Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut

Freedom of speech, the press, association, assembly, and petition: This set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. It is the foundation of a vibrant democracy, and without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither away.

The fight for freedom of speech has been a bedrock of the ACLUs mission since the organization was founded in 1920, driven by the need to protect the constitutional rights of conscientious objectors and anti-war protesters. The organizations work quickly spread to combating censorship, securing the right to assembly, and promoting free speech in schools.

Almost a century later, these battles have taken on new forms, but they persist. The ACLUs Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project continues to champion freedom of expression in its myriad forms whether through protest, media, online speech, or the arts in the face of new threats. For example, new avenues for censorship have arisen alongside the wealth of opportunities for speech afforded by the Internet. The threat of mass government surveillance chills the free expression of ordinary citizens, legislators routinely attempt to place new restrictions on online activity, and journalism is criminalized in the name of national security. The ACLU is always on guard to ensure that the First Amendments protections remain robust in times of war or peace, for bloggers or the institutional press, online or off.

Over the years, the ACLU has represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. Thats because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if theyre going to be preserved for everyone.

Some examples of our free speech work from recent years include:

Link:

Free Speech | American Civil Liberties Union

Public libraries in the U.S. are under increasing scrutiny.

Last year, the American Library Association reported a record number of book challenges, topping nearly 1,600 books.

"How a book on a shelf could be a threat to anyone is beyond us. Libraries are for voluntary reading. Libraries are for choice. They're a resource we should fiercely protect and preserve."

Efforts are also more aggressive. Several communities have voted to stop funding their public libraries. In others:

"There's been a few instances where there have been physical threats or, for example, the library in Montana that found books in their book dropped that had been riddled with bullets."

Today, On Point: Protecting America's public libraries.

Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. She works on projects "addressing censorship and privacy in the library."

Patrick Sweeney, political director of EveryLibrary, the first and only national political action committee for libraries. He is also the former Administrative Librarian of the Sunnyvale Public Library in California.

George M. Johnson, author of All Boys Arent Blue. The book is a young adult non-fiction memoir about Johnson's journey growing up as a queer Black man in America. Its the third most challenged book of 2021 out of nearly 1,600 books. It has been targeted for removal in at least 14 states. (@IamGMJohnson)

Kimber Glidden, director of the Boundary County Library in Idaho.

On the climate in American libraries

Deborah Caldwell-Stone: "We're seeing the result of a divisive campaign intended to limit everyone's access to information, to really sanction one viewpoint, one political view, one approach to information, to prevent everyone from having the ability to make choices for themselves.

"We're observing organized advocacy groups try to impose an agenda on libraries to change policies, to ban books, to really limit the ability of the public library to serve as a community resource that meets the information needs of everyone in the community, but instead limits their offerings to what's approved by a few political groups in the community. And this has had very real consequences for libraries across the country.

"We're seeing contentious board meetings. We're seeing librarians actually charged in criminal court with pandering obscenity to minors. And we're also working with libraries, closely monitoring situationslike you've described, where there's been an effort to either defund the library or take over the library board in order to impose a particular agenda."

In Jamestown Township, Michigan, voters voted to defund the Patmos Library.

The library has 67,000 books, videos and other items. There were only about 90 titles voters had a problem with. Why were they willing to risk the whole library over that tiny fraction number of titles?

Deborah Caldwell-Stone: "We're seeing the result of a lot of disinformation and misinformation about libraries, how librarians work and the content of the books. For example, I absolutely reject the idea that books that deal with puberty, human reproduction, sexual health, developing good relationships have anything to do with what's called grooming. That's a falsehood that's spread by a number of advocacy groups that really have an anti-pornography, anti-LGBTQIA agenda.

"And these talking points are picked up. People don't have any basis to question them. And as a result, they are encouraged to act on that false information when they participate in elections. You know, and it's also a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of public libraries as a whole. These are community institutions that are intended to serve everyone in the community. And we know that we live in a rapidly diversifying society, that there are all kinds of people in every community that have different information needs.

"And so the library, by its nature, is going to be acquiring works that represent a variety of ideas, viewpoints, including books you might not agree with. That you might not give to your own child, but another family, another parent would want their child to read. And there's this loss of civic engagement, community feeling where we share a resource. And we understand there's a book on the shelf that is there for me. But by its very nature, the library is also going to have books on the shelf that I don't agree with, but I tolerate that. I understand that, because that means that the library will be there for me, as well, to serve my information needs.

"And we're seeing a real loss of that community, of that understanding of the library as a community institution. And the loss can be so great. A public library is essential for not only for reading books, but, you know, many, many times it's the community's portal to the internet. It supports home schooling. It supports the ability to train for new jobs, to find new jobs. It supports small businesses in the community. It's a real resource. It can help seniors with applying for Social Security.

"You know, the public library has really turned into that place, that third place you go to. Not only to read a murder mystery, but also where you can find support and information to live your best life, to find work to support your family. ... If you're a young adult, it's the place you can go to prepare to go into college, to enter the military, to start a successful career."

On defunding libraries for political leverage

Patrick Sweeney:"I think it is fundraising and getting elected. You know, we are seeing that the governors who we are seeing surfacing themselves to run for president are the ones that are beating the indoctrination and grooming drums the most. Speaking of Idaho, Heather Scott in Idaho had the Panhandle Patriots come to a meeting where she was talking about the grooming indoctrination of children who said that they weren't scared of librarians and they defend against librarians.

"Librarians are average age over 40 and 80% female. So these open carry highly militant organizations are going to shoot a 48 year old female librarian over some books. But what we're seeing is that talk was really about fundraising. It was really about riling her base. It was really about her getting the resources she need to move her personal agenda forward. You know, I think that's the most terrifying thing, how effective these lies have become in order to raise money. And so disconnect and divisiveness in our country simply for short term political gain."

On what we stand to lose when libraries are under threat

George M. Johnson: "We literally just go back to our origins, when we start to deny the ability of reading and writing. And that's what it really is, right? We're trying to literally deny an ability for people to read and people to write. And that is something that my ancestors know about very well, because we were denied that ability to read and write. It was illegal for people like me to be able to read and write in the 1800's and in the 1700's in this country. And so when we are specifically targeting books by Black people, books by queer people, we are going back to this country's origins, which is interesting.

"Because that's the whole tagline, right? Make America Great Again. And it's like, But at what point are you speaking of? Are you speaking before Black people had civil rights? Are you speaking of during slavery? Are you speaking of when the indigenous people? Like what point was it great for the people who you're literally targeting right now? And so even like when we hear those type of statements, we know exactly what the dog whistle is, too. And so when you start to say, Well, we're going to remove these specific books and we're going to start to remove these specific talking points.

"What you are really saying is that there is a second class and a third class of citizen that exists in this country, and we are going to remove the materials that make them powerful, that make other people want to know about these people, and that make other people build those bridges of empathy towards these people. Because the danger is if we lose our power as the majority, oh my God, there might actually be equity and equality. And that's not what we want. We don't want equity inequality. Like who would want that when we've been in power for so long? And so that's really the danger in removing that. It's like the onion and we just keep peeling away layers. First it's books. Then it's our rights. Then what's next?"

See the original post here:

Censorship wars: Why have several communities voted to defund their public libraries? - WBUR News

A century ago, Virginia lawmakers created the Virginia State Board of Censors with the goal of keeping a close eye on what the public saw on the big screen.

The all-white board later renamed the Division of Motion Picture Censorship required edits to more than 2,000 movies between the 1920s and 1960s, and it was especially concerned about depictions of race and sexuality.

The boards targets included:

Melissa Ooten, gender research specialist at the University of Richmond, wrote Race, Gender, and Film Censorship in Virginia, 19221965, a book about the board. She sat down with VPM News Ben Paviour to discuss her research.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Paviour: Youve studied the State Board of Censors. Can you talk a little bit about what that is how it came about?

Ooten: So, the state board of sensors originated in 1922. And it was in play until 1965. And it was a board of three people who viewed all films before they could be shown in the state of Virginia legally. So, they had the power to determine that a movie cannot be shown, or more commonly, that certain scenes had to be cut out of it before it could be shown in the state.

What were they looking out for? What did they find objectionable?

Especially in the 1920s and 1930s, they were concerned about race relations. So, they looked especially at films in which you saw more equal treatment of people of color. That would be something they did not want shown, to be clear. And then anything dealing with sexuality, women's sexuality, in particular. Some violence, but that was less there were a few states that had these boards. New York's was more concerned with violence, particularly gambling those issues. But Virginia was really looking for things that they thought bordered on obscene in terms of sexuality and then race relations.

Why did they ultimately disband?

Because of Supreme Court decisions giving movies greater and greater freedom of speech rights. And they were never well funded.

When the movies switched from being silent to sound, they went for years without having the equipment to hear the sound. So, they would ask these film distributors to send them the transcript. It's not like it was some well-funded machine, right? It was three people, often loyal to the Democratic Party, which was in control of Virginia at the time. And often older white women. There were some women who served for decades for their 60s, 70s and 80s.

Do you see any parallels to contemporary movements to censor books, to take them out of schools, to restrict the sales of books? Or do you think these are very different issues?

I think they're connected. But I think what is interesting about the censorship board is that most of what they censored was not aimed at children, right? It was movies children really wouldn't be watching, period. And I think what we're talking about today is very much around kids. Or that's how it's being portrayed. But I mean, all these are part of broader culture wars.

What, if anything, do you think the State Board of Censors tells us about the era in which it operated in Virginia?

So, this was passed in 1922. It is around the same time Virginia passes an anti-miscegenation law. It is around the same time other sorts of regulations around race and around sex and sexuality [were passed]. So, it was meant as the cultural arm as they're doing these other regulations. How can we also regulate this medium that they see as potentially problematic? Because who knows what Hollywood is producing?

This at a time when Virginia is primarily rural. There is very much a strain of, The liberal radicals in Hollywood are doing [something objectionable] and now they've come to show their fare in Virginia. But then it also shows how that dissipates over time because most of their power is in the 20s and 30s.

Read more here:

Virginia Board of Censors sought to enforce Jim Crow on the big screen - VPM News

from the ENJOY-YOUR-FREEDOM-they-gunpointed dept

The government of Turkey, headed by exceedingly thin-skinned President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has devolved into a corrupt, anti-democratic state that still respects the freedom of the press in theory, but, in practice, only respects the freedoms of its favored press outlets, which are free to write anything the government allows them to write.

Journalists who retain their independence tend not to retain their literal freedom. The Turkish government has jailed more journalists than any other government but Chinas. The excuse for jailing people who write what the government doesnt like is the same excuse used everywhere to justify unjustifiable encroachments on peoples freedoms: terrorism.

Jonathan Spicers investigative report for Reuters digs into the how of Turkeys censorship regime, which starts with a government entity erected by Erdogan one specifically designed to ensure his regime has an ongoing source for government-approved reporting.

Directions to newsrooms often come from officials in the governments Directorate of Communications, which handles media relations, more than a dozen industry insiders told Reuters. The directorate is an Erdogan creation, employing some 1,500 people and headquartered in a tower block in Ankara. It is headed by a former academic, Fahrettin Altun.

Altuns officials issue their instructions in phone calls or Whatsapp messages that sometimes address newsroom managers with the familiar brother, according to some of these people and a Reuters review of some of the messages.

The Communications Directorate does what else? directs communications. The Erdogan administration claims this means nothing more than the normal PR work of government: issuing statements, holding press briefings, and offering comments. But thats not how it actually works.

There are independent press outlets in Turkey. Theyre under constant attack by the government. Then there are the unofficial official press outlets ones controlled by the Directorate but with a thin veneer of plausible deniability. The biggest media outlets in the country are owned by people close to Erdogan, providing a willing mouthpiece for the presidents version of current events.

If Erdogans government isnt directly oppressing journalists by jailing them, its applying indirect pressure by pulling state-sponsored ads from publications the Directorate claims have breached media ethics. From 2019 to 2020, papers owned by Erdogans inner circle received less than 16 days of suspended advertising. The other five papers not controlled by the Turkish government? 554 days.

And, of course, government claims of media ethics breaches mainly targeted content critical of the government, such as investigative reporting on suspected corruption.

And while the Directorate is a home-grown government enterprise, its base of operations (if not its sphere of influence) is much broader.

The body employs media monitors, translators and legal and public relations staff inside and outside Turkey. It has 48 foreign offices in 43 countries worldwide. These outposts deliver to headquarters weekly reports on how Turkey is portrayed in foreign media, according to an insider.

When the government is this good at censorship and this dedicated to silencing critics, sooner or later those it wishes to silence will just start doing the work themselves. Its not a chilling effect in Turkey. Its a never-ending blizzard. And it even affects those working for press outlets the government likes.

Self-censorship is now mostly automatic in mainstream media, according to several industry sources. It has existed in some form for years.

The TRT editor said that when Orhan Pamuk won the Nobel Prize for literature in 2006 the first Turk to do so the state broadcaster did not mention the news until then-Prime Minister Erdogan offered his official congratulations. It was such a relief that I remember to this day, because we would never have covered it if there were no congratulations, the editor said.

And that was before Erdogan ascended to the presidency. Since then, things have gotten much worse. An independent press remains, but just barely. How long it will continue to survive seems to be almost entirely in the governments hands.

Filed Under: censorship, journalism, recep tayyip erdogan, turkey

Read this article:

Censorship Starts At Home: Turkish Gov't Controls The Press, Repeatedly Claims It Does Not Control The Press - Techdirt

Tiago Henriques, a seasoned artificial intelligence expertwho noticed that news of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines were highly censored in the media, decided to create a Facebook group that lets the vaccine-injured and their loved ones share their stories.

Most Facebook pages on the topic of vaccine side effects and adverse events get removed very quickly by the social media platform, managing to get only a few thousand followers. With technical skills and the use of methods that stay within the confines of Facebooks terms of service, Henriques and his team managed to keep their page up much longer, getting over 245,000 followers to date.

The Facebook group Died Suddenly News was created in late June 2021. Members of the private group share personal stories of people they know who have developed serious medical conditions or even died shortly after receiving the COVID-19 shots.

I wanted people to talk to each other. Individuals whove gone through the same experience, they can be there for each other, be compassionate, show some love, and just get a little bit of relief, because a lot of these people live in small communitiesthey have nobody to talk to, said Henriques in an interview on NTDs Evening News aired on Sept. 9.

The physicians wont listen to them, the nurses wont listen to them. And I think this was a great avenue for these people to feel listened to.

Henriques, who resides in Nova Scotia, says that the group started off slowly but that as the months went by, it gained momentum with more and more people signing up. In the last three, four months, its like absolutely exploded, he said.

The AI expert says the heartbeat of the group is those who share their stories.

The stories that you read on there [about] vaccine injuries, vaccine deaths, theyre very visceral, he said. These are real people in your communities, telling you, telling everybody about their story, and I think thats what makes it more real.

Henriques says the page is currently moderated by about 15 to 20 moderators, who remove any trolls attempting to disparage members or be disrespectful to them.

We keep a pretty tight lid on things. We try to make things run like a Swiss watch, but sometimes its challenging. It is a big group, it is growing, so were going to have those growing pains, he said.

Henriques, who programs in languages such as Python, PyTorch, and TensorFlow, says his team has respected Facebooks terms of service but is aware that even then their page may still be targeted and shut down. He is in the process of creating a separate platform that is not prone to censorship by social media companies.

[Its] kind of like Facebook, except with all the statistics from all over the world, he said.

Im going to have the geographical locations, which vaccines they took, what lot number, what happened to them, all the important statistical data. Were also going to have a section there where they can find help.

The programming expert says he will keep the new website open source for anyone, including those from media organizations, who are interested to see what the data is almost in real time of people around the world injured by the vaccines.

To fund the project, Henriques has set up fundraising campaigns in GoFundMe and GiveSendGo, where anyone who is interested in the cause can donate.

My mission is to have our very own platform free from censorship and judgmenta place where caring people can come share their stories free from harassment and feeling safe in a community that truly listens to them, his fundraiser pages say.

The need for the new platform is important as it would allow us to compile statistics and evidence on whats really going on in the world. It will give us autonomy and not have to fear being turned off at any time by the powers that be.

NTDs Jason Perry contributed to this report.

Follow

Isaac Teo is an Epoch Times reporter based in Toronto.

Original post:

Facebook Group Provides a Platform for Vaccine Injured to Share Their Stories - The Epoch Times