A new public opinion survey conducted by the Cato Institute examines the relationship between political views and self-censorship. The poll of 2,000 Americans ages 18 and older found that most Americans who identify as conservative self-censor, and this self-censoring gets worse with more time spent in higher education.

According to the survey, 62% of Americans say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive, up from 58% in 2017. While 77% of Republicans said they self-censor, only 52% of Democrats said they do.

Even more telling is that staunch liberals were the only political segment of whom a majority, 58%, felt they could share their political views freely. A majority of the other political groups self-censor52% of liberals, 64% of moderates, and 77% of conservatives and strong conservatives.

This new poll corroborates what most conservatives and Republicans already knowtheir views and opinions arent welcome in certain parts of society where woke liberalism has replaced the tradition of a free exchange of ideas.

Colleges are likely making this problem worse.

The higher an American rises in academia, the more likely she will self-censor her views if she is a conservative.

Among employed Americans, 32% worry that their careers would be harmed if their political views become known. That number jumped to 44% for Americans with post-graduate degrees. Interestingly, a large shift occurs among Republicans who attend college and graduate school. While about a quarter of both Republicans (27%) and Democrats (23%) with high school degrees worry their opinions will harm them at work, 40% of Republican college graduates and 60% of post-graduates worry. Only 25% of Democrats with graduate degrees expressed this concern. Republicans who have spent the most time in higher education self-censor the most.

This is no surprise for those who have followed what is happening on college campuses. For years, conservatives have pointed out the imbalance in political views of faculty and administrators and argued that this leads to bias against conservatives. A 2018 surveyof about 900 student-facing administrators found that liberal outnumber conservative staff by a ratio of 12-to-1. This is larger than a previous study finding a 6-to-1 ratio of liberal to conservative professors.

Many students self-censor because they are concerned about their grades, while others worry that their views will impact their social life. When the campus environment sends the message that conservative views arent welcome, this creates a strong incentive for conservatives to keep quiet.

In the book,Shes Conservative: Trials and Triumphs on Americas College Campuses, I collected stories from conservative college women. Many of the women self-censored for fear of how their views would be received on campus. One student tells the story of making the decision to keep her views quiet before she even stepped foot on campus.

COVID-19 has caused us all to rethink the role of major institutions and that should include higher education. While colleges help prepare some students for careers, they also undermine civil discourse when they teach students to shout down the other side rather than engage.

Those on the left who try to shut down conservative views are having an impact. They are silencing conservatives. This means fewer conversations between liberals and conservatives are happening, so there is less understanding of the other side.

Colleges and universities are facing financial challenges and must adjust to new pressures brought on by the pandemic. They should use this time as an opportunity to course correct when it comes to fostering an environment that values intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas.

Karin A. Lips is the founder and president oftheNetwork of Enlightened Women, which educates women on conservative principles. She is a senior fellow with the Independent Womens Forum and editor of Shes Conservative: Stories of Trials and Triumphs on Americas College Campuses. Follow her on Twitter@klips.

See the original post here:

Conservatives self-censor, and it gets worse with more time spent in college - OCRegister

A much hyped-up propaganda has been launched with the intention of portraying Facebook as pro-BJP. While the allegations appear hilarious on the face of it, liberals appear to have lost all sense of reality and proportion and embarked upon an Uninstall Facebook drive. The latest spell of delusion began after propagandists at the Wall Street Journal published a report alleging, without any real evidence, that Facebook was unfairly favouring the BJP.

The allegations are particularly ridiculous because Facebook, like almost all other social media platforms, is known to silence right-wing or conservative voices on social media. The Community Standards section on Hate Speech offers sufficient indication of the Left-wing bias built into the platform.

Facebook clubs gender identity, a term engraved deeply in left-wing political ideology, with very real concepts such as race, ethnicity, religious identity and other such identities. Thus, if a user is vocal against the concept that a man can be a woman if he merely claims to be one, then the user can be accused of having trafficked in Hate Speech and his account could be suspended. We are expected to believe that such an organisation has suddenly discovered fondness for a Hindutvavadi party.

There is also other very real evidence that the Facebook is not favourably disposed towards the BJP. It is known that prior to the General Elections in 2019, the tech giant engaged in a campaign against popular pages supportive of the BJP and suspended them from Facebook without any clear reason at all.

For instance, in April 2019, Facebook had announced that it had taken down 687 pages linked to the Indian National Congress for suspicious activity. When we remove one of these networks, the reason we remove them is because of their coordinated inauthentic behaviour, that they are using network of fake accounts to conceal their identity.to mislead whos behind them. Thats the basic reason for removal, Head of its Cybersecurity Policy Nathaniel Gleicher told the media.

What escaped notice was the fact that numerous pages supportive of the BJP were also taken down, without any good reason, and the popularity of almost every single one of these pages far exceeded that of the cumulative reach of the Congress pages put together. One of the pages that suffered the axe was The Chaupal page which currently has close to 10.8 million likes on Facebook.

The monetisation of the page was suddenly rescinded on the 22nd of March, as per the admins of The Chaupal and they were told that it will be restored in 90 days. However, it was not restored even after 120 days had passed. Now, The Chaupal has a verified blue tick on Facebook. It was suspected even then by the page that they suspect they were targeted because of their right-wing political inclinations.

On the 1st of April, 2019, Facebook pages with a cumulative likes of around 150 million were removed. We page owners have no say after our pages are penalised. We are subjected to automated mails with no positive outcome, they complained. They also complained that they could not add new administrators and editors to their pages.

Speaking to OpIndia, Vikas Pandey, social media influencer and administrator of various popular Facebook pages said that although numerous Congress pages were deleted and their umber was greater in absolute numbers, the cumulative likes on them was far lesser than the BJP pages that were removed. We were told that the reason that was provided was that a Facebook administrator or editor on the page had a fake profile, he said.

Facebook claimed that some pages were removed because one of the IDs of the admins was fake. Many people use more than one accounts and it is very normal to protect ones identity. Such accounts were deleted arbitrarily. All this happened right before elections in April 2019. he said.

We were told that it is a very common practice for admins of pages to create alternative profiles for their Facebook pages. Sometimes, these profiles have names that are similar to the name of the page itself or have the same names as other administrator accounts. BJP-supporting Facebook pages were removed on the basis of such silly reason.

A popular Facebook page, The Frustrated Indian, suffered similar action after they shared from a syndicated news feed. Independent fact-checker Boom Live marked one of their articles as fake. Interestingly, it was a post that was from news agency IANS. When the administrator tried to reach out to Facebook to resolve the issue, he could not get through to him.

Similarly, another Facebook page Nation Wants NaMo was deleted abruptly just ahead of elections. The page admin, speaking to OpIndia said that there was no strike, a warning, before Facebook deleted their page. It was targeted to be deleted, the former page admin said.

Another such Facebook account which is regularly targeted is Political Kida. Ankur Singh, admin of Political Kida, while speaking to OpIndia said how Facebook policies are still unclear and used arbitrarily to silence their pages. They say that their memes and jokes are fact-checked and reported to be fake, videos that target the Congress party are removed before they go viral. The pages are selectively removed without any intimation and information and when an appeal is made, they are met with an automated response without any further response, he said.

Numerous such Facebook pages with great reach such as Doval Fan Club, I Support Ajit Doval, I Support Zee News with likes of 4.1 million, 1.8 million, 2.2 million respectively were censored by Facebook as well. There are a lot of other Facebook pages supportive of the BJP that suffered the same fate.

Under such circumstances, it is utterly preposterous to claim that the social media platform is somehow unfairly favouring the BJP. If anything, it is deliberately engaging in malpractice against the party and engaging in electoral malpractice. The current liberal rage against Facebook appears to be motivated by Facebook not bending to their will as absolutely as they so desire. Facebook, for its part, has rubbished such allegations.

See original here:

Social media activists share stories on how their pro-BJP content was censored by Facebook even as some accuse Facebook of being pro-BJP - OpIndia

Amid a revival of resistance to racial injustice, progressives at Tulane University in New Orleans should have taken great pride in a campus event featuring award-winning author Edward Ball and his new anti-racist book Life of a Klansman: A Family History in White Supremacy. The work has been highly praised as an important story about the history of white supremacy in the South by scholars such as Ibram X. Kendi and Saidiya Hartman. The event was even to be moderated by University of Kentucky professor of African American and Africana Studies Lydia Pelot-Hobbs, whose research areas include racial capitalism as well as prison abolition and feminist and queer politics.

Rather than praise Tulane for tackling the tough subject of white supremacy in the South, more than 500 students revolted in the comments section of the (now deleted) Instagram post announcing the event. Students insisted that the event was harmful and offensive and would advance white supremacy. Tulanes student government (in which I served one uneventful semester) released a statement calling the event "violent toward the experience and work of Black people" and demanding that it be canceled.

Tulane quickly caved to demands and indefinitely postponed the event in an apology posted on Instagram. In the statement, Tulane apologized for causing distress for many in our community and promised to incorporate [black, indigenous, and people of color] voices from our community in the next iteration of the event. Students seeking to cancel the discussion, however, were not satisfied with the apology, arguing that even including voices from people of color would do nothing to promote or influence an anti-racism atmosphere.

This raises the question: If speakers with resumes like Ball and Pelot-Hobbs advance white supremacy even when directly speaking against its horrors, then who can reasonably speak on the subject?

During my four years on campus, I organized over a dozen events, including a lecture featuring a leader in Hong Kongs protest movement, a discussion led by a North Korean defector and a Holocaust survivor, and an award-winning conference on criminal justice reform. I even started a student-led think tank to create further discussion around justice reform and other important causes.

Attendees at every single event I organized during my time at Tulane came from varying racial, economic, and ideological backgrounds. Thanks to my ability to speak freely, I was able to organize events I cared about, and students were able to discuss tough topics.

Tulane empowered me to take control of my education and engage with students, professors, and the New Orleans community through free expression. But the campus culture now demanded by student activists and seemingly agreed to by my alma mater would leave open discourse at Tulane precarious at best and seriously diminished at worst.

I graduated this May as a white Hispanic American, and I wonder whether I would be allowed to speak if invited to Tulane to discuss my work to advance criminal justice reform. Would my fathers personal experience as a man of color in the South give me the right to speak on campus? What about the work I have done to reform Louisianas broken justice system? Would these things be enough for the student government I served in to allow me to speak?

With todays campus culture, who knows?

The fact that these questions are raised at all is proof that my alma mater, which I love dearly, is dangerously close to following the national trend of chilling discourse on campus. Rather than advancing open discourse, which has been the catalyst for so much social change, Tulane risks capitulating to students who reject those principles entirely.

One of the greatest features of the American university has been the hospitable home it provides to radical open discussion and free speech. I hope this incident becomes a learning experience for Tulane and its students of what happens when those principles disappear.

Tulane still has much to do to make the university a better place for many students, particularly low-income students and students of color. Canceling speech cannot be the way forward, and it sets everyone back in their work to advance social progress. I would urge Tulane to host both speakers, and I would urge students to attend, ask tough questions, and bring their own speakers to campus. That is what made Tulane unique during my time there, and it would be a disservice to the student body if it gave up those values.

Marcus Maldonado is a recent graduate of Tulane University and founder of the Wave Center for Policy and Enterprise, Tulanes student-led think tank.

Excerpt from:

Universities won't defeat racism with censorship - Washington Examiner

Kolby Cooper, Vol. 2 (Combustion Music)

Kolby Cooper could add a fresh voice to country radio if he could only get past the censors.

The 21-year-old fire breather from the piney woods of East Texas offers relief from the parade of inauthentic junk laden with John Deere tractor references thats still way too pervasive these days.

Hes edgy, thats for sure.

On Vol. 2, a new five-song EP, Cooper doesnt take long to start the beat-down. One of the songs, 2 Words, begins with a 15-second banjo intro and then drops hard into a breakup song as emphatic as any you will ever hear. And the two words its built around are enough to take commercial radio off the table.

Thats probably OK with Cooper, who still lives in Bradford, Texas, not far from Palestine, a little farther from Dallas. He has the look of a guy who might pump your gas at one of those East Texas stations that still hasnt converted to pay-at-the-pump.

His music pulsates with the give-a-care vibe of someone still kicking dust off his jeans.

Coopers first EP, 2018s Vol. 1, was followed by his only full-length album, Good Ones Never Last, which helped make him a word-of-mouth sensation. His previously best-known breakup song, It Aint Me, registered more than eight million Spotify streams.

Yes, breakup songs are a specialty. But Cooper, who married early, says neither song is autobiographical.

I showed the song to my wife, he says. And she was like, Oh sure, thats a good song. But are we OK?

The answer was yes. And Cooper shows his range and depth on new song Cannonball, a ballad about commitment thats original in its own way.

Versatile and fearless, Cooper is the kind of voice that could redeem country music if only his songs can be cleared for airplay.

View post:

Review: A new voice from Texas rips it but tests the censors - Associated Press

29-year-old BJP MP from South Bangalore Tejaswi Surya has asked netizens to send him written complaints of Facebook allegedly censoring pro-Hindu and nationalist voices.

Surya said that many have complained about Facebook unfairly censoring many nationalist, pro-India or pro-Hindu voices and he as a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT will take it up the matter in an appropriate forum.

This initiative by Surya was soon backed by Delhi BJP leader Kapil Mishra who alleged that there are "thousands of examples where Facebook has unfairly censored, suspended, stalled the reach of pro India, pro Hindu voices" and at the same time allowed the Islamist agenda to continue.

This step against Facebook comes about a year after Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was summoned by an Anurag Thakur led parliamentary panel following allegations of Twitter's left-wing bias. The committee wanted to understand from Dorsey whether the social network is a "technology-driven platform or a content controlling platform".

Original post:

BJP MP Tejaswi Surya To Take Up Complaints Of Facebook Censoring Pro-Hindu And Nationalist Voices - Swarajya

The modern day publishing industry suffers from multiple power asymmetries. Publishers have lost control over distribution - nobody knows how the algorithms work on any of the major social media platforms. Publishers have also long since lost control over their online advertisement.

Now we hear that the cancel culture brigade wants to add to the powerlessness of publishers even more.

They seem to want control over what publishers and politicians can say on their social media channels, and they want only a select group of chosen individuals to decide what will be acceptable - transparency, well defined criteria and other best practises be damned.

They have sought to do this by cleverly insinuating that the individuals involved with content censorship at Facebook have been partisan in their decision making. Although reports suggest that many individuals at high levels in the technology giant have been actually connected with the Congress party, an allegation has been made that decision makers are not censoring hate content for fear of the BJP government.

Here is the thing. Anyone interested in a healthy democratic dialogue on social media would stay far away from making allegations that amount to saying 'they refused to take down content I disliked!'.

What would they ask if they were really interested in making Facebook's content oversight truly healthy?

First, they'd ask for Facebook to address the complete asymmetry Facebook enjoys with respect to content discoverability and distribution. There is no way for publishers, including politicians and opinion makers, to know that the content they produce and publish on Facebook receives equal treatment.

A simple change in Facebook's algorithms have the power to promote political ideologies, personalities, views - we're talking about being able to reach tens of millions of people in a day. During election periods, having such powers in your hand through an opaque algorithm is the ultimate undemocratic set-up.

Second, where unnamed sources have gone after one individual they should have asked that there be more clear rules, more transparent ways of exercising content censorship. Why not make the content censorship set up a multi-party arrangement?

Third, apropos of comments of politicians being censored or not censored - there is no reason why Facebook or any other social media platform cannot put all the censored information and the metadata for the post/content, in a public repository for everyone to see.

This will serve the purpose of transparency - I will know if the other party is being censored for the same set of standards that are applied to me.

This repository will not be part of the main feeds on Facebook so there is no harm done to public discourse.

There are many more ways of making social media platforms more democratic and open - these include more meaningful ways of sharing ad revenues, being more transparent about what algorithms are doing to our reading habits and so on.

But those crying about Facebook's alleged partisanship aren't talking about any of these ways to fix the problem.

All they seem to want is to appropriate the right to censor their ideological opponents, capture big tech's content filtering processes and continue with what they have been doing on mainstream media: shutting down other voices.

Originally posted here:

Facebook's Alleged Bias Towards BJP: The Media Leftists Are Not Asking For Transparency, They Want Control Over Newsfeeds - Swarajya

Kolby Cooper, "Vol. 2" (Combustion Music)

Kolby Cooper could add a fresh voice to country radio -- if he could only get past the censors.

The 21-year-old fire breather from the piney woods of East Texas offers relief from the parade of inauthentic junk laden with John Deere tractor references that's still way too pervasive these days.

He's edgy, that's for sure.

On "Vol. 2," a new five-song EP, Cooper doesn't take long to start the beat-down. One of the songs, "2 Words," begins with a 15-second banjo intro and then drops hard into a breakup song as emphatic as any you will ever hear. And the two words it's built around are enough to take commercial radio off the table.

That's probably OK with Cooper, who still lives in Bradford, Texas, not far from Palestine, a little farther from Dallas. He has the look of a guy who might pump your gas at one of those East Texas stations that still hasn't converted to pay-at-the-pump.

His music pulsates with the give-a-care vibe of someone still kicking dust off his jeans.

Cooper's first EP, 2018's "Vol. 1," was followed by his only full-length album, "Good Ones Never Last," which helped make him a word-of-mouth sensation. His previously best-known breakup song, "It Ain't Me," registered more than eight million Spotify streams.

Yes, breakup songs are a specialty. But Cooper, who married early, says neither song is autobiographical.

"I showed the song to my wife," he says. "And she was like, 'Oh sure, that's a good song. But are we OK?'"

The answer was yes. And Cooper shows his range and depth on new song "Cannonball," a ballad about commitment that's original in its own way.

Versatile and fearless, Cooper is the kind of voice that could redeem country music -- if only his songs can be cleared for airplay.

See more here:

Review: Kolby Cooper -- a new voice from Texas -- rips it but tests the censors - Chicago Daily Herald

When more than 200 police officers raided the headquarters of Hong Kongs biggest and only pro-democracy mass-circulation newspaper, Apple Daily, on August 10, many people feared this spelled the end of press freedom in the territory.

Earlier that day, they had arrested the papers owner, 72 year-old tycoon Jimmy Lai, under a controversial new National Security Law (NSL) for allegedly colluding with foreign forces. He has since been released on bail.

For Apple Daily reporter Patrick*, the symbolism was clear: [It was] the state apparatus using a paramilitary force to intrude upon a media organisation that holds a critical stance. Officers were searching journalistic material. Its a clear message, this will happen to you if youre disobedient.

Freedom of the press is enshrined in Hong Kongs Basic Law but has suffered in recent years from political and economic pressure and resultant creeping self-censorship, which is reflected in the territorys poor recent performance in press freedom indices. Yet Hong Kongs media is still relatively independent and robust especially compared with mainland China.

The NSL, drafted and approved in Beijing, threatens to change that. It introduces sweeping but vague charges of subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorism. Incitement of hatred against the national and local governments is also outlawed.

I spoke with several local reporters working in TV, radio, newspapers and online media to find out what its like on the ground, one and a half months after the NSL was passed. All but one, including Patrick, quoted above, requested that I use an alias when quoting them for fear of reprisals.

Many local journalists report increased self-censorship. Patrick says mainstream media organisations now tend to quote already public comments of pro-independence figures rather than interview them directly, and that journalists are losing the freedom from fear.

After an interview, I do think about the risk its just a fleeting moment of hesitation, but that moment is a kind of self-censorship.

Selene, a television reporter, says that when interviewing pro-independence figures she and other journalists now avoid discussing advocacy for international sanctions. Journalists worry about showing shots of protest banners with the popular slogan Liberate Hong Kong, which the government says violates the NSL.

James, a reporter at I-Cable, is worried that reports deemed critical of the police could result in charges of incitement of hatred against the authorities:

The red lines are expanding quickly to include anything the regime disagrees with its very hard to practice journalism in such an oppressive space.

Although the government has said the NSL will only target a minority of people, it has already had a chilling effect on freedom of expression, according to the journalists I spoke with. Newspaper reporter Kristy says interviewees have become reluctant to speak on the record, or at all, while journalists are afraid theyll be forced to divulge their sources.

Alvin Lum, who covers local politics for the independent online outlet CitizenNews (and was happy for me to use his name) says the NSL is a game-changer. It requires journalists to hand over journalistic materials and the law is unclear whether reporting certain views could be seen as advocacy.

A number of other recent incidents have shaken confidence in press freedom. One is a series of attacks on the government-funded public broadcaster RTHK, including government criticism of a journalist who asked a World Health Organization official a question about Taiwan. The government has since ordered a far-reaching six-month review of RTHK.

Another concern is recent changes in management at NOW TV and I-Cable, both until now well regarded as relatively independent news operations. The new managers are either regarded as pro-Beijing, or are less qualified than those they replaced. Meanwhile there have been press reports that the government has set up a new national security unit to vet visas for foreign journalists.

Given the uncertainties created by the NSL, and escalating tensions between Beijing and Washington in which journalist visas have become tools of retaliation foreign media organisations may be tempted to follow the New York Times, which recently relocated part of its Hong Kong-based operations to Seoul.

Apple Daily reporter Patrick says: I hope the international media dont leave Hong Kong so easily, or station fewer journalists here. Having more media reporting in Hong Kong will help to protect Hong Kongs press freedom.

There is a tendency when describing developments in Hong Kong to resort to hyperbole its always the darkest day, or the coldest winter for Hong Kongs autonomy, freedoms or rule of law.

The gradual undermining of values, safeguards and institutions that underpin Hong Kong in recent years and especially since the 2019 protests reveals the inadequacy of such language. There is a common saying about this decline that there is no most, only more meaning things can be expected to worsen.

Hong Kongs media will face more challenges ahead. Its journalists are nervous and fearful and some are seriously considering their future in journalism. One of the frontline journalists I spoke to described press freedom as being seriously ill and another said it was close to death.

But they arent ready to give up. Well take one step at a time. [Press freedom] isnt dead, there are a lot of reporters working hard! Selene told me.

She pointed out that Apple Daily was still publishing it printed hundreds of thousands of extra copies after the raid. Citizens eagerly snapped up copies and bought shares in the papers parent company Next Digital.

As Raymond, a 15-year industry veteran says: Everyone the public, reporters, editors, interviewees is a part of this struggle for press freedom. Its alive as long as people are willing to keep it alive.

* Most journalists identities have been disguised in this article.

See the article here:

Hong Kong's press freedom is on life support thanks to the new security law - The Conversation UK

Hollywood likes to hold itself out as a progressive pioneer of social justice, but a new report highlights how the desire to get films into the Chinese market leads major film studios to violate their own social justice dogma. In fact, it often leads them to import the values of the Chinese Communist Party the organization with the highest body count in human history.

The report by PEN America, a nonprofit organization that promotes free expression in literature, examines a collection of films that bowed to Chinese censorship in order to get access to the Chinese movie market. China allows 34 foreign films to be released in the country each year, and in 2018, quarterly revenue from China surpassed the United States for the first time. Before the pandemic, it was projected that revenue from China in 2023 would reach $15.5 billion.

Some Chinese censorship is minor, propaganda that can only be caught by alert viewers. Paramount cut the Taiwanese flag from Tom Cruises jacket for the Top Gun sequel, while the DreamWorks film Abominable (a collaboration with Chinas Pearl Studio) featured the nine-dash line, a propaganda map asserting Chinas control of the South China Sea.

Hollywood studios will often run afoul of the tenets of social justice they often push in the U.S. Marvel notably whitewashed a major Tibetan character in Doctor Strange to avoid offending the Chinese government. Studios ranging from Warner Brothers to Paramount to Twentieth Century Fox have either removed scenes of same-sex kissing from films or had them removed by China when the films aired. A complaint from a religious group in the U.S., on the other hand, would only draw mockery.

The most troubling takeaway from the report is not that individual scenes are being censored or self-censored but that studios have decided to base major film decisions on China, sometimes even unprompted. Marvel infamously brought in Chinese regulators during the filming of Iron Man 3 to ensure the movie stayed inbounds and added extra scenes to the Chinese version of the film showing Chinese doctors saving Iron Mans life.

The days of Hollywood backing human rights in its work have disappeared. The 1997 film Seven Years in Tibet, portraying Chinas 1950 invasion of Tibet, led to the blacklisting of director Jean-Jacques Annaud until his groveling apology 12 years later. Film star Brad Pitt was also penalized for the movie, which likely helped bar World War Z from a Chinese release.

Change is not a lost cause. The industrys biggest stars have the power to push for it, as when Quentin Tarantino refused to sign off on a re-cut of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood to appease Chinese censors. But if Hollywoods other influential voices are unwilling to even stand up for their own creative freedom, why would they take a stand on behalf of the human rights of people they will never even meet?

Link:

Hollywood is importing Chinese censorship to the United States - Washington Examiner