Gus also says that using Telegram to share details of Tor bridges has been effective in fighting blocks. The bridges that they were blocking were not the same bridges that we were sharing with users, Gus says, adding that Tor has plans to share bridges via Signal and WhatsApp in the future.

Tor is also working to stop the potential abuse of bridges. In 2016, researchers proposed a system called Salmon that aims to weed out those accessing bridge details with the intent of blocking or abusing them. Gus says the Tor team is working to turn this proposal into reality, and it would essentially assign reliability scores around the use of bridges. If someone requests a bridge and it ends up getting blocked, they may be considered less trustworthy. If I give you another bridge and it gets blocked again, then you will get another bad score, Gus says.

Russias efforts to block Tor arent just confined to within its own borders, though. In some areas of occupied Ukraine, such as the city of Kherson, Ukrainian internet connections are being rerouted through Russian networks, and that brings censorship and surveillance with it. Gus says that as this shift has started to happensignaling a potential long-term occupation and Russification of the areaspeople using Tor in Ukraine have reported it not working and websites not loading. They are being affected by the same censorship that people in other places in Russia were reporting to us, Gus says.

If people are able to access Torboth in Russia and occupied Ukrainethey will be able to access news and information that isnt controlled by the Russian government. Sarkis Darbinyan, head of legal practice of Russian digital rights group Roskomsvoboda, says more than 5,500 websites have been blocked in Russia since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February. For getting access to truthful information for Russian users, it is now critical to have tools like VPN and Tor, which let people quickly and effectively restore their violated rights, Darbinyan says.

Roskomsvoboda has been representing Tor in its legal cases against Russian authorities pro bono. So far it has successfully overturned Roskomnadzors December decision to block Torin part because of procedural issues. Although other related legal proceedings are ongoing, Darbinyan says Roskomsvoboda is seeking a complete cancel of the decision that Tor should be blocked.

Krapiva describes the court case against Tor as a rare victory for digital and human rights in Russia. However, she cautions that it is likely to be a temporary win, and that Russian authorities may try to legally block Tor again. But this doesnt mean it will be able to stop people from using Tor. Were still seeing that the technologies they have can be quite effective for blocking some things, but are not 100 percent effective, Krapiva says. In practice, whether Tor will be fully blockedI doubt it, to be honest. But legally, I think they will try again, and might eventually succeed.

Continued here:

How Tor Is Fightingand BeatingRussian Censorship - WIRED

Hulu caves to political pressure on ads. Hulu will now accept ads from Democratic groups criticizing Republican stances on abortion and guns. Previously, the Disney-owned streaming service rejected these political adsprompting fierce outcry from groups including the Democratic Governors Association, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

The groups ridiculously accused the streaming service of "censorship" for rejecting their political ads, even though Hulua private companyis under no obligation to air speech about hot-button political topics. A "person familiar with Hulu's policies" told The Washington Post the company avoids ads that take any position on controversial issues.

"Their shady policies amount to outrageous political censorship," the DSCC tweeted. "Americans deserve to know the truth about these issues, and Hulu has no right to block it."

This is exactly wrong, of course. Hulu has a right to block ads from Democrats, Republicans, or any advertiser on whatever topics it chooses. Part of the beauty of the First Amendment is that it protects us from government-compelled speech, too. It's politicians who have no right to force Hulu to run particular ads.

The groups harassing Hulu over its decision are not government bodies or elected officials (rather, they're devoted to getting Democrats elected), so this stops short of being a First Amendment violation. And it's understandable that the groups didn't like Hulu's decision. It would be totally defensible for them to publicly criticize the company, encourage supporters to do the same, or encourage a boycott.

But where things cross the line is their attempt to mislead people into thinking that Hulu "has no right to block" Democrats' political ads.

Aren't Democrats the ones always crowing about how more must be done to stop misinformation on social media? And yet here are some of their biggest groups spreading misinformation in a self-serving manner and encouraging followers to retweet it.

This may have led to a short-term win for them, with Disney announcing that "Hulu will now accept candidate and issue advertisements covering a wide spectrum of policy positions." But it's bad news for free speech and liberal, democratic values more broadly.

Throughout the Trump era and continuing today, Republicans have insisted that search engines, social media companies, and other digital entities must platform their candidates, causes, and pundits, frequently condemning and threatening those that reject conservative content. Throughout this, Democrats often pointed out that these private companies are well within their rights to block user content, ads, and accounts as they see fit.

Democrats rejecting that wisdom just so they can get some midterm ads against Republicans on Hulu seems like a strategy bound to backfire. But alas, neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to have any principles in this realm beyond "digital companies should platform the content we like and not the content we don't like"

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is going after the Miami bar and restaurant R House for allowing minors to eat at the restaurant during drag performances. DeSantis and the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation have filed a complaint against the restaurant, accusing it of disorderly conduct that is "manifestly injurious to the morals or manners of the people." The complaint cites a 1947 Florida Supreme Court ruling saying that "men impersonating women" in "suggestive and indecent" ways was a public nuisance. The state is now seeking to have R House's liquor license revoked, DeSantis said at a press conference.

The state's complaint, obtained by NBC News, goes on to state that a video shared by the Twitter account Libs of TikTok "shows what appears to be a transgender dancer leading a young girl by the hand and walking through Respondent's dining area.The dancer's buttocks were fully exposed, and his 'g-string'-style bikini bottom was stuffed with dollar bills a practice that is commonly known to occur at strip clubs. The dancer's breasts unmistakably female in appearance were also fully exposed except for the nipple and areola, which were covered with adhesive 'pasties.'"

"We are an inclusive establishment and welcome all people to visit our restaurant," said R House in a statement. "We are hopeful that Governor DeSantis, a vociferous supporter and champion of Florida's hospitality industry and small businesses, will see this as what it is, a misunderstanding, and that the matter will be resolved positively and promptly."

This is why we can't have nice things:

You can find the full letter here.

Most Americans think we're in a recession.

"The big question is not whether the U.S. is in a recession. It's whether the economy will soon worsen," writes David Leonhardt at The New York Times.

The RAP Act would restrict the use of musical lyrics and "artistic expression" as criminal evidence.

After Dobbs, Democrats and Republicans are switching places on Section 230.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has now been "holding America back" for two decades, write John Berlau and Josh Rutzick in The Wall Street Journal.

The "the antitrust duel of the summer" doesn't involve tech companies, but a much more traditional industry.

The family of a boy murdered over a water-gun fight is trying to hold TikTok responsible, since water-gun shooting videos have been popular on the app.

The American Data Privacy and Protection Act "mimics some of the worst flaws found in the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), while creating new problems that the GDPR had avoided."

"Home distilling, unlike home brewing and winemaking, is still prohibited by federal law," points out Reason's Jacob Sullum.

"55% of America's top startups were founded by immigrants," so why won't Congress let more of them in?

See the article here:

After 'Censorship' Claims, Hulu Will Air Democrats' Abortion and Gun Ads - Reason

As an independent news organization dedicated to reporting the truth, The Epoch Times has been subjected to excessive censorship by Big Tech.

In the latest such incident, Twitter on July 28 censored all of our content by putting up a blockade to our website, describing it as unsafe, and encouraging users not to proceed.

Twitters actionsjust like those by other tech giants such as Facebook and YouTubespecifically targeted the reach of our independent news and video content.

Twitter hasnt responded to multiple requests for comment and appeal, nor has the company explained what led it to censor our content or what caused it to lift its blockage two days later, following a public outcry.

The move by the social media giant came less than a week after we published our new documentary The Real Story of January 6 and, on the same day, posted an interview with sex trafficking survivor Eliza Bleu, on our program American Thought Leaders.

While it remains unclear why Twitter targeted us, what is clear is that The Epoch Times is different from most other major news organizations, in that we dare to follow the stories where the facts lead.

In our Jan. 6 documentary, our reporters take an unvarnished look at the events of that day and present new witnesses and evidence that challenge the prevailing narratives. It provides extensive evidence of excessive use of force by police that broke protocol and policy, and raises questions about the lack of security that day. So far, the documentary has received more than a half-million views on our EpochTV platform.

In recent years, there have been other major stories on which The Epoch Times, because of our independence and adherence to traditional journalism, has differed from other major news organizations, only to be proven right.

For example, The Epoch Times reported accurately on events surrounding allegations that then-candidate and later President Donald Trump had colluded with Russia. From day one, The Epoch Times reported on the facts and through our reporting uncovered significant problems with the FBIs probe of Trumps campaign, which included problematic conduct involving surveillance.

While other news organizations won Pulitzers for their articles suggesting collusion between the president and Russia, The Epoch Times was, in fact, correct in reporting that the allegations had no supportas confirmed through investigations by special counsel Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice inspector general, as well as the ongoing probe of the origins of the FBIs investigation by special counsel John Durham.

The Epoch Times also was among the first to report on the possibility that the novel coronavirus was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. Our April 2020 documentary on the subject was censored by Facebook. Today, a lab leak is now held as the most likely explanation for the spread of the virus, by both media organizations and many government officials.

The danger of allowing platforms such as Twitter to take on the role of arbiter of the truth is that they, in many cases, are plainly wrong. The most prominent example was Twitters suppression of the New York Post over its reporting on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden.

This censorship behavior, which is antithetical to the protections Big Tech receives under Section 230, has also raised concerns about social media platforms censoring content on behalf of the government. Most recently, a federal judge ordered the government to cooperate in a lawsuit that alleges behind-the-scenes efforts to target the dissemination of information of stories related to COVID-19including its possible origins and alternative treatmentsthat didnt fit the governments narrative.

Government cant outsource its censorship to Big Tech, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said.

The public outcry against Twitters censorship of The Epoch Times was swift, with three U.S. senators publicly questioning the social media platformwhich in recent years has repeatedly found itself in hot water for acts of censorshipover its targeting of the news organization.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) demanded that Twitter explain itself for this outrageous act of censorship.

Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) asked, Wheres the respect for free speech and freedom of press, Twitter?

We all remember your biased censorship of [the New York Post] and how that ended for you, he said.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) described the action by Twitter as alarming.

Twitter is censoring [The Epoch Times] under the guise of unsafe speech. Remember what happened the last time corporate media and big tech tried to censor my investigation on Hunter Biden corruption? he wrote. The truth always prevails.

Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, described Twitters action as an outrageous act of censorship.

Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya called out Twitters suppression, writing: It is perfectly safe to click through to the [Epoch Times] site in the quote tweet. For some reason, Twitter decided that today was a good day to suppress access to Epoch Times.

Sex trafficking survivor Bleu, who was among the first to notice the censorship by Twitter because of its blockage of her interview withAmerican Thought Leaders, posted a video condemning the platforms actions that went viral.

It also created a stir among Twitter users, with many condemning the platforms actions.

The Epoch Times wants to thank everyone who spoke out against this latest instance of censorship.

We will keep reporting the only way we know how, rooted in our tagline Truth & Tradition, without favor or fear. The fight for truth is one that has no shore and that is as old as the ages. We believe that only with brave individuals going the distance and striving to record the truth of what happens can the world have an accurate picture of events and history.

Follow

Follow this link:

Condemning Twitter's Censorship and Thanking Our Supporters - The Epoch Times

[Editors note: This is a version of an article published in the Out of Frame Newsletter, an email newsletter about the intersection of art, culture, and ideas. Sign up here to get it in your inbox.]

Since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian government has imposed harsh censorship on its citizens to restrict negative discussions of the war.

Several independent news outlets in Russia have shut down, or have censored coverage of the war. Government censorship affected foreign reporters too: In March, Russia blocked access to the BBC, the Voice of America, and other Western outlets. The BBC halted operations in Russia to avoid arrest.

Last month, a court in Kaliningrad ruled that news outlets were guilty of a criminal offense for publishing a list of Russian military casualties because it was "classified information."

According to The New York Times, Russia's war censorship laws passed in March "could make it a crime to simply call the war a 'war' the Kremlin says it is a 'special military operation' on social media or in a news article or broadcast."

Besides banning criticism of the war, the legislation also makes "calling on other countries to impose sanctions on Russia or protesting Russias invasion of Ukraine punishable by fines and years of imprisonment."

The Russian government arrested thousands in mass demonstrations when the war began, and Russians continue to be detained for protesting the conflict.

Earlier this month, a local politician in Moscow, Alexei Gorinov, was sentenced to seven years in prison for speaking against the war in a city council meeting. The BBC reported:

Judge Olesya Mendeleyeva ruled he had carried out his crime "based on political hatred" and had misled Russians, prompting them to "feel anxiety and fear" about the military campaign.

Attacks on the press and dissidents in Russia are not new. But the country had a "mostly uncensored" Internet according to the New York Timesthat was, until Moscow blocked Facebook and Instagram.

These abuses of power should show us the dangers of giving the government the authority to restrict freedom of speech. But the Kremlin's stated justification for the censorship should also serve as a more specific warning.

The main laws under which Russia's censorship is taking place, Law 31-FZ and 32-FZ, prohibit "public dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation" and "discrediting" the use of the Russian military.

That is the official language in the law. And although no liberal democracies currently engage in campaigns of naked state censorship like Russia's, the idea of banning "knowingly false information" is familiar to citizens of the West.

But what the situation in Russia should teach us is that the definition of "false" always lies with the censors. It may sound good to want to ban misinformation, or any other kind of "bad" speech, but deciding what fits these ambiguous categories will give the censors great opportunity for abuse.

In the words of economist Milton Friedman: "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it."

More here:

What the War in Ukraine Can Teach Us about the Dangers of Censorship | Matt Hampton - Foundation for Economic Education

Recently, there has been a drastic increase in outrage against loli and loli-style artworks and characters.

Source: Dead or Alive 6 (2019), Koei Tecmo

RELATED: Square Enix Heavily Censors Sexualized Artwork From Various Series For English Release Of Manga UP! App

Unable to separate the concept of young females drawn with baby-like big eyes, a chubby face and a small build from the real world, critics of the art style and fandom have falsely accused both of promoting sexual violence against real-world minors.

Believing themselves to be performing a societal good, the vocal condemnation campaigns undertaken by opponents have resulted in such outcomes as a Japanese mangaka being harassed, Patreon blanket-purging any art even slightly fitting the styles standard, and a player being banned from a fighting game tournament for liking the genres numerous loli characters.

Source: New Character Demo Diona: Wine Industry Slayer, Genshin Impact YouTube

In light of this ongoing attempt to erase any trace of the loli-style from anime and video games and curious as to how this attitude has affected the actual industry, Bounding Into Comics reached out to an insider for their insights.

Graciously taking time out of their day to speak with us after we reached out, writer, 3D artist, developer of Japanese video games, Haru47 spoke with us about this rising trend and what it means for the future of Japanese media in the West.

Source: Miss Kobayashis Dragon Maid S Episode 10 Troupe Dragon, On Stage! (They Had A Troupe Name, Huh) (2017), Kyoto Animation

RELATED: Patreon Begins To Purge Fan Art Of Characters Below A Certain Height And Bust Size

Nerdigans Inc.: What anime and what video game kicked off the rise in loli censorship?

Haru47: I think the anime that started everything was Kodomo no Jikan, the controversial anime about a loli falling in love with her teacher. Ive seen a lot of anti-lolicons bring this anime as an example.

Source: Kodomo no Jikan Episode 1 A Friendly Step (2007), Studio Barcelona

As for games it was the Nekopara series or any ero loli visual novels. I think also the Senran Kagura series, considering a lot of people were celebrating the censorship it received by Sony.

Source: Senran Kagura: Estival Versus (2015), Marvelous Inc.

Nerdigans Inc.: When would you say this sudden shift in loli erasure begin?

Haru47: I personally felt it began in mid-2016. I know its probably a longer debacle, but from personal experience, mid-2016 was when anime was becoming more mainstream.

All these Normies are just watching the seasonal shows without even bothering to investigate the tropes of the media they consume.

Source: The Saga of Tanya the Evil Episode 10 Path to Victory (2017), NUT

Nerdigans Inc.: Would you say it was around the same time in video games?

Haru47: Actually, yes at least for Sonys part, since in 2016 is when they started with their censorship policy over the #MeToo movement.

Source: BlazBlue: Chrono Phantasma (2012), Arc System Works

RELATED: Study Finds Video Games With Sexualized Content Do Not Cause Misogynistic Attitudes Or Body Image Issues

Kind of ironic they are now facing a gender discrimination lawsuit and one of their VPs got fired for trying to hook up with a minor, but loli bad according to Sony.

(One of the games referred to by Haru47 is Star Ocean 5: Integrity & Faithlessness. At the start of the MeToo era, Square Enix increased the size of Mikis panties in the overseas release of the series fifth installment due to the Western accusations that it oversexualized its underage characters.)

Source: Star Ocean: Integrity and Faithlessness (2016), Square Enix

Nerdigans Inc.: Why in particular is there such a prejudice against lolis? Why cant the loli critics seem to comprehend that the illustrations they are fighting to protect are not real children (and that some lolis are adults)?

Haru47: Projection. And I wish I was making this up, but most of the time most of these people are guilty of the same thing they accuse everyone of.

Source: Granblue Fantasy: Versus Cagliostro DLC Character Trailer | PS4, PlayStation YouTube

As for the drawing part, they insist its illegal, but the part they missed is that its actually pornographic drawings of IRL children that are illegal, while loli is not because its based on fictional characters. This was the main reason why Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, reported lolicon content on the site to the FBI, only for the agency to label his reports as a waste of time.

Source: Hello, Goodbye (2019), NekoNyan Ltd.

RELATED: To Heart 2 Spin-Off Dungeon Travelers 2 Denied Release On Steam

Nerdigans Inc.: I recently spoke to a professional translator regarding the state of the English localization industry and he revealed that the stranglehold a certain group of English localizers had on the video game industry was worse than it was for anime and manga. Are they involved with the western coordinators on the escalated censorship on loli content?

Haru47: Yes, I believe so, considering that localizers were always complaining on social media about tropes they hate and have actually lied and said the word lolicon translates to pedophile in Japanese. In reality, the Japanese use another word called shouniseai or jidouseai.'

Source: Seton Academy: Join the Pack! Episode 12 The Animal Students I Know (2020), Studio Gokumi

Nerdigans Inc: By now, video game publishers like Sony should have realized that lolicons are a fierce community who are loyal to their loli waifus. Why would the publishers ignore that money in favor of an audience that are more-than-likely not going to play their games?

Haru47: Now, thats the funny part. People want to erase any skimpily-dressed female character, but are ok with sexualizing male characters.

Source: Disgaea: Hour of Darkness (2003), Nippon Ichi Software

One of my favorite examples of this hypocrisy is from YouTuber Noralites. She made a long video complaining about loli characters by using the term minor coded just for people to find that she made a video lusting over Hanako-kun a Shota character and her art page was full of explicit yaoi content of underaged characters.

Source: Toilet-Bound Hanako-kun Chapter 87 (2022), Square Enix. Color Spread by AidaIro.

RELATED: Climax Of Night Tournament Bans Player Who Shared Meme In Appreciation Of Loli Fighting Game Characters

Nerdigans Inc.: What are your thoughts on the Climax of Night loli ban scandal?

Haru47: I think it was a really stupid ban. Imagine getting banned over meme that says you like lolis.

The organizers of the event started calling the devs of Melty Blood pedos while still using their product for their own monetary gain. Weve come to the point you cant express yourself if you like a certain character trope because higher ups will throw you under the bus to appeal to a minority of annoying people.

Source: DNF Duel (2022), Arc System Works

RELATED: The House In Fata Morgana Author Pushes Back After Western Localizer Boasts Of Rejecting Inward-Knee Female Character Designs For Being Unnatural

Nerdigans Inc.: What actions can the video game community take to fight back against censorship?

Haru47: As a developer, I say dont buy their censored products. Hit publishers where it hurts them. As a consumer they offered you a product a certain way, just so they later backpedal and expect you to give them money.

Source: Melty Blood: Actress Again: Current Code (2016), French Bread

Nerdigans Inc.: Recently, the manga community has taken their English localization concerns to the Japanese publishers. Should video game fans begin to take a similar approach?

Haru47: Theyve basically been taking the same approach. The thing is whether or not the publishers are willing to listen.

Source: Dengeki Bunko: Fighting Climax Ignition (2015), French Bread

(Editors Note: Originally, this article and its title referred to @Haru47 as a Japanese video game developer. While this phrasing was meant to describe his role as a developer who works on Japanese game, it unfortunately but understandbly gave some readers the mistaken impression that the developer was a Japanese native.

As such, the text has since been updated to clarify that @Haru47 is a developer of Japanese video games.)

NEXT: Anime Matsuri Teams With Vic Mignogna To Launch New Dubbing Studio, Sparking Outrage From Voice Actors Critics

View original post here:

Interview: Developer Of Japanese Video Games Discusses The Rise Of Loli Censorship In Anime And Video Games - Bounding Into Comics

British veteran Darren Brady said Hampshire police were impeding his right to free speech by tracking him down for reposting a meme featuring the LGBT pride flag arranged in the shape of a swastika.

In viral footage of the arrest taken by political activist Laurence Fox who created the meme, officers tell the 51-year-old at his residence in Aldershot that someone has been caused anxiety based on your social media post. That is why you have been arrested.

A spokeswoman for the Hampshire Constabulary told The Federalist that officers confronted Brady following a report that an offensive image had been shared online. It is unclear who filed the report but officers visited Bradys home to establish the exact circumstances around the social media post.

Harry Miller, a former police officer and Bad Law Project CEO who was also arrested, said police first tried to extort Brady by demanding he pay around 80 for educational course so he could downgrade from a crime to a non-crime, which would still show up in a basic Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.

Thats why when officers promised to return on July 28 to hear Bradys final answer about re-education, both Fox and Miller were on the scene to document what Miller dubbed the worlds worst shakedown. When officers arrived at Bradys house for a second time, the police spokeswoman said they were prevented from entering the address to discuss a potential resolution to the matter.

As a result, officers felt it was necessary to arrest a man at the scene so they could interview him in relation to the alleged offence, the spokeswoman continued. She also said a 57-year-old man, whom the Daily Mail identified as Miller, was arrested on suspicion of obstructing/resisting a constable in execution of duty.

He was released under investigation, and our enquiries are ongoing. Due to this being a live investigation we cannot comment further, the spokeswoman said.

Officers claimed to be investigating an alleged offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act (2003), a sweeping law that gives the United Kingdom government the authority to imprison someone if officials deem his online posts grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, or if he knowingly makes a false post for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another.

The spokeswoman made it clear that no further action is being taken against Brady but maintains that officers come to work every day to protect the public and were acting in good faith when they singled out Brady.

We are engaging further with our police and crime commissioner to make sure that we deploy our resource in a way that reflects need in our local communities, she concluded.

Donna Jones, the Hampshire police and crime commissioner, issued a statement criticizing her own force and voicing concern about both the proportionality and necessity of the polices response to this incident.

When incidents on social media receive not one but two visits from police officers, but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins dont always get a police response, something is wrong, Jones said before promising to write the College of Policing asking for greater clarification on how police should respond more appropriately in the future.

That hasnt stopped free speech critics such as Caroline Russell, a member of the Police and Crime Committee in the Greater London Authority, from demanding police look into Laurence Fox using pride flags to create nazi imagery and posting the images on a public platform.

This is a hate crime, Russell tweeted.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Here is the original post:

British Veteran Arrested For Reposting Meme That 'Caused Anxiety' - The Federalist

How should God be represented? How about the word of God? Without these two fundamental questions, neither religion nor literature would have come into being.

The study of literature and language is the secular version of the classic human search for the meaning of the word of God. God is The Great Absent -- some faithful scribe took down Their words atop the Hill, but what do those words really mean? The attempt to read the scriptures gave birth to the field of hermeneutics -- be it the Talmud, Bible, Koran, or the Vedas -- a field that later lent its essential mechanism to secular literary or linguistic study. Dont trust the surface; true meaning is always hidden. Along the centuries, God came to be replaced by the literary Symbol, and trying to make sense of them gave birth to entirely new disciplines. God or author, dead or immortal, earthly or divine?

So much for (wo)mans search for meaning, but do different religions inspire different kinds of narrative representation? In a famous book of literary criticism called Mimesis, Eric Auerbach tells us the difference between what he considers the two fundamental modes of Western narrative realism -- one coming from the Greek epic poet Homer, and the other from the Bible: the former is externalized, sensory, digressive, while the latter is more abstract and obscure, directed towards a single goal. While Homeric epics take erotic delight in the senses and lie and equivocate as they feel, biblical stories claim an absolute, singular Truth. The Bibles claim to truth is not only far more urgent than Homers, Auerbach writes, it is tyrannical -- it excludes all other claims.

The Hindu epics -- and its roster of gods -- resemble the Hellenic pantheon and Homeric narration far more than they resemble the Biblical insistence on Absolute Truth. Both humanise gods as playful, alternatively noble and petty, jealous and generous. Amit Chaudhuri has reminded us of the way the recently deceased Peter Brook, in his dramatised version of The Mahabharata, showed a serious, metaphysical Krishna as a giver of The Bhagavad Gita, consigning the cunning, diplomatic, playful, erotic Krishna to the status of folk aberrations. The moral ambivalence of the latter would have bewildered an Anglo-Protestant audience.

If Catholicism retains sensory, Protestantism is intellectual and abstract. The Abrahamic religion that has the most rigorous dicta about representation is Islam.

**************

Hindus become Islamic in their behaviour when they resent playful representation of their deities. Just the way todays Hindu nationalists become stern Victorian Christians when they try to limit the endless range of human sexuality to the heteronormative. The limits of sensory representation of The Divine is an Abrahamic, particularly Islamic dictum, not one that is Hindu in any way. Any attempts to standardise Hinduism runs counter to its plural, amorphous, and expansive spirit. In the land where versions of Ramayana run from the cheering for a Lanka-burning Hanuman to mourning for the slayed Ravana, nothing is more un-Hindu or un-Indian than the attempt to suppress a hundred -- or 300 -- Ramayanas.

But given the Abrahamic insistence on epistemological rigour and the Islamic strictures about representation, Muslims are within their right to resent divergent representations. Bringing these Abrahamic strictures to the representation of Hindu gods is to fundamentally misrepresent Hinduism itself.

Would Kali come to exist but for this mythical and regional plurality? It is not enough to be a Hindu to get her. One has to be a Bengali -- and who better than an outspoken female political leader? Does Kali eat meat, consume alcohol? Growing up Hindu Bengali in Calcutta, Ive never seen her otherwise. Shes married to a guy who meditates with marijuana in crematoriums. She drinks blood, for Shivas sake.

Probably the greatest Kali devotee in the modern Bengali memory is Shree Ramkrishna Paramhansa, the guru of Swami Vivekananda. Anyone who knows anything about Ramkrishnas ways of Kali worship know the richly ambivalent, even polyamorous relationship he practised with the goddess -- imagining her as mother, lover, daughter. Their play of love, hurt, devotion and anger was as deeply sensory as it was spiritual. In the intricate nature of his living relationship with Kali, he is one of Bengals great Bhakti poets -- as evinced by the earthy poetry of his gospel -- the Kathamrita. Ramkrishna ate fish, fowl, and mammal with great relish, and so do the monks of the order established by his followers, the Ramkrishna Mission. I spent six years in an elite boarding school run by the order in Narendrapur outside Calcutta, and every week, we eagerly looked forward to the chicken curry served to us, the teachers, and the monks for dinner on Fridays.

The great tradition of Bengali theatre in 19th century Calcutta would have been nothing without one of Ramkrishnas greatest devotees, Girish Ghosh, also a great alcoholic. Ramkrishna never asked Ghosh to give up drinking (though Ghoshs doctors certainly did). The mystic somehow came to acknowledge an inevitable relationship between Ghoshs literary creativity and his dependence on alcohol. Ramkrishnas moral attitude to alcoholism, a socially and politically sensitive subject for the bhadralok Bengali, however, was drawn from the culture of Kali-worship, where alcohol and other substances often played defining roles. Take Kalis name before you drink, Ramkrishna told Ghosh, the alcohol will become karon-bari, naming the divine, tantric elixir. A simple and chaste man with childlike excitement about the simplest pleasures of life, Ramkrishna did not smoke or drink himself. But it is well-known that his famous disciple, Vivekananda, loved his hookah. It is the unconscious reluctance to share his hookah with a person of unknown caste that got his great social conscience going, eventually making him one of modern Indias greatest champions of caste equality, a fact conveniently forgotten by many who seek to reclaim a model of militant Hindu masculinity through the Bengali monk.

All of these eddies create the spiritual culture through which a regional Hindu goddess such as Kali must be understood. Shakti, indeed, takes on myriad and bewildering forms.

People protesting the eclectic representation of Hindu deities are bringing the rigour of Islam into the playfulness of Hinduism. But they dont know that, do they?

Saikat Majumdars books include The Scent of God, The Firebird, and The Middle Finger. @_saikatmajumdar. The views expressed in the article are personal.

Subscribe Now to continue reading

Read more:

Essay: Hindu nationalisms censorship of the gods - Hindustan Times

by DAVID KEATING

Assaults on the culture of free speech grow by the day. Unfortunately, much of the assault is coming from the major social media platforms.

The power of our democracy and the genius of our First Amendment is our recognition that no single authority can dictate what is true. We work out our disagreements through speech, publishing, and organizing into groups.

For centuries, reaching others with our views was difficult work, and in many respects it still is. But thanks to social media, most Americans can publish anything and theoretically reach millions of fellow citizens and even much of the world.

As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, social media platforms for many are the principal sources for speaking and listening in the modern public square, where Americans share vital information and express their opinions.

Social media allowed more Americans to engage in public speech than ever before, but like past revolutions in communications technology, it also triggered a backlash. Politicians, media outlets, or activists increasingly pressure companies to censor speech they deem false or misleading, or simply oppose. Lately, much of this speech concerns issues related to elections and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Certainly, you can find false claims about both topics online (and off) with ease. Yet the platforms judgments are far from infallible, and their heavy hand threatens to stifle important debates about unsettled issues. In fact, this has already happened.

Early in the pandemic, Facebook and YouTube censored claims that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated from a lab leak in China, a theory that remains plausible to this day. And, of course, Twitter and Facebook restricted the New York Posts reporting about emails on Hunter Bidens laptop in the leadup to the 2020 election, claiming they were the product of foreign misinformation. After the election, the emails proved to be authentic.

Many Democrats have encouraged this trend towards censorship. Recall that then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki urged faster action against harmful posts and suspension of accounts across all platforms. The Biden Administration created the so-called Disinformation Governance Board before disbanding it in response to public outrage.

Many Republicans say they oppose censorship but want to repeal Section 230, which immunizes social media companies from liability for posts by users. That would likely result in even more censorship from platforms eager to avoid costly litigation. It would also make it effectively impossible for new social media companies to take down the incumbents.

What to do?

Lets stipulate that there are no easy answers. But many of the actions taken now pose real threats to free speech while doing little to stop misinformation and may enable more of it.

Some of the wealthiest corporations in the world operate social media sites, and their mission is to maximize profits. Getting on the wrong side of government officials is bad for business. This creates terrible incentives for the platforms to censor based on the views of the party in power.

Politicians who attempt to influence platforms speech policies are a menace to free speech. Platforms should focus on empowering their users, not their critics or the government, to control what content they see.

The government has a role to play in protecting free speech on the internet. We can create ethics laws and rules preventing government officials from using threats against platforms to get them to censor. And we should consider creating a legal defense against government enforcement actions against social media platforms if the government initiates action based on its interest in retaliating against a platforms refusal to censor or silence itself or its users.

Throughout history, free speech and open debate have been societys best tools for discovering the truth and managing our disagreements.

We also need more information on how the platforms use algorithms to promote and suppress content. Right now, all we get are random information dumps from whistleblowers. If no one knows how social medias black box algorithms are working and failing, how can we come up with sensible government policies?

Ultimately, the solution must come from the platforms themselves. They should return to the more speech-friendly mindset embraced before 2016. Taking on the role of a private sector Ministry of Truth has been a disaster for their reputations with no clear benefit to the public. And it is especially dangerous given the threats wielded by government officials against the platforms.

Throughout history, free speech and open debate have been societys best tools for discovering the truth and managing our disagreements. The technology that we use to express ourselves has changed many times, from the printing press to the telegraph to radio and television and now, to social media. The underlying principles of the First Amendment will always stand the test of time.

David Keating is the president of the Institute for Free Speech in Washington, DC.

More:

To Protect Free Speech, Social Media Platforms Must Stop their Overreach - The Ripon Society