families to protect their journalists (or their bottom line); and

4. The arrest of Jimmy Lai, the founder ofApple Dailyand a Hong Kong media mogul, ostensibly for participating in an illegal assembly during the 2017 anti-government protests. This was meant to silence him (he too had just written a critical Op-Ed inThe Wall Street Journal) and his own paper as well as punish him for supporting pro-democracy movements.

The CCP has always used access to China as a key point of leverage to shape perceptions. For years before these arrests, China would blacklist scholars and analysts from entering the country if they were deemed to be anti-China. The CCP also uses physical intimidation to enforce censorship. Fifty-seven percent of respondents of a Foreign Correspondents Club of China survey reported some form of interference, harassment, or violence while attempting to report in China, and eight percent have reported manhandling or use of physical force. Twenty-six percent of respondents reported that Chinese government officials have harassed, detained, questioned, or punished their sources.

Not only does China target journalists and media in its territory, but the regime also has started to influence pop culture abroad. Beijing knows that its people have great admiration for American sports and pop culture icons. It therefore believes it must control with an extreme intensity what such figures might say. Two examples highlight the level of Chinese interference: Basketball and Hollywood.

The case of the National Basketball Association (NBA) in China is one of China using its market power to make Americans curtail their free speech. It began when Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted an image that read, Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong. This was during Hong Kongs demonstrations over its basic human rights.

The Chinese response was fast and furious: Chinese tech giant Tencent and state broadcaster CCTV suspended broadcasts of Rockets games, while other sponsors suspended relations with the team. Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta publicly rebuked his general manager. All-Star James Harden apologized for Moreys tweet. The NBA released a statement in Mandarin expressing disappointment in Morey.

Like many American businesses, the NBA is making billions of dollars in the China market, on viewership, digital ownership rights, merchandising, and individual player sponsorship. To be sure, the Chinese do not have absolute power in disputes like this. The Chinese people love the product, as they do so many American products, and the Chinese censorship apparatus backed off eventually. But still the episode shows the extent of Chinas censorship efforts. Indeed, the lure of the China market is the most powerful weapon the Chinese have in their fight to stave off any criticism of the regimes practices and abuses. The point was made; it is very unlikely that NBA stars or management will criticize China in the future.

Chinese censorship has also hit the heart of American entertainment in Hollywood. Americans have likely noticed the absence of Chinese villains or bad guys in American movies. No other country including our own is spared negative portrayals in film or television. Since China agreed to open its market to foreign films in 2012, Hollywood has had to make concessions to its Chinese censors. Producers and directors must coordinate with the Chinese government or lose access to the Chinese market. Films with Chinese characters portrayed poorly, such as Christopher Nolans Dark Knight, are not even submitted for approval in China.

As the writer Martha Bayles has chronicled, China believes that films are also a tool of the state and their content should align with the CCPs ideology. The forthcomingTop Gun: Maverick a sequel financed in part by the Chinese firm Tencentomitted the Japanese and Taiwanese flags from Tom Cruises jacket.

According to Bayles, in addition to the many censorship and propaganda organizations mentioned above, films now also have to pass muster with the State Ethnic Affairs Commission, the Ministry of Public Security, the State Bureau of Religious Affairs, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and numerous other bureaucratic entities.

China also has started to make blockbusters for its domestic market. Movies made for the China market are assertive in their portrayal of China as brave and righteous and America as weak and decadent.

Americas pop culture is one of its competitive advantages, enjoyed by billions across the globe. When repressed populations really begin to ask why America is so dominant in entertainment, they find the answer to be its freedom its free markets, its innovative and creative culture. If China can co-opt and silence cultural icons, people will lose faith in the power of these ideas.

A key effort of Chinese grand strategy is to break U.S. alliances. Chinese state media consistently attacks American allies as being economically dependent on the United States and highlights fragility in the relationships. Japan is a frequent target.China Dailyhas also described Britain as currying favor with the United States because it has no choice after it leaves the European Union. Other themes include the loss of sovereignty to America and economic dependency on the United States. These themes come up in both Chinese and English-language articles and Op-Eds in media outlets such as China.com, Xinhua,China Daily, andGlobal Times,and are shared on social media.

We know that COVID-19 is far more widespread than it otherwise would have been as a result of Chinas censorship. We know that Li Wenliang, Xu Zhangrun, Chen Qiushi, Fang Bin, and countless other doctors, journalists, and activists who spoke out and tried to tell the truth about the seriousness of the virus and inept response were silenced, arrested and intimidated.

The CCP also attempted to censor critical early research on the virus. On January 1, after labs returned the first batches of genome sequence results to health authorities, the Hubei Provincial Health Commission ordered at least one company to stop testing, stop releasing test results, and destroy existing samples of the coronavirus. Two days later, Chinas National Health Commission ordered all institutions to stop publishing on the new coronavirus and ordered coronavirus samples to be either transferred to designated labs or destroyed. The laboratory that first sequenced the COVID-19 genome was closed for rectification on January 12, the day after the team published its genome sequence results on open platforms.

Finally, authorities are continuing their usual practice of shutting down any criticism or negative portrayals of the government. Censors closed down WeChat groups and social media discourse, punished individuals, and removed articles that portray the government response in a negative way. The Chinese government censored Fang Fang, an award-winning writer based in Wuhan, who blogged a diary account of her experience during the lockdown. Her writing described deserted landscapes, overcrowding of hospitals, mask shortages, and government incompetence. The state-run press criticized her diary as biased and only exposes the dark side in Wuhan.

Not only did the CCP silence the truth, it also pushed false narratives about an influenza epidemic in the United States, criticized the United States for [creating] chaos and [spreading] fear with travel restrictions, and lied about hospital construction. Zhao Lijian, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, promoted a conspiracy theory that the U.S. Army brought the coronavirus to Wuhan. The United States wasnt the only country the CCP falsely accused of starting the virus. AWeibopost claiming that the coronavirus was in Italy in late November, before the outbreak in Wuhan, went viral and reached over 490 million views as of March 24. The intent of this disinformation was not necessarily to make people believe in a particular story, but to sow general discord around discussions about the origins of the virus. This indicates an increasing sophistication in the CCPs disinformation techniques.

Strategic approaches to Chinas mass use of censorship, propaganda, and disinformation can be broken up into two categories: Chinas targeting of its own people and Chinas external efforts. There are offensive and defensive measures we can take. Remember, the CCP relies upon lies to stay in power.

First, the United States should substantially ramp up its own Chinese-language efforts (we have the broadcasting institutions already) to tell the truth to the Chinese people about how they are governed. The truth should be revealed about public health, the environment, corruption, and injustice. We should place ourselves on the side of the Chinese people and help them discover the truth that could better their lives. Obviously, Xis regime will try to block all such efforts. But multimedia campaigns in Chinese make their way into China. Censorship is a cat and mouse game, and the regime needs to spend ever-greater resources to stop its people from learning the truth. When the United States Information Agency (USIA) operated, we had career paths for those who wanted to be information officers or even information warriors. We need that again.

The State Departments Global Engagement Center (GEC) can fill this gap if properly funded and staffed with Mandarin-speakers. Such efforts should tell Americas story in Chinese. Public diplomacy together with multimedia campaigns should explain and persuade we need to tell the story of why Americans support basic democratic values in Hong Kong and Taiwan and how we would do so in China as well. We need not be defensive about our foreign policy.

Second, we should pass proposed legislation enabling the United States to do a better job of highlighting the origin of political ads, particularly from foreign sources. We also should disclose the origin of content of social and other media from countries we have deemed rivals or enemies in our national security documents.

Third, we should set up a center for excellence in combatting disinformation in Taiwan. Taipei faced down an onslaught during its past election. Many countries, including our own, can learn from it. And Taiwan is a Mandarin-speaking country that knows what messages work in Chinese and in Chinese culture.

Fourth, congressional and administration leaders can do a better job in our own country explaining the nature of Chinese human rights abuses and censorship. Pressure should be put on U.S. entertainment figures who bend to CCP dictates they will likely face a backlash among American followers and customers if the public is more informed about Chinas abuses.

Fifth, Congress can continue to help set industry standards and best practices that guide social media companies in information sharing with each other and with the private and public sectors. This should include disclosing automated accounts, providing the locational origin of content, and providing users with more context when they see certain content.

Sixth, the administration should be encouraged to accelerate and broaden efforts to designate Chinese state controlled media companies as foreign agents who need to register as such, and to make sure that journalists working for such entities are not credentialed as journalists. Congress could help by publishing and disseminating easily digestible information on Chinas mass censorship and media control system. The American people should know exactly where their information on China is coming from and who is paying for it.

For the CCP, the truth is dangerous. The party cannot allow its citizens to know that it makes grievous mistakes that lead to sickness and death within China, that freedom and democracy work in Taiwan and in the West, that Hong Kongers are demanding their basic freedoms, that the United States is a force for good in the world.

Beijing cannot admit any failures of governance, from mismanagement of the viral outbreaks to a starkly slowing economy. The CCP has been struggling for legitimacy and a raison detre since it began allowing markets to function (and thus undermined Maoism) and certainly since its violent crackdown on protestors in Tiananmen Square in 1989. It now coerces its people to accept its legitimacy and needs to protect itself in a web of lies. And, since President Xi has also set very ambitious geopolitical goals for his country to rejuvenate and return to its rightful place as the Middle Kingdom, CCP propaganda targets the United States. It does so by its influence over movies in which the United States is portrayed as declining and decadent and in its media portrayal of America as greedy and overbearing.

While the CCP has a vast apparatus to control information, arguably its most powerful tool is its market size. The economy may be slowing but the consumer market is still very large. The CCP will threaten U.S. media and entertainment companies with loss of market and financing if they deviate from the CCP party line. We need to break down and publicize as much as possible the specific entities that propagate the CCPs ideological line and stop treating Chinese media as anything but foreign agents.

Read more:

Chinas censorship, propaganda & disinformation | American ...