Letter to the Editor: The institutional censorship of SGA – The Butler Collegian

Graphic by Corrina Riess.

A NOTE FROM THE EDITORS: This letter to the editor was published by The Butler Collegian after fact-checking. The opinions contained in this letter are those of the author. The Butler Collegian is committed to sharing diverse viewpoints from across the university and is committed to upholding values of free speech, but does not endorse or promote opinions contained within any letter to the editor.

There was nothing but excitement and optimism when I started my SGA position. Ive always wanted to be an advocate for the student body and naively thought that getting involved in SGA was the way to do it. However, this past year has shown me the faade of SGAs power and role on campus. Ive felt a moral obligation to share the egregious amount of control and censorship that the Butler administration has over student government, and the past week has been without a doubt a glaring sign to do so.

First and foremost, Id like to apologize to my fellow students. A student government is supposed to listen to students voices, and in turn, represent those voices at a higher level where all students cannot be present. What a student government is not supposed to do is stand idly by as students voices are silenced. SGA has failed to support the student body on countless occurrences, most recently involving the event, The Joint Struggle and Collective Liberation: A Conversation with Angela Davis, where the prominent civil rights activist was supposed to speak.

The administrations control over SGA is evident through our lackluster public statements. The purpose of an SGA statement is to communicate the student viewpoint to the whole university to declare, This is where we stand. Time and time again, SGA has released statements that have not accurately reflected the student body, but rather reflected the administrations oppressive agenda. In the past academic year, conversations regarding race and mental health are prime examples.

The statements are first constructed by the SGA executive branch members and their advisors. Based on the severity of the controversy, the higher-up administration intervenes to make sure the message fits their mold. This manipulative last step of revisions is absolutely unacceptable because it takes away the true student voice during the final decisions.

Rewind. Read that again: they have the power to edit out the student voice.

So, what actual power does SGA have on campus?

The administration acts as if we are able to change things on campus. They flaunt the fact that Butler was founded by an abolitionist, but has failed to pursue such a bold and progressive mission. Supporting abolition in 1855 was controversial. Allowing anyone but white men to receive an education in 1855 was controversial.

Fast forward to the 21st century: whenever anything remotely controversial occurs, the administration hides behind vague statements and pressures SGA to follow suit. As an SGA member, this is incredibly frustrating because these statements are an extension of the administration instead of being a vessel for the students. Even if SGA wanted to release a statement that goes against the administration, there would be a chain of punishment delivered, working itself down to whoever started it.

We saw this unfold most recently with the Angela Davis event. When the administration canceled the event, they immediately started looking for ways to point fingers and shift the blame onto someone else. The statement that SGA pushed out was heavily censored, and as always, followed the administration to solidify their stance as the end-all-be-all truth.

Butler encourages students to go outside their comfort zones and ways of thinking. How hypocritical.

They take our student government, which is supposed to represent a diverse student body, and filter it through with their close-minded beliefs.

I understand students anger and frustration towards SGA, and I challenge you as the reader to see the deeper, much scarier truth: SGA is the result of a control-hungry administration that is terrified of any opposition, and they are desperately trying to hide the strings they pull. To realize SGA has no real power on campus is a hopeless truth to wrap your head around. As an SGA member it is certainly discouraging, and I can no longer choose to ignore it.

The question comes again: what do students actually need?

Students need a representative body thats empowered by the genuine promise of an institution concerned with the student experience.

SGA has the potential to fulfill this vision. Our first steps are to acknowledge the stark contrast between the students priorities and the administrations agenda. Demanding a real seat at the table may seem daunting when the true people in power are faceless to the student body. These demands should not be seen as extremes or over-asks, as these are already the mere standards at other universities.

Uncovering the truth behind the postponement of the Angela Davis event speaks to our power. I encourage you to keep challenging the administrations actions and exercise your right to express your opinions.

I hope one day the university can acknowledge students concerns with intentional validation, leading to a progressive environment that fulfills the mission statement of stimulating an intellectual community built upon interactive dialogue.

This letter to the editor was written by an anonymous source who is involved in SGA.

Related

See more here:

Letter to the Editor: The institutional censorship of SGA - The Butler Collegian

Editorial: What censorship is and isn’t | Editorials | timesnews.net – Kingsport Times News

Editors note: Guest editorials may not necessarily reflect the opinion of the newspaper. The following is from Thomas L. Knapp, director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism

Some words carry emotional force such that using them creates an immediate negative reaction on the part of the listener or reader. That makes such words useful until they get overused and misused so much that they cease to have the effect.

Lately, the trending creep people out to get them on my side word of choice is censor or censorship. Most of us support free speech. None of us wants to be censored ourselves, and most of us dont want others censored either.

But what do those words mean? To censor (verb), according to Oxford Dictionaries, is to examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.

A censor (noun) is an official who examines material and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Implicit in both those definitions is that censorship is an act of the state, backed by force of law and if necessary the physical force of government agents.

Ive often explained censorship this way:

If I tell you that you may not sing Auld Lang Syne or I will send police to break up the performance and haul you off to jail, I am censoring (or at least attempting to censor) you.

If I tell you that you may not sing Auld Lang Syne on my front porch at 3 a.m. and by the way get off my porch, its 3 in the morning, I am not censoring you. Youre still free to sing the song anywhere else and any other time, just not on my property while Im trying to sleep.

Which maps neatly, I think, to Twitter and Facebook deciding who gets to post what on their platforms. They cant stop you from using other platforms to say whatever it is they dont want you to say.

It maps less neatly to Apple, Google and Amazon colluding to destroy one of those other platforms (Parler), seemingly on behalf of government officials who think its their business who says what and where. Thankfully, Parler survived and returned, but weve definitely got some edge cases going that certainly at least resemble censorship, and that I was admittedly somewhat asleep at the switch on until that wake-up call.

Recently, Ive had to add a third example to my explanation, though. Some friends of mine very libertarian friends, in fact recently held that Dr. Seuss Enterprises is censoring books it chooses not to publish. So, explanation of censorship, part three:

If I choose not to sing Auld Lang Syne myself, Im not censoring the song.

When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty tells Alice in Lewis Carrolls Through the Looking Glass, it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.

There seems to be a lot of Humpty Dumpty usage of the word censorship lately. If were not careful, abusing it to mean anything I dont like may drain it of its rightful argumentative power and leave us in the grip of the real thing.

The rest is here:

Editorial: What censorship is and isn't | Editorials | timesnews.net - Kingsport Times News

ESPNs Mina Kimes Has a Stunning Admission About Censorship and Her Work Process – Sportscasting

Few ESPN figures have seen their stars rise more in recent years than Mina Kimes.

Kimes has gone from a writer for ESPNs website to a frequent face on shows likeAround The HornandHighly Questionable. As ESPN moves full-steam ahead into the 2020s, the network has made Kimes a vital part of its future.

Not all has gone well for Kimes away from the camera, though, and shes begun opening up on how social media has changed her career.

RELATED: Mina Kimes Wasnt Sure If the Jared Porter Story Would Ever See the Light of Day

The internet is responsible for Mina Kimes success at ESPN, especially considering that she earned a job there in large part because of a Tumblr essay.

Still, Kimes has some issues with the digital space, particularly those who harass others on social media.Julie DiCaro, a senior editor at Deadspin, recently releasedSidelined: Sports, Culture, and Being a Woman in America. DiCaro spoke with Kimes and other women in sports media for a chapter discussing internet trolls.

At one point during their conversation, Kimes admitted that she censors her social media posts, particularly those regarding domestic violence in sports.

I constantly question how much time and energy I should devote to this stuff. Theres so much positivity [online] and excited engagement and theres so much good, but the negative can really ruin your day and make it hard to do your job. And I dont think anyones quite figured out the right answer how to deal with this.

As Kimes acknowledged, the decision to censor her online commentary has an adverse effect on how she covers the NFL. ESPN promoted Kimes to a full-time NFL analyst role in June 2020, and she is expected to discuss serious topics that have nothing to do with on-field play.

Domestic violence is not all that Kimes is avoiding discussing. A quick glance at Kimes Twitter timeline reveals that she has not tweeted about the Deshaun Watson situation. Watson is currently involved in a scandal where over 20 women have accused him of inappropriate sexual conduct.

RELATED: Mina Kimes Doesnt Have a Master Plan for Her Sports Broadcasting Career: I Never Aspired to Be on TV

It isnt hyperbole at his point to say that Mina Kimes represents the future for ESPN.

In addition to appearing onGet UpandNFL Live, she hosts The Mina Kimes Show football podcast. Kimes previously wrote feature stories forESPN The Magazine.

ESPN thought highly enough of Kimes to make her a full-time NFL analyst last year. Historically, many of the networks NFL analysts have been ex-coaches or players. Kimes is neither and has never worked for an NFL franchise.

RELATED: Stephen A. Smith Fires Back at Blake Griffin After Griffins Recent Comments: Aint Nobody Scared of Blake Griffin

Mina Kimes isnt alone in finding ways to avoid trolls on social media.

Julie DiCaro, who spoke with Kimes forSidelined, admitted in her book that shell still protect her Twitter account at times. Sam Ponder, Kimes ESPN colleague, has long dealt with trolls on her Twitter page.

Ponder challenged her critics in 2017, particularly those who wrote about her appearance. Ponder was pregnant when she appeared on television that spring.

Getting sexist/vulgar tweets abt my job/appearance while Im unable to see my own feet & covered in toddler pee is somethin else I tell ya, Ponder wrote.

Others, including Foxs Joe Buck, have engaged Twitter users in full force. Buck famously trolled viewers during the 2015 MLB playoffs who complained about his alleged bias against certain teams.

Like Sportscasting on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter @sportscasting19.

Read the rest here:

ESPNs Mina Kimes Has a Stunning Admission About Censorship and Her Work Process - Sportscasting

Censorship of blog post ‘proves Tories are terrified of independence’ – The National

THE deletion of a blog post which talked up the economic prospects of Scottishindependencehas sparked further alarm calls about the Tory government endangering freedom of speech.

The SNP have condemned Downing Street suppression and say the episode underlines that Boris Johnsons administration is terrified of growing support for a Yes vote.

It comes after a high-profile scientist warned the removal of the article, co-authored by a UK Government adviser, spelled danger for academic freedoms.

Published on the London School of Economics (LSE) website, the blog was co-written by Geoffrey Chapman, who works with the Department for International Trade. The analysis concluded that there are no reasons to suggest an independent Scotland would not succeed economically.

The article was removed on April 1, shortly after The National published a story on it. On April 2, a message appeared on the website stating: We have been asked by the authors to take this article down temporarily. We will be making it available again as soon as we are able to and apologise for any inconvenience caused. As of yesterday, it was not available.

READ MORE: UK adviser's blog post arguing Scotland could thrive after indy is deleted

Downing Street has not denied that it ordered the deletion, stating only: This is not the view of the Department for International Trade or the UK Government, and the matter is being looked into. Officials stressed that Chapman is a civil servant who is duty-bound to adhere to standards of impartiality and integrity.

But the SNP have now voiced concerns about the incidents implications for democracy in the UK.

SNP candidate for Paisley, George Adam, told The National: This is a chilling glimpse into the mind of a UK Tory government which doesnt even deny that it is trying to curtail academic freedom by censoring these views. But all they have succeeded in doing is demonstrating how terrified Boris Johnson and his colleagues are at rising support for Scottish independence.

There are only so many times the Tories at Westminster can try and hide the reality of a prosperous and fair independent Scotland. The report by Geoffrey Chapman highlighted how Scotland needs the full powers of independence to maximise our potential.

But the serious questions this episode raises serious questions about protecting freedom of speech will not go away. In a free democracy, people should be allowed to express their opinions and suppression like this tells you everything you need to know about Boris Johnsons government.

The SNPs intervention follows that of Dr Mike Galsworthy a visiting researcher at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and co-founder of Scientists for EU. He expressed fears about academic freedoms being suppressed and warned the paranoid behaviour of the UK Government was a particular threat to Scotland.

He said: There are an increasing number of areas where we should have the capacity for free and open debate and democracy where we are not getting it in the UK as a whole and I think theres a danger of seeing that more acutely in Scotland.

He added: Given the behaviour of the Government under the control of the Conservative Party ... I would say that democracy of the Scottish people is under threat. It will take a very robust rearrangement of some sort in order to set that right.

The National has so far been unable to reach Chapman or his co-author Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott, for comment.

Link:

Censorship of blog post 'proves Tories are terrified of independence' - The National

India abolishes film certification appeals body without warning, experts say move will lead to more censorship – Malay Mail

The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) helped the 2017 acclaimed Hindi film Lipstick Under My Burkha to be screened after an initial ban. Screengrab from YouTube

Subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on news you need to know.

KUALA LUMPUR, April 9 Indian filmmakers will now have to appeal certification decisions to the High Court after the federal government quietly scrapped the countrys censorship appellate tribunal.

The Information and Broadcasting ministrys Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) is where filmmakers would go when they disagree with Indias main film certification body.

The new order which was passed on Easter Sunday on April 4, sees the Cinematograph Act amended where the words Appellate Tribunal have been substituted with High Court.

According to Variety, the decision was made under the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Bill which was introduced in the Indian parliament on February 13, 2021 and established emergency powers.

The bill could not be debated in parliament as it is not in session now.

Indian president Ram Nath Kovind said he is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, adding that the order will come into force at once.

The decision isnt good news for filmmakers and Bollywood isnt happy with the removal of FCAT.

The appeals body helped feminist films such as 2017s Lipstick Under My Burkha overturn a ban after it was described as lady oriented, their fantasy above life by Indias Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

Filmmakers Hansal Mehta (Aligarh), Vishal Bhardwaj (Omkara) and Guneet Monga (The Lunchbox) have voiced their disappointment on social media, calling it a sad day for Indian cinema.

Mehta pointed out that many filmmakers wont have the financial means to take their appeal to court.

Legal experts say the move to transfer the appeals process to the judiciary could increase delays for filmmakers waiting for clearance.

The new order could also lead to more censorship, Internet Freedom Foundation lawyer and executive director Apar Gupta told the Indian news site The Print.

This move is likely to increase delay, costs and indeterminacy for filmmakers who earlier approached the tribunal for relief Gupta said.

Supreme Court advocate Divya Kesar spoke of the counterproductive effect of the order, saying that a tribunal equates to quicker disposal of justice.

Removal of FCAT will lead to an invariable delay and will make it a long drawn process for filmmakers and actors.

This will lead to stalling and could indirectly lead to more censorship for the film industry.

One will be discouraged to try new things in movies and documentaries as the mechanism that existed for a long time a specialised tribunal for specific purposes the FCAT has been abolished, Kesar added.

Over in Europe, Italy officially abolished its film censorship policy that has been around since 1913.

The state will no longer be allowed to ban films over religious, moral or political reasons.

Instead, filmmakers will be given the liberty to classify their own films based on current audience age brackets.

Film censorship has been abolished, culture minister Dario Franceschini said in a statement on Monday.

The system of controls and interventions that still allow the state to intervene in the freedom of artists has been definitively ended."

See the original post:

India abolishes film certification appeals body without warning, experts say move will lead to more censorship - Malay Mail

50 Years On, Pakistan Continues To Censor 1971’s War Of Liberation – Themississippilink

LAHORE, Pakistan The cancellation of an event in Pakistan commemorating Bangladeshs 50 years of independence has precipitated the debate around Pakistans acknowledgment of war crimes.

Pakistans Lahore University of Management Sciences and National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, had organizedthe online eventtitled War, Violence & Memory: Commemorating 50 Years of the 1971 War from March 23 to 27.

The organizers did not point out the reasons for the cancellation of the event. When approached,Ali Usman Qasmi, historian and professor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, told Zenger News he would issue a statement.

The statement is yet to come.

The cancellation of the conference shows that even after half a century, the structure of power feels so threatened by the mention of past mistakes that it will not risk listening to criticism, linguistic historian Tariq Rahman, author ofLanguage and Politics in Pakistanand a slated panelist at the canceled event, told Zenger News.

The past has told me that unless countries nation-states do not move away from their notions of national interest and sovereignty, things will not change. I have little hope despite some positive gestures, Tariq said.

While actions on the part of the state and non-state actors have combined to enhance censorship, making certain debates increasingly tricky, the events of 1971 continue to rank near the top of the list of themes largely under the states grip.

In 1971, erstwhile East Pakistan gained independence to become Bangladesh after a liberation movement led by the countrys founding father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

The leaders of the movement accused Pakistan (then West Pakistan) of appropriating its eastern territorys resources, denying the locals basic human rights, and curtailing the democratic rights of the citizens.

The events of the winter of 1970 reached their epoch when Bangladesh Awami Leaguetriumphed in the December elections. Pakistans military dictator Yahya Khan and Pakistan Peoples Party leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto refused the transition of power. The already resonating calls for freedom exploded into a formal announcement in March 1971.

The West Pakistan military launchedOperation Searchlightin East Pakistan. India intervened, which it claimed was on appeals from Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and considering humanitarian violations, while Pakistan accused India of fanning separatism.

The intervention turned into a war between the neighbors, which Pakistan lost. The mayhem ended when thePakistan Army signed the instrument of surrenderin Dhaka on Dec. 16, 1971.

Bangladeshi authoritiesmaintainthat the Pakistan Army and their accomplices killed at least three million Bengalis and raped over 200,000 women. Multiple independent researchers have established the death toll at between 500,000 and three million, making Operation Searchlight a perpetration of genocide.

But, the narrative in Pakistan concerning the events from 1971 is a stark contrast.

Based on figures from the Armysgeneral headquarterspublished in theHamoodur Rahman Commission Report, the immediate Pakistani claim asserted that only 26,000 people died in military action in 1971.

Distortion of memory and attempts of historical revisionism

The narrative still taught in Pakistani schools holds the Bengalis largely local Hindus responsible for falling into an Indian trap designed to divide Pakistan.

For instance, the Grade IX-X textbooks approved by Pakistans Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. The books maintain that East Pakistan had a very big Hindu population, which had deep pro-India sympathies making the province vulnerable to secessionism and dismemberment.

Multiple historians have narrated how Bengali Hindus were the Pakistan Armys primary target, with rulers in West Pakistan, especially the military, accusing them of espionage.

InThe Blood Telegram, a book based on memos from then American Consul General to Dhaka Archer Blood, author Gary J. Bass describes the singling out of Hindus and mass burning of Hindu settlements in Bangladesh. Hindus also constituted the vast majority of the over eight million Bengalis who fled to India in 1971.

Pakistan must acknowledge that the Army at the time, and the government, perpetrated genocide, Munshi Faiz Ahmad, director-general, Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies and former ambassador to China, told Zenger News.

That is what will bring closure. This closure is essential if we wish to take the relations forward.

With Pakistans founding Two-Nation Theory that Muslims and Hindus were two separate, mutually antagonistic, nations that cant coexist still being taught in the country, coupled with the Armys self-imposition as the guardians of ideological frontiers, historians believe that acknowledging the past would translate into a shakeup of the status quo.

TheInternational Crimes Tribunal,set up by Bangladesh in 2009 to try war criminals from 1971, sentenced 11 people affiliated with the Jamaat-e-Islami, the largest Islamist party in Bangladesh, to death between 2012 and 2014. Islamabad issued condemnations against Dhakas trial of war criminals.

We were trying the perpetrators of crimes against humanity the Bangladeshis who sided with the government and Pakistan condemned these trials. This was too much. This destroyed the working relationship, said Ahmad.

Building normalcy and mending ties

Despite Pakistans lack of acknowledgment of the 1971 war crimes, Islamabad and Dhaka found some semblance of bilateral normalcy following Bangladeshs creation.

The Zulfikar Ali Bhutto-led government recognized Bangladesh in 1974, as Sheikh Mujibur Rahman attended theOrganization of Islamic Conferencesummit in Lahore. In his Bangladesh visit that year, Bhutto regretted the crimes committed in 1971.

Military dictator Pervez Musharraf offered a similar statement in Dhaka in 2002. However, the extent of the crimes, let alone genocide, has never been acknowledged by Islamabad.

The crimes committed by Pakistan Army do not make all of Pakistan complicit. Pakistan needs to make that distinction as well. Unfortunately, anyone who comes to power in Pakistan becomes a party to [the state narrative], Ahmad said.

However, the past year or so has seen a resumption of progressive diplomatic engagement between Islamabad and Dhaka.

Last year, the two prime ministers Sheikh Hasina and Imran Khan, held a telephone conversation, with Hasina extending an invitation to visit Bangladesh. On March 23, Hasina wrote to Khan on Pakistans Republic Day, with the latter reciprocating the gesture on March 26, to offer congratulations on Bangladeshs Independence Day.

Despite the opening of channels toward bilateral cooperation, analysts maintain that a strong foundation in Pakistan-Bangladesh relations can only be laid when Islamabad formally acknowledges the crimes of 1971.

50 years on, 1971 in many ways remains unspeakable in Pakistan, Anam Zakaria, educator, historian, and the author of1971: A Peoples History from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India, told Zenger News.

Efforts to challenge this selective remembering and forgetting are often met with a stifling resistance.

Zakaria believes Pakistan must introspect and acknowledge the violence against Bengalis and the ethnic minorities who fought for Bangladeshs independence.

The denial of violence after committing violence is another form of violence, she said.

Analysts further maintain that such course correction on the part of Islamabad is necessary for closure and progress with Dhaka and readdress the treatment of many dissenting voices and disenfranchised within the country such as the Baloch, Pashtun, and other ethnic groups.

This is not only essential for those who have suffered unimaginable pain in Bangladesh but also because the otherization, demonization, and marginalization process of other communities continues in Pakistan, Zakaria said.

(Edited by Gaurab Dasgupta and Amrita Das. Map by Urvashi Makwana)

Go here to read the rest:

50 Years On, Pakistan Continues To Censor 1971's War Of Liberation - Themississippilink

Man Who Tried to Marry His Laptop Wrote ‘Censorship’ Bill for Missouri Rep – Riverfront Times

This story was originally published by the Missouri Independent.

During a recent hearing on his bill to establish the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, state Rep. Jeff Coleman repeatedly referenced experts sitting behind him in the audience who would be better able to address questions about the legislations legality.

The first of these experts to testify was Chris Sevier, an Iraqi war veteran, Tennessee attorney and advocate who has pushed anti-LGBTQ and anti-porn legislation in statehouses across the country and was deemed a security concern in the Missouri Capitol two years ago.

Sevier may be best known for suing states that wouldnt recognize his marriage to his laptop a move to protest gay marriage. Hes also made headlines for past legal issues, including being charged with stalking and harassing country music singer John Rich and a 17-year-old girl.

Sevier later pleaded guilty to reduced charges of misdemeanor harassment.

In 2011, Seviers Tennessee law license was moved to disability inactive status due to being presently incapacitated from continuing to practice law by reason of mental infirmity or illness.

Meanwhile, Sevier has been connected to controversial legislative efforts across the country for years often leaving uneasy interactions in his wake.

Last month, Sevier was escorted by security out of the Oklahoma Capitol after an altercation with a lawmaker. Three years ago in Rhode Island, a state senator withdrew a bill pushed by Sevier, citing its dubious origins.

After Missouri Senate Administrator Patrick Baker sent an email to senators and staff with a photo of Sevier and the subject line security concern in 2019, Sevier filed a federal lawsuit against him alleging defamation. The lawsuit was dismissed the same month.

The Stop Social Media Censorship Act is the latest of his legislative initiatives to find its way to Missouri.

Social media posts and draft legislation uploaded online indicate Sevier has crafted versions of the bill, in addition to a handful of others, for all 50 states. Hes also been working to find lawmakers to sponsor his bills since the fall.

Coleman, R-Grain Valley, said Sevier first approached him in late October or early November after seeing Colemans public complaints about social media censorship.

The bill would allow Missourians whose political or religious speech is censored on large social media platforms to bring lawsuits against those companies. Opponents argue the legislation is unconstitutional and would impede platforms ability to remove objectionable content, while supporters say its necessary to give users a voice.

He asked me to carry that bill, and I agreed to it, Coleman said, later adding: In general, I think its a very good bill, because we have to figure out something in order to stop whats going on.

When reached by phone by The Independent Tuesday afternoon, Sevier said, You can kiss my ass, before hanging up.

Coleman, who was elected in 2018, said he had previously never heard of Sevier.

As a legislator, youve got so many things going on, so many bills youre trying to keep up with, you really dont have time to do a background check on someone, Coleman said.

But after learning of Seviers past following his testimony at last months committee hearing, Coleman said he is moving forward without Seviers input and working to refine the bill.

He seems like a nice enough guy. But theres enough out there thats a concern that we dont have him helping us anymore, Coleman said, later adding: We dont need those distractions, because this is an important issue. We want to make sure that thats the issue, not him.

Rep. Dottie Bailey, R-Eureka, is also sponsoring a version of the Stop Social Media Censorship Act. Bailey could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday.

Link:

Man Who Tried to Marry His Laptop Wrote 'Censorship' Bill for Missouri Rep - Riverfront Times

China violating Tibetans rights with heightened censorship, surveillance: CTA – Hindustan Times

Censorship and surveillance in Tibet have reached unprecedented levels further escalating the violation of the Tibetan peoples fundamental rights, president of Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) Lobsang Sangay said on Wednesday.

Sixty-two years ago, on this day (Tibetan National Uprising Day), thousands of Tibetans in Lhasa rose in unison to protest against occupying Chinese regime.

Heavily fortified in a digital cage, Sangay said, it is near impossible to get information out of Tibet.

This past January, we received news of the self-immolation protest by 26-year-old Shurmo from Driru Shagchukha village, five years after the event. This sheds light on the extent of information control and surveillance being carried out in Tibet, he said.

Sangay said that on December 24, 2020, authorities in the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) announced criminal prosecutions against individuals who use online communication tools to split the country and undermine national unity.

It is not surprising, the 52-year-old exiled leader said, that China has been listed as the worst internet abuser in the world in Freedom Houses 2020 report on internet freedom.

Similarly, China is ranked at the near bottom at 177th in the 2020 World Press Freedom Index, compiled by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), he said.

Today, Chinas tentacles have reached beyond Tibet by using its growing economic clout to jeopardise global democracy, according to Freedom House, added Sangay.

The political heir of the Dalai Lama said China conducts the most sophisticated, global, and comprehensive campaign of transnational repression in the world. It highlights the CCPs efforts to control and pressure Chinese citizens, he said, political dissidents and minority communities such as Tibetans, Uighurs and Hong Kong beyond its borders. The democracies around the globe must come together to thwart such assaults on global democracy.

Over a million Tibetans have lost their lives in the past six decades under Chinese rule. Today, we have come together to collectively mourn this loss, said the Tibetan leader.

But we are also here to mark the undaunted resilience of people in Tibet. Even under the threat of losing their lives, they continue to protest by protecting and preserving our language, our religion, our land, and our identity, he added.

The rest is here:

China violating Tibetans rights with heightened censorship, surveillance: CTA - Hindustan Times

Censorship Kills: The Shunning of a COVID Therapeutic – Fairfield Sun Times

DoctorsfightingCOVID-19 should be supported by their profession and their government, not suppressed. Yet today physicians are smothered under a wave of censorship. With coronavirus variants and vaccine hesitancythreatening a prolongedpandemic, the National Institutes of Health and the broader U.S. medical establishment shouldfreedoctors to treat this terrible disease with effective medicines.

For centuries, doctors haveaddressedemerging health threats by prescribing existing drugs for new uses, observing the results, and communicating to their peers and the public what seems to work. In a pandemic, precious time and lives can be lost by an insistence on excessive data and review. But in the current crisis,many in positions of authority havedone just that, stubbornly refusingtoallowany repurposed treatments. This departure from traditional medical practice risks catastrophe.When doctors on the front lines try to bring awareness of and use such medicines,they get silenced.

Ive experiencedsuchcensorship firsthand. Early in the pandemic,my research led me to testify in theSenatethat corticosteroids were life-savingagainstCOVID-19, when all national and international health care agencies recommended againstthem. My recommendations were criticized, ignored and resisted such that I felt forced to resign my faculty position. Only later did a large studyfrom Oxford Universityfindthey were indeed life-saving. Overnight, theybecame the standard of care worldwide. More recently, we identifiedthrough dozens of trialsthat the drug ivermectin leads to large reductions in transmission, mortality,and time to clinical recovery. After testifying to this fact ina second Senate appearance the video of which wasremoved by YouTubeafter garnering over 8 million views I was forced to leave another position.

I was delighted when our paper on ivermectin passed a rigorous peer review and was accepted byFrontiers in Pharmacology. The abstractwas viewedover 102,000times bypeople hungry for answers. Sixweeks later, the journalsuddenlyrejected the paper, based on an unnamed external expertwho stated that our conclusions were unsupported, contradicting the four senior, expert peer reviewers who hadearlieracceptedthem.I cant help but interpret thisin contextas censorship.

The science shows thativermectinworks. Over 40 randomized trials and observational studies from around the worldattestto its efficacy against the novel coronavirus. Meta-analyses by four separate research groups, includingours, found an average reduction in mortality of between 68%-75%. And 10 of 13 randomized controlled trials found statistically significant reductions in time to viral clearance, an effect not associated with any other COVID-19 therapeutic. Furthermore, ivermectin has an unparalleled safety record and low cost, which should negate any fears or resistance to immediate adoption.

Our manuscript conclusions were further supported bytheBritish Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Panel. Following the World Health Organization Handbook of Guideline Development, it voted to strongly recommend the use of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, and opined that further placebo controlled trials are unlikely to be ethical.

Even prior to the BIRD Panel recommendations, many countries have approved the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 or formally incorporated it into national treatment guidelines. Several have gone further and initiated large-scale importation and distribution efforts. In the last month alone, such European Union members as Bulgaria and Slovakia have approved its use nationwide. India, Egypt, Peru, Zimbabwe, and Bolivia are distributing it in many regions and observingrapid decreases in excess deaths. Increasing numbers of regional health authorities have advocated for or adopted it across Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa. And it is now the standard of care inMexico City,one of the worlds largest cities.

Its time to stop the foot-dragging. People are dying. The responsible physicians of this country, and their patients, need to be able to rely on their government institutions to quickly identify effective treatments, rather than waiting for pristine, massive Phase III trials before acting. At minimum, the NIH should immediately recommend ivermectin for treating and preventing COVID-19, and then work with professional associations, institutions, and the media to publicize its use. If it doesnt, the organization will lose credibility as a public institution charged with acting in the national interest and doctors will ignore its guidance in the future.

My story is not unique. Physicians across the country are fighting a pernicious campaign to denigrate all potential treatments not first championed by the authorities, and others have faced retaliation for speaking up. Sadly, too many of our institutions are using the pandemic as a pretext to centralize control over the practice of medicine, persecuting and canceling doctors who follow their clinical judgment and expertise.

Actually following the science means listening to practitioners and considering the entirety and diversity of clinical studies. Thats exactly what my colleagues and I have done. We wont be cowed. We will speak up for our patients and do whats right.

View post:

Censorship Kills: The Shunning of a COVID Therapeutic - Fairfield Sun Times

Is Amazon allowed to censor conservative books? – Deseret News

Editors note: The death of Rush Limbaugh, the growth of Newsmax and charges of censorship by Amazon and other book sellers are among the forces shaking up conservative media companies. In this three-part series, the Deseret News examines the challenges facing radio, television and book publishing, and how those challenges might affect the companies and you: the reader, listener and viewer.

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley lost a book deal. Harry Potter creator J.K. Rowling lost fans. And now, even as a prospective merger of two large publishing houses in the U.S. is rattling the industry, Amazon is deleting content it deems offensive from the worlds largest platform for book sales.

In this tumultuous landscape, can conservative authors still continue to speak freely and sell books?

Yes, publishers say, but they may have to change the way they do business in a culture newly cognizant of the power to cancel people with unpopular opinions.

We dont let it directly determine what we publish, but the fact is, with every book, there is always fear that the book is going to be pulled. The authors feel very vulnerable, said David Bernstein, publisher of Bombardier Books, a conservative imprint of Post Hill Press.

Conservative fears were realized this month when the book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, by Catholic scholar Ryan T. Anderson, vanished from the Amazon website three years after it was published.

Four Republican senators, including Utahs Mike Lee, called the action political censorship, saying in a letter to CEO Jeff Bezos that Amazon has openly signaled to conservative Americans that their views are not welcome on its platforms.

But the controversy over Andersons book is only the latest action troubling conservative writers and publishers. Others include the cancellation of a forthcoming Hawley book critical of technology companies by Simon & Schuster, protests against a new book by Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson, and an open letter signed by people in the publishing industry who say no one affiliated with former President Donald Trumps administration should get a book contract.

The tremors shaking book publishing usually go undetected by the public, since the average reader only pays attention to the book, its content and the author, not the company that publishes a book, said Thomas Spence, who became president and publisher of Regnery Publishing a year ago.

Regnery, founded in 1947, has published books by Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Malkin and Dennis Prager, among other conservatives well acquainted with controversy. Regnerys success was a major reason that the largest publishing houses in the U.S. established their own conservative imprints, publishing insiders say.

But the outcry against authors who express unpopular beliefs is growing louder in the environment known as cancel culture, and some writers are warning that recent events will effectively muzzle conservatives. The backlash to Amazons decision, however, suggests that the outlook for conservative publishing is still bright. Heres why.

Andersons book, described by author Rod Dreher as a well-written, scientifically informed critique of gender ideology by a leading Catholic public intellectual, is still for sale on the website of the publisher, Encounter Books, as well as on the Barnes & Noble website and other places online.

Anderson, who recently became president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., told Dreher, writing for The American Conservative, that he has sold a couple of thousand books in the past week, adding this is unheard of for a three-year-old book.

He noted that Amazons action came at the same time Congress was considering the Equality Act and suggested that Amazons action has a silver lining, which is this could be (the) further catalyst thatll interrupt the libertarian slumber of many conservatives and prompt them to think critically about what, for example, the natural law says about both the justification of and limits to economic liberties.

Author Abigail Shrier is not as optimistic. Shrier, a journalist whose book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, has been removed twice from the Target website, wrote that the Amazon case is dangerous because of the outsized influence the company wields in publishing.

As a direct result of Amazons action, many outstanding books will now go unwritten; they will not be commissioned whenever Amazons distribution is the slightest bit in doubt. As I write this, authors are being dropped by agents or politely refused representation, based on what the agents now know Amazon will not carry, Shrier wrote.

Shriers book, however, is still listed on Amazon, as is God and the Transgender Debate, an examination of what the Bible has to say about gender by Southern Baptist theologian Andrew T. Walker.

So is a take on Andersons book, Let Harry Become Sally, an e-book by Kelly R. Novak that Amazon billed last week as a #1 best seller.

Amazon has not given a specific reason for removing Andersons book, saying only that the company reserves the right to delist content that violates its standards.

In an email, Anderson said this could be a moment that determines how the company will operate going forward. If Amazon hears from enough people, perhaps that will lead it to reconsider its decision and not just on me, but also preventing future de-platforming. If Amazon gets away with this, itll likely lead to more de-platforming in the future.

While Anderson can only speculate about the reasons his book is no longer on Amazon, Hawley, the Missouri senator, knows why Simon & Schuster canceled his book contract because the company put out a statement. Without giving specifics, the publisher said that Hawley, a Trump supporter who was the first senator to say he would challenge the 2020 election results, had a role in the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

As a publisher it will always be our mission to amplify a variety of voices and viewpoints; at the same time, we take seriously our larger public responsibility as citizens, and cannot support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat to our democracy and freedom, the statement said.

Hawleys book deal was canceled the day after the riot. The next week, more than 250 authors, editors, agents and other workers in publishing signed an open letter that said no companies should publish work by anyone who incited, suborned, instigated or otherwise supported the riot, or who was a participant in the Trump administration. The number of signers is now approaching 600.

But within two weeks, Hawley had another publisher in Regnery, and Spence explained the decision in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, in which he said cancel culture is more appropriately described as blacklisting.

Not so long ago, publishing professionals would have been horrified to be accused of it. Today they compete to see who can proclaim his blacklist with the fiercest invective, Spence wrote.

So far, Amazon hasnt been inclined to cancel Hawleys book; its accepting pre-orders for The Tyranny of Big Tech and gives a release date of May 4.

Spence said hed been following Hawleys career knew he was a Yale Law School graduate and was a former Supreme Court clerk and had thought it would be nice to have a book from him before this one essentially landed in his lap. A lot of people have sent me emails saying, Oh, youre so courageous, thanks for taking a stand and taking this book, and I have to blush. I think I did the right thing, but I dont know that it was particularly courageous in this case, he said.

Getting canceled by Simon & Schuster has raised the profile of the book a lot, he added.

That has happened before, said Bernstein of Bombardier Books. When Simon & Schuster canceled a book by Milo Yiannopoulos in 2017, the far-right commentator self-published Dangerous and sold upwards of 100,000 copies, Bernstein said.

Donald Trump Jr. also self-published his second book, Liberal Privilege.

Bernstein said that conservative imprints such as Center Street at Hachette Book Group or Sentinel at Penguin are ghettos within the largest publishing houses, which he said skew young and liberal. The problem with conservative books within the large publishing houses is that theyre not going to support you if there is any controversy. The first whiff of controversy, Josh Hawley gets his book canceled. The first whiff of controversy, (Florida GOP Congressman) Matt Gaetz gets his book canceled. The editors get fired or get shifted around. Or the imprint gets closed. All of these things are happening at an increasing pace right now.

The New York Times recently reported that longtime editor Kate Hartson, editorial director at Center Street, had been let go and that Hartson told colleagues she thought her termination was because of her political beliefs. She had published books by Donald Trump Jr., Newt Gingrich, radio host Michael Savage and Rand Paul, among others. Her most recent book was reported to be Unmasked: Inside Antifas Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy, by Andy Ngo.

Not every objection to an author results in a book being canceled. When Penguin Random House Canada announced that it was publishing Jordan Petersons Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life, the company had to hold a town-hall style meeting for employees who were upset about the decision. It was published anyway. (In the U.S., the book was released March 2 under Penguins Portfolio imprint.)

And some authors, like J.K. Rowling, have the benefit of being too successful to be truly canceled, Bernstein said. Her position in publishing is kind of untouchable. When you make up that much of a companys bottom line shes like a line item of her own on their balance sheet no company is going to release her and give up that revenue.

For many conservative authors, however, the fear of being de-platformed is real, whether it be on a sales platform or social media.

Frankly, the number of books that get pulled off of Amazon is infinitesimal, but these stories get magnified and people are rightly concerned, because the number of people being de-platformed on Twitter started off being very small, too, Bernstein said.

Small conservative imprints such as Bombardier may benefit from the current environment if authors seek publishers who share their views. But so may Regnery, whose namesake, the late Henry Regnery, published Memoirs of a Dissident Publisher in 1979.

Spence, who said his views were shaped by the First Things essay Why the News Make Us Dumb by C. John Sommerville and The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk, welcomes the business, although he realizes that this may be a particularly vulnerable moment for conservative publishers.

Certain big players in the publishing world have the power to make our business very difficult if they want to. Thats Amazon and Google, all the people targeted by Josh Hawleys book, and maybe Im stupid to be publishing a book punching them in the nose, Spence said.

If we couldnt sell our books on Amazon, that would be a pretty serious blow. We sell most of our books on Amazon. What they have done on rare occasions is make it more difficult for people to find our books. He cited Shriers book, which Regnery published. The company wanted to buy ads that would make the book more prominent in searches, but Spence said that Amazon would not let them buy ads for that book.

Spence is also cognizant of the power of Facebook and Twitter, and that social media platforms could also take action to block promotion of one of his authors or books.

Theres a lot of potential hazards on the road ahead, he said. But its also good times for Regnery, because theres no such thing as bad publicity. Controversy is good.

Go here to read the rest:

Is Amazon allowed to censor conservative books? - Deseret News