Daily Archives: March 5, 2021

Yangon, Myanmar Hours after the Myanmar military seized power in a coup on February 1, it cut the internet. The blackout stalled the spread of information, as people in Myanmar and around the world slowly learned that the military had declared a one-year state of emergency and overthrown the civilian government, led by Aung San Suu Kyi.

Far from an emergency measure, however, internet restrictions have become a hallmark of the generals short tenure in power.

Every night for more than two weeks, the military has imposed an internet blackout from 1am (18:30 GMT) to 9am (02:30 GMT) across the country. At the same time, it has also moved to grant itself sweeping powers to censor and arrest online dissenters. The regime has also banned access to websites, including popular social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

The first overnight internet shutdown was imposed on February 6, the same day as the first mass protest.

Thousands took to the streets while misinformation spread via text messages, much of it seemingly designed to suppress protesters from gathering. One commonly shared message falsely claimed that the protesters were hired by the military to justify a harsher crackdown on the general population. Another falsely reported that Aung San Suu Kyi had been released.

But it was not until February 15 at 1am that the military government began its coordinated, nightly shutdowns. By then, mass protests were becoming increasingly common across the country, unhindered by the slowdown of information. Theories abound as to why the military has persisted with the blackouts.

James Griffiths, the author of The Great Firewall of China, said the decision to ban Facebook and Twitter was not surprising but the overnight internet shutdowns were a lot stranger.

Such blocks are relatively easy to achieve, especially when the government controls ISPs [internet service providers] which in the case of a military junta we must assume they do physically even if they dont legally, he said about the social media censorship.

Griffiths said there does seem to be some merit to the idea that the nightly shutdowns are related to installing new tech. Even then, however, it is slightly confusing, given that internet systems, including internet backbones, are upgraded periodically around the world without this type of outage, he continued.

Soldiers have used increasing force against protesters with some 50 people killed since the coup took place a month ago, according to the UN [File: Lynn Bo Bo/EPA]Human rights groups and international business organisations came together to condemn the military governments moves to legally restrict the internet via a draft Cybersecurity Bill and a series of amendments to the Electronic Transactions Law.

The proposed cyber-law would require that all online service providers keep all user data inside Myanmar and provide the government with the unrestricted authority to censor content or access user data, an onerous requirement for the providers and an enormous threat to human rights.

As currently drafted, it requires internet service providers to disclose user information to the authorities at any point in time without justifiable reasons, said a February 15 statement signed by eight chambers of commerce including the US, UK and Europe.

The draft cybersecurity law would hand a military that just staged a coup and is notorious for jailing critics almost unlimited power to access user data, putting anyone who speaks out at risk, Human Rights Watch said in a statement.

Amid the public outcry, the military government quietly amended the Electronic Transactions Law on February 15, adding some provisions that had originally been planned for the Cybersecurity Bill.

According to the non-government organisation Free Expression Myanmar, the copied amendments include jail time for spreading false information and giving the authorities broad powers to intercept user data. It is not clear if the military government still plans to move forward with the Cybersecurity Bill, or if it is content with the provisions in the Electronic Transactions Law.

A regional telecommunications expert, who asked to comment anonymously due to the political sensitivity of the issue, said it was possible the internet shutdowns were related to a new censorship regime.

No one outside the junta knows for sure, [but] it is possible that the government is shutting parts of the network at night to install hardware to implement strict censorship protocols and this would be permitted under their new cybersecurity law, the expert said.

Another theory is that the shutdown was part of the militarys effort to monitor the web for threats.

What I think may be happening is the government is trying to reduce the overall data traffic volume in order to monitor that traffic for any perceived threats while allowing companies to stay online during business hours, he said.

The expert said if the shutdowns were related to plans for a Myanmar firewall, this would raise existential questions about the future of investments in Myanmar.

Griffiths says he believes the generals would prefer an outright blackout but were reluctant to make such a move due to the massive economic costs.

The military has already deployed this blanket method in western Myanmar, where it cut off the internet in eight townships for more than two years while it engaged in a brutal war with the Arakan Army.

An internet blackout would also fully alienate the type of middle-class Burmese who could be the greatest threat to the new regime, and upon whom the junta will rely on to get the economy going again, he said.

But the nightly shutdowns are already frustrating the business community, foreign and domestic.

A local businessman in the IT industry, who asked to comment anonymously for safety reasons, said many actvities were being disrupted, including schools that were holding virtual lessons starting before 9am.

Telenor made a name for itself as Myanmars most transparent telco. Shortly after the coup it said it was no longer possible to share the directives it was receiving from the authorities [File: Lynn Bo Bo/EPA]Those lessons had to be rescheduled. And as telcos [telecommunications companies] struggled to provide seamless data service, teachers and students losing access to some online services such as Google drive and Amazon cloud, disrupted the flow, he said in an email.

He said the cuts would be quite disruptive for any IT company offering offshore development in foreign countries.

Quite a few developers like to burn the midnight oil and work till 3-4am, before turning in. They prefer the silence and disruption-free nature of night-time coding. Now thats become impossible, he added.

Tatum Albertine, the executive director of the American Chamber of Commerce in Myanmar, says the group has received no explanation from the military about the shutdowns, which have also caused problems for foreign businesses.

Albertine says the blackouts are a nuisance to companies that rely on the internet to communicate with headquarters and regional offices, financial institutions, suppliers, and customers who work across time zones around the world.

Lack of access to telecommunications systems is concerning for the continuity of business operations. Regularly not having access to the internet will likely be a key area that foreign investors will consider when looking at Myanmar, Albertine said.

Norwegian telecommunications company Telenor made a name for itself as the only transparent telecommunications company in Myanmar, providing regular updates on orders and directives it received from authorities, even ones it disagreed with.

On February 14, hours before the internet shutdown, that came to an end.

It is currently not possible for Telenor to disclose the directives we receive from the authorities, Telenor said in a statement, adding it was gravely concerned by this development.

The military response to the continuing demonstrations has become more violent, but protesters are not deterred [Lynn Bo Bo/EPA]In an email to Al Jazeera, Telenor spokesperson Cathrine Stang Lund said the company continues to publicly emphasise that peoples basic right to freedom of expression and access to information should be upheld and has protested against the proposed cybersecurity law.

When asked if the company would consider pulling out of Myanmar given the recent developments, Lund said it was evaluating the situation, and was committed to safeguarding the safety of its employees and providing services to its customers.

We are worried about the situation in Myanmar. We have seen the difference access to communication technology can make in reducing inequalities and contributing to inclusive growth, and we want to contribute to the countrys progress, she said.

If the military was hoping the internet blackout and censorship would help conceal its increasing brutality towards the citizens who have taken to the streets in support of their elected government that has not happened.

On Wednesday, as the blackout continued for an 18th night, graphic videos and photos were shared around the world, depicting violent attacks on protesters, and the use of live ammunition. At least 38 people were killed, according to the UNs special envoy in Myanmar.

Visit link:
Why is Myanmars military blocking the internet? - Al Jazeera English

In 1833 Lydia Maria Child was probably the best-known female writer in the United States. Then her radical abolitionistbook Appeal in Favor of That Class of Americans Called Africans, in which she called for immediate emancipation, was published. It was not well received. In fact, as scholar Carolyn L. Karcher writes, Child sacrificed her literary career to abolitionism.

Born in 1802, Child rocketed to fame with Hobomok, a historical novel first published anonymously (By an American) in 1824. The book, writes Karcher, scandalized and titillated her contemporaries with its double violation of the taboos against miscegenation and divorce. In the novel, Child imagined a sexual relationship between a Native American man and an English woman during the early colonial period. This initially raised eyebrows in Boston, the heart of the literary scene, but the novel grew in reputation (and sales) and Child was celebrated. She was one of Nathaniel Hawthornes damned mob of scribbling women, who sold more books than he did.

In her nonfictional Appeal, however, she went beyond the limits of debate, even defending the right of men and women to marry regardless of race. Boston was not so appreciative this time. Sales of all her books plummeted; she was shunned in the street; subscriptions to her magazine for children were canceled.

The publication of the Appeal coincided with the peak of the anti-abolitionist movement in the North. Congressmen, attorneys general, judges, mayors, bankers, financiers, merchants, and manufacturers led mobs attacking abolitionists, writes Karcher. One abolitionist newspaper editor was killed. The militia was called in to suppress the week-long New York City anti-abolition riot in July 1834. Child herself experienced the fury of anti-abolitionist mobs at least twice, and wrote memorable accounts of them, according to Karcher. And in 1836, the Gag Rule muzzled any debate over slavery in Congress.

It was in this climate that Child struggled to get back into mainstream publishing. Her next major work was a collection of her columns from the National Anti-Slavery Standard, written between 1841 and 1843. The original abolitionist columns, however, were too radical for the uncommitted public.

If Child wanted a commercial publisher to sponsor the book and a large body of readers to buy it, she would have to censor it, writes Karcher. Thus she found herself facing a difficult moral problem: how could she regain her popularity without betraying her principles.

Not printing some of her more radical pieces and replacing the word abolition with reform in others, Child blunted her politics in Letters from New-York (1843). The book, Karcher judges, retained a strong reformist cast, but only the faintest tinge of abolitionism.

As Karcher notes, government censorship, while not unknown, has been fairly rare in America. But there has long been what she calls censorship American style. This is a varying mix of market forceswhat the public will buy, or what gatekeepers think the public will buyand conformist opinion about legitimate topics for discussion. Ostracized by respectable opinion and threatened by violent anti-abolitionists, Lydia Maria Child felt she had to censor herself to get her message out to a wider audience.

The chief victims of these informal pressures to conform, concludes Karcher, are not the writers whose freedom it limits, but rather the public they are seeking to educate by disseminating ideas and information that run counter to prevailing orthodoxy.

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

The North American Review, Vol. 41, No. 88 (Jul., 1835), pp. 170-193

University of Northern Iowa

By: Carolyn L. Karcher

Studies in the American Renaissance, Studies in the American Renaissance (1986), pp. 283-303

Joel Myerson

More here:
Lydia Maria Child and the American Way of Censorship - JSTOR Daily

I know a lot of people who live in fear of saying what they really think. In red America and in blue America and, perhaps more so, on the red internet and the blue internet we are in the grip of an epidemic of self-silencing. What you censor, of course, depends on where you sit.

My liberal friends who live in red America confess to avoiding discussions of masks, Dominion, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, the 2020 election and Donald Trump, to name just a few. When those who disagree with the surrounding majority speak their mind, they suffer the consequences. I think here of my friend, the conservative writer David French, who for four years endured an avalanche of horrific attacks against himself and his family for criticizing the Trump administration that ultimately required the intervention of the FBI.

But there are two illiberal cultures swallowing up the country. I know because I live in blue America, in a world awash in NPR tote bags and front lawn signs proclaiming the social justice bonafides of the family inside.

In my America, the people who keep quiet dont fear the wrath of Trump supporters. They fear the illiberal left.

They are feminists who believe there are biological differences between men and women. Journalists who believe their job is to tell the truth about the world, even when its inconvenient. Doctors whose only creed is science. Lawyers who will not compromise on the principle of equal treatment under the law. Professors who seek the freedom to write and research without fear of being smeared. In short, they are centrists, libertarians, liberals and progressives who do not ascribe to every single aspect of the new far-left orthodoxy.

After I resigned from The New York Times over the summer for their hostility to free speech and open inquiry, I began to hear almost daily from such people. Their notes to me sound like missives smuggled out of a totalitarian society.

I realize that may sound hysterical. So Id ask you to consider a few recent examples from my inbox:

I never thought Id practice the kind of self-censorship I now do when pitching editors, but these days I have almost no power to do otherwise, a young journalist writes. For woke-skeptical young writers, banishment and rejection awaits if you attempt to depart, even in minor ways, from the sacred ideology of wokeness.

Self-censorship is the norm, not the exception, a student at one of the top law schools in the country wrote from his personal email because he was worried about sending it from his official school account. I self-censor even when talking to some of my best friends for fear of word getting around. Practically all of the faculty subscribe to the same ideology, the student went on. And so, he confessed, I try to write exam answers that mirror their world view rather than presenting the best arguments I see.

We live in the freest society in the history of the world. There is no gulag here, as there was in the Soviet Union. There is no formal social credit system, as there is today in China. And yet the words that we associate with closed societies dissidents, double thinkers, blacklists are exactly the ones that come to mind when I read the notes above.

The liberal worldview that we took for granted in the West from the end of the Cold War until only a few years ago is under siege. It is under siege on the right by the rapid spread of internet cults and conspiracy theories. One need look no further than Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene, an unabashed QAnon believer just elected to Congress.

On the left, liberalism is under siege by a new, illiberal orthodoxy that has taken root all around, including in the very institutions meant to uphold the liberal order. And cancellation is this ideologys most effective weapon. It uses cancellation the way ancient societies used witch burnings: to strike fear into the hearts of everyone watching. The point is the assertion of power. By showing the rest of us that we could be next, it compels us to conform and obey, either by remaining silent, or, perhaps, offering up our own kindling.

Maybe you are among this self-silencing majority. There is a good chance that you are if the biologist Bret Weinstein is right when he observes that the population is composed of four groups: the few who actually hunt witches, a large group that goes along and a larger group that remains silent. Theres also a tiny group that opposes the hunt. And that final group as if by magic become witches.

I speak on behalf of this latter category. In this essay, allow me the opportunity to try to convince you that everything that makes America exceptional, everything that makes civilization worthy of that name, depends on your willingness to pick up a broomstick.

I was born in 1984, which puts me among the last generation born into America before the phrase cancel culture existed. That world I was born into was liberal. I dont mean that in the partisan sense, but in the classical and therefore the most capacious sense of that word. It was a liberal consensus shared by liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats.

The consensus view relied on a few foundational truths that seemed as obvious as the blue of the sky: the belief that everyone is created in the image of God; the belief that everyone is equal because of it; the presumption of innocence; a revulsion to mob justice; a commitment to pluralism and free speech, and to liberty of thought and of faith.

As Ive observed elsewhere, this worldview recognized that there were whole realms of human life located outside the province of politics, like friendships, art, music, family and love. It was possible for Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be the best of friends, because, as Scalia once said, some things are more important than votes.

Most importantly, this worldview insisted that what bound us together was not blood or soil, but a commitment to a shared set of ideas. Even with all of its failings, the thing that makes America exceptional is that it is a departure from the notion, still prevalent in so many other places, that biology, birthplace, class, rank, gender, race are destiny. Our second founding fathers, abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, were living testimonies to that truth.

This old consensus every single aspect of it has been run over by the new illiberal orthodoxy. Because this ideology cloaks itself in the language of progress, many understandably fall for its self-branding. Dont. It promises revolutionary justice, but it threatens to drag us back into the mean of history, in which we are pitted against one another according to tribe.

The primary mode of this ideological movement is not building or renewing or reforming, but tearing down. Persuasion is replaced with public shaming. Forgiveness is replaced with punishment. Mercy is replaced with vengeance. Pluralism with conformity; debate with de-platforming; facts with feelings; ideas with identity.

According to the new illiberalism, the past cannot be understood on its own terms, but must be judged through the morals and mores of the present. Education, according to this ideology, is not about teaching people how to think, its about telling them what to think. All of this is why William Peris, a UCLA lecturer and an Air Force veteran, was investigated because he read Martin Luther King Jr.s Letter from Birmingham Jail out loud in class. It is why statues of Ulysses S. Grant and Abraham Lincoln were torn down last summer. It is why a school district in California has banned Harper Lees To Kill a Mockingbird, Mark Twains The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and John Steinbecks Of Mice and Men. Its why the San Francisco School Board just voted to rename 44 schools, including ones named for George Washington, Paul Revere and Dianne Feinstein you read that right for various sins.

In this ideology, if you do not tweet the right tweet or share the right slogan or post the right motto and visual on Instagram, your whole life can be ruined. If you think Im exaggerating, you might look up Tiffany Riley, the Vermont public school principal fired this fall because she said she supports Black lives but not the organization Black Lives Matter.

In this ideology, intent doesnt matter a whit. Just ask Greg Patton. This fall, the professor of business communication at USC was teaching a class on filler words like um and like and so forth for his masters-level course. In China, he noted, the common pause word is that that that. So in China it might be he then went on to pronounce a Chinese word that sounded like an English racial slur.

Some students were offended and they wrote a letter to the dean of the business school accusing their professor of negligence and disregard. They added: We should not be made to fight for our sense of peace and mental well-being at school.

Rather than telling them that their assertions were lunacy, the dean of the school capitulated to the madness: It is simply unacceptable for faculty to use words in class that can marginalize, hurt and harm the psychological safety of our students. Patton was suspended from teaching the course and the increasingly elastic notion of safety was wielded, once again, into a powerful weapon.

Victimhood, in this ideology, confers morality. I think therefore I am is replaced with: I am therefore I know, and I know therefore I am right.

In this ideology, you are guilty for the sins of your father. In other words: you are not you. You are only a mere avatar of your race or your religion. And racism is no longer about discrimination based on the color of someones skin. Racism is any system that allows for disparate outcomes between racial groups. That is why the cities of Seattle and San Francisco have recast algebra as racist. Or why a Smithsonian institution this summer declared that hard work, individualism and the nuclear family are white characteristics.

In this totalizing ideology, you can be guilty by proximity. A Palestinian business owner in Milwaukee, Majdi Wadi, was nearly wiped out this summer because of racist and anti-Semitic tweets his daughter wrote as a teenager. A professional soccer player was fired because of the posts of his wife. There are hundreds of similar examples. The enlightenment, as the critic Ed Rothstein has put it, has been replaced by the exorcism.

Perhaps most importantly, in this ideology, speech the way that we resolve conflict in a civilized society can be violence, yet violence, when carried out by the right people in pursuit of a just cause, is not violence at all.

That is how, in June, more than 800 of my former colleagues at The New York Times claimed that an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton put them in danger, while the most celebrated journalist at the paper the most recent winner of a Pulitzer Prize publicly insisted that looting and rioting are not violence. That journalist, the creator of the 1619 project, continues to be lionized. In the meantime, the editors who published the op-ed were publicly humiliated and then pushed out of the paper.

One can disagree with the argument waged by Tom Cotton he advocated for the National Guard to put down violent rioting over the summer and believe, as I do, that you cannot call yourself the paper of record and ignore the views of half of the country.

I resigned a few weeks after that shameful episode, convinced that it wasnt possible to take intellectual risks at a newspaper that folded like a tent in the face of a mob. As I wrote in my resignation letter, All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what theyll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and youll be hung out to dry.

The skeptical reader will rightly point out that cultures have always had taboos. That there have always been behaviors or words that put people beyond the pale. Ostracism has been with us since the Hebrew Bible, and public shaming has long been a way for tribes and cultures to maintain important social mores.

All true. But what we call cancel culture is a departure from traditional taboos in two ways.

The first is technology. Sins once confined to the public square or the town hall are now available for the entire world for eternity. In our era of Big Tech there is no possibility of moving to a new town and starting fresh because the cloud of all of your posts and likes hangs over your head forever.

The second is that in the past, societal taboos were generally reached through a cultural consensus. Todays taboos, on the other hand, are often fringe ideas pushed by a zealous cabal trying to redefine what is acceptable and what should be shunned. It is a group that has control of nearly all of the institutions that produce American cultural and intellectual life: media, to be sure, but also higher education, museums, publishing houses, marketing and advertising outfits, Hollywood, K-12 education, technology companies and, increasingly, corporate human resource departments.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that a recent national study from the Cato Institute found that 62% of Americans say they self-censor. The more conservative a group is, the more likely they are to hide their views: 52% of Democrats confess to self-censoring compared with 77% of Republicans.

And of course they are afraid. In an era when people are smeared for petty things, small grievances and differences of opinion in a supposedly liberal and tolerant environment, who would dare share that they voted for a Republican?

But no one joins things to make themselves feel bad. People join things that make them feel good, that give them meaning, that provide them with a sense of belonging. Which is why so many people of my generation and younger have been drawn to this ideology. I do not believe it is because they lack intellect or because they are snowflakes.

The rise of this movement has taken place against the backdrop of major changes in American life the tearing apart of our social fabric; the loss of religion and the decline of civic organizations; the opioid crisis; the collapse of American industries; the rise of big tech; the loss of faith in meritocracy; the arrogance of our elites; successive financial crises; a toxic public discourse; crushing student debt; the death of trust. It has taken place against the backdrop in which the American dream has felt like a punchline, the inequalities of our supposedly fair, liberal meritocracy are clearly rigged in favor of some people and against others.

I became converted because I was ripe for it and lived in a disintegrating society thirsting for faith. That was Arthur Koestler writing in 1949 about his love affair with communism. The same can be said of this new, revolutionary faith.

If we want our bright young minds to reject this worldview, we must face these problems because without these maladies we would have had neither Donald Trump nor the cultural revolutionaries now transforming Americas most important institutions from within.

But we must start somewhere, and the only place we can start is an appeal to courage and duty.

It is our duty to resist the crowd in this age of mob thinking. It is our duty to speak truth in an age of lies. It is our duty to think freely in an age of conformity.

Or, as the great American judge Learned Hand once put it so perfectly, Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.

Keeping the spirit of liberty alive in an age of creeping illiberalism is nothing less than our moral obligation. Everything depends on it.

Bari Weiss is the author of How to Fight Anti-Semitism, which won a 2019 National Jewish Book Award. From 2017 to 2020 Weiss was an opinion writer and editor at The New York Times. Before that she was an op-ed and book review editor at The Wall Street Journal and a senior editor at Tablet Magazine.

This story appears in the March issue of Deseret Magazine. Learn more about how to subscribe.

Go here to read the rest:
Bari Weiss on cancel culture, leaving The New York Times and self-censorship - Deseret News

The future of the Merc with a Mouth in the MCU has been the subject of some debate in recent months, with Deadpool 3 looking likely to receive a stronger rating than other projects from Marvel Studios. While star Ryan Reynolds hasnt really shown any frustration with the developing movie so far, a new report today from GeekTyrant is suggesting that the actor may not be happy with Disney and specifically, with how theyre potentially censoring the future film.

According to the story, Reynolds has fallen out with the Mouse House in a major way, with GeekTyrant noting:

According to a source that works on the Fox Studios lot, Reynolds has had it with Disney and doesnt want to have anything to do with them. So, what did Disney do to possibly get on Reynolds bad side? Well, from what Ive been told Reynolds is tired of the Disney censorship bullshit and that hes saying enough is enough.

If true, this development would go against what weve previously been hearing from Kevin Feige and Reynolds regarding the ambitious plans for Deadpool. As such, for now, wed advise taking this report with a grain of salt. That being said, GeekTyrant stresses that the actors issue is specifically with the Mouse House and not Marvel Studios, so things may indeed still be fine between him and Feige.

In any case, Reynolds has a lot invested personally in Wade Wilson and will surely be protective over any new directions taken with the material. Assuming that an R-rating is almost certain for Deadpool 3, though, itd be a surprise if there was more pressure for cuts to content, or that thered be internal problems with the Merc with a Mouth laying into the Avengers and similar properties, given thats something that the in-development picture is being tipped to indulge in.

Theres also no reason to worry just yet, as we heard earlier today that Reynolds is very impressed with Marvel Studios (again, not Disney) approach to date with Deadpool 3. And with the pic probably not reaching screens until 2023, theres still plenty of time for things to change behind the scenes.

See the original post here:
Ryan Reynolds Reportedly Unhappy With Disneys Censorship Of Deadpool 3 - We Got This Covered

In short, we do not need good laws to restrain bad men. We need good men to restrain bad laws. G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936)

Why do people in power try to silence speech with which they disagree?

Last week produced news about the suppression of speech on university campuses.

There, the suppression usually occurs through the power of intimidation before the speech is given. Yet, most public lectures on college campuses are public accommodations, meaning the landowner the university cannot bar the entry of audience members because of their political views, nor can it silence the speakers because of theirs.

Ordinarily, the owner of private property can impose whatever regulations he wishes upon those who voluntarily come upon his land. But in our era of ubiquitous government, state legislatures have enacted laws that require that if you invite the public, you must take whoever shows up. And if you accept money from the state or the feds and there are only a handful of colleges and universities that do not you must abide the same First Amendment standards as the government.

In the latter case, since the government cannot discriminate on the basis of ideas, then colleges or universities that accept funds from the government likewise cannot. The theory here is that the governments funds dollars taken from taxpayers or money the government has borrowed, to be repaid by future taxpayers ought not be used indirectly in ways that the Constitution bars the government from using directly.

But the First Amendment is rarely enforced on college campuses today because colleges have largely become places of left-wing orthodoxy where it is acceptable to cajole or intimidate into silence speakers who are at odds with that orthodoxy.

The usual excuse is the speaker will outrage the audience and that would threaten public safety.

Yet, under the First Amendment, where the audience is voluntary, free speech trumps public safety. This clash happens when people come to public lectures not because they like the lecturers ideas but because they hate them.

A famous Chicago case put to rest the concept of freedom of speech versus public safety. The issue was the hecklers veto, which takes place when audience members are so intentionally disruptive that they effectively prevent the speaker from speaking.

Here is what happened. On Feb. 7, 1946, Fr. Arthur Terminiello, a Roman Catholic priest who was an outspoken opponent of the Truman administration, gave an incendiary speech in a hall in Chicago, which the sponsors of the speech had rented for that purpose.

The sponsors had obtained the required permits from the Chicago police.

The hall was on private property.The speech delighted Terminiellos supporters and antagonized his opponents.

The opponents numbered about 1,600 people and the supporters about 800.

When it became apparent that violence might break out, the police ordered Terminiello to stop speaking and to leave the venue.

When he disregarded their instructions, they arrested him and charged him with breach of the peace.

They did not arrest any of the audience members who broke chairs, smashed windows and stormed the stage. Only the priest who gave the speech was arrested.Terminiello was convicted in a trial court and his conviction was upheld by state appellate courts. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed his conviction.

In doing so, the court moved First Amendment jurisprudence significantly closer to where it is today a near absolute protection for public political speech.

The court held that the government cannot silence a speaker because it fears his words or the audience. It also held that it is the duty of the government to respect and protect the freedom of speech, not to nullify or avoid it.

The decision was 5 to 4, and Justice Robert Jackson wrote a misguided dissent with a memorable one-liner. He argued that freedom of speech does not tolerate violence and permits the government to silence a speaker who may be prone to inciting violence beforehe speaks. Jackson lamented that in the post-World War II era, liberty and governmental order are often adversaries.

He warned that if the courts regularly side with liberty, they will convert the Constitution and the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact. But the First Amendment and the natural right to say what you think compel the court to side with liberty, no matter how odious is the speech.

Jackson who had just returned to the court from a leave of absence as Americas chief prosecutor at Nuremberg was naive in his lament about liberty and governmental order being 20th-century adversaries.

They have always been and will always be adversaries.

The essence of humanity is personal liberty. And the essence of government is the negation of liberty. Jackson rejected the very values underlying the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; namely, that freedom is the default position because it is integral to our nature.

And the Supreme Court rejected Jacksons arguments.

Prior to this case, nearly all the Supreme Courts 20th-century First Amendment rulings sided with the government.

The Terminiello case is a landmark because, since it and from it, the Supreme Court has consistently sided with First Amendment freedoms.

It arguably gave birth to the famous 1969 Brandenburg case, where the court unanimously held that all innocuous speech is absolutely protected and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to challenge it.

Which is the greater threat to personal liberty, a speaker who harangues a crowd that came to be harangued or a government that fears free speech and issues edicts about what to say and when to say it?

Will colleges and universities take note of this? Dont hold your breath.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Notre Dame Law School, was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of New Jersey. He sat on the bench from 1987 to 1995. He taught constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School for 11 years, and he returned to private practice in 1995. Judge Napolitano began television work in the same year. He is Fox News senior judicial analyst on the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network. He is the host of Freedom Watch on the Fox Business Network. Napolitano also lectures nationally on the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, civil liberties in wartime, and human freedom. He has been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and numerous other publications. He is the author of five books on the U.S. Constitution. Read Judge Andrew P. Napolitanos Reports More Here.

Creators Syndicate Inc.

Go here to see the original:
Where Are the Good People to Restrain Censorship? - KMJ Now

As social media and internet giants have banned political figures and platforms, some wonder how far their reach is

On Jan. 8, 2021, Twitter permanently suspended former President Donald Trumps Twitter account. This was done primarily because of Trumps alleged involvement with the Jan. 6 Capitol riots that left five people dead.

In addition, following the attack on the U.S. Capitol, Amazon, Apple and Google removed Parler, the social media platform popular among far-right extremist groups, due to the backlash it received for being among the networks used to organize the Capitol riots.

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and even TikTok have since instituted some form of censorship or ban on Trump.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Censorship [is the] suppression of words, images, or ideas that are offensive, [and] happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others.

In other words, censorship is the process by which offensive ideas are purposefully prevented by private entities or the government. However, when the U.S. government attempts to engage in censorship, it leads to issues with the First Amendment.

Private companies are non-governmental agencies who are permitted to use censorship, through banning or suspending accounts, ideas or things, because they are not subjected to the First Amendments decree that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Simply put, the U.S. government shall not pass laws that undermine the constitutionally-outlined freedoms afforded to American citizens, notably in regards to free speech and press.

Freedom Houses annual Freedom on the Net report found that 86.6% of respondents were in support of social media companies such as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook having power to engage in censorship.

Other interesting findings include that 60.4% of respondents were in favor of the censorship of content encouraging violence, 54.3% for racist content and only 18.7% for conspiracy theories.

The censorship of Trump and Parler are potential examples of censorship used to protect American society as these two entities have often been engaged in dangerous online behavior.

The fear that often arises is that social media platforms are private entities capable of easily censoring or removing anyone from their platforms, even arguably one of the most powerful people in the worlda sitting President of the U.S.

Social media platforms main objective is usually to allow organic, unobstructed communication and sharing of varied ideas and content. However, by being able to easily censor such an influential goliath as a president, how much protection does the average user have? Furthermore, who is the rider of the moral high horse that gets to decide what is and is not worth censoring?

As Americans who often value individual freedoms, it is troubling to some that the social media sites we use everyday are private corporations that can legally dim and censor our voices. However, when the content being published for millions of people to see can lead to immense danger, censorship may be necessary.

Written by: Muhammad Tariq arts@theaggie.org

Read more from the original source:
Who gets to censor what is on our social media platforms? - The Aggie

With lawmakers across the nation introducing legislation to change the practices of tech companies, the battle over social media and online speech has come to the states. Though they often have slight differences, the basis of the various state proposals is forcing companies to keep up user accounts and content while minimizing the use of artificial intelligence to display or remove content. Prominent examples include legislation introduced in Oklahoma and Kentucky that would fine companies that censor political or religious speech to the tune of $75,000 per deletion.

Such legislation has not typically been the prerogative of conservative lawmakers. These proposals put government directly in the center of how certain businesses must be run rather than letting consumers decide what platforms they want to spend their time on.

These bills also violate another tenant of conservative principles federalism. This principle is often misunderstood as the lowest level of government addressing a problem. Correctly understood, its the proper level of government addressing a specific issue. Local governments shouldnt be in charge of national defense, for example. For issues involving internet companies that are interstate, the federal government is often the proper level to address them. Otherwise, states like California end up passing laws that affect consumers in all 50 states.

Adding to the problems is the important fact that all of these proposals likely violate the First Amendment since they involve government dictating to private entities what speech they are forced to carry. If the same standards in these bills applied to news websites, it becomes immediately obvious that First Amendment protections are likely violated.

But even putting aside long=standing conservative principles and constitutional issues, if the legislation was enacted, would it actually solve the problem lawmakers are trying to address?

While legislators no doubt have companies like Twitter in mind when writing this legislation, their definition of what constitutes a social media company is far more engrossing. Platforms like Twitch, which hosts streams of people playing video games and allowing viewers to interact in a live chat section, would also be affected. The same goes for Reddit, a website that allows for subreddits, or communities based around a single subject.

These websites function by empowering those hosting the subreddit or stream to moderate the content as they deem fit. Run the New Orleans Saints subreddit and want to ban annoying Atlanta Falcons fans? Not a problem. Want to stop a commenter from spamming Vermin Supreme 2024 while you are streaming Fortnite? Your stream, your rules.

But many of these proposals would force every channel operator or part-time moderator to determine if any one of their moderating decisions would run afoul of a state law and potentially incur large fines. Websites that host user-generated content, the very thing that makes the internet the powerful tool it is today, would be forced into two terrible choices.

They could either stop creators and moderators from having control over their own space, allowing spam and speech containing profanity and racial slurs to explode. Or, they could only allow far fewer content creators on websites, limiting the very kind diverse content and interaction people go online to enjoy.

Herein lies the heart of the proposals to rein in tech platforms in the defense of free speech. Speech flourishes online when private organizations and groups can set the rules for discussion. Forcing websites into an all-or-nothing approach will silence the very kind of voices and discourse they set out to promote.

Lawmakers may be rightly worried about a free speech culture and the ability of certain companies to silence voices, but government intervention fails to solve the problem. These state legislative proposals not only violate important conservative principles of co-opting private businesses for political expediency, but they also fail in what they aim to achieve. The internet that allows for so many people to reach an audience and express themselves will either cease as we know it today, or it will be quickly overrun by spam and other vile content.

If the point of these bills is to try to punish or scare Silicon Valley, they might succeed. But if lawmakers are interested in having an open internet where users can actually hear conservative voices, this approach will certainly fail.

Eric Peterson is the director of the Pelican Center for Technology and Innovation at the Pelican Institute for Public Policy.

The rest is here:
Op-Ed: State bills won't solve political censorship, but they will create other problems - The Center Square

Statement on Amazons Removal of When Harry Became Sally

The National Coalition Against Censorship is deeply concerned by Amazons sudden decision to remove from sale a book, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment by Ryan T. Anderson. Amazon had been selling this controversial title for the last three years. While the books arguments anger many people, they are part of the public debate over gender identity. Amazons decision to stop selling it threatens the marketplace of ideas.

Amazon has a First Amendment right to sell whatever books it wants. However, from its earliest days, it has committed itself to selling an unprecedentedly wide range of books. Its website states, As a bookseller, we believe that providing access to the written word is important, including content that may be considered objectionable. Though Amazons content policy reserves the right to exclude hate speechor other material we deem inappropriate or offensive, the company has not defined what it considers hateful or offensive content.

Amazon is not like other booksellers. It sells more than half of all print books and a significant share of e-books and audio books in the United States. This gives the company an outsized role in shaping opinion and discourse. When Amazon decides to remove a book, it matters not only to the author and their publisher, but to the entire public sphere.

Read the original post:
Statement on Amazon's Removal of When Harry Became Sally - Blogging Censorship

Over the last decade, there were big changes in our daily lives, and the power of social media has been a big part of it. If we look 10 years back, there is no way that social media then has the same power and influence it has today. The differences are enormous, to the point that it wouldnt be something crazy to say that, today, we are in a whole different world.

Without exaggerating, nowadays, social media has an incredible power a power that seems to have no limits.

According to Statista, a German company specializing in market and consumer data, social media usage is considered to be the most popular online activity. In 2020, over 3.6 billion people were using social media worldwide, a number projected to increase to almost 4.41 billion in 2025. Apps such as Instagram, Twitter and Facebook have more than 500 million unique visitors.

As time goes by, these apps continue to grow and show that they are an incredible resource. Consequently, such apps control almost everything. On Instagram, Facebook and Twitter, you can see ads everywhere. Even companies, no matter how big or small, use them as they know they are able to have more outreach to current or future clients.

Even though social media has been a great advance in communication, there are indeed certain negative aspects of such a tool. One of the greatest discomforts of social media is the respect for the users privacy and the impact certain comments and opinions have that have repercussions. Networks such as Instagram and Twitter are in favor of showing the user as they are. They want to let users feel authentic and able express themselves either through a photo or a comment. However, today, many are afraid to show who they are because of comments, likes, and in short, because of what others may think.

Unfortunately, this is normal. With the improvement of technology and social media networks, everyone seems to be watching and paying attention as to what one is going to say and think. This problem has led to the possibility of censusing certain comments. Because these social media companies have a principle idea that users are authentic on their platforms, it should make it impossible to censor content.

Faced with this, I think that the responsibility is only on the users, and not only on social networks, but also in every second of our lives. You yourself can never show your true image unless we evolve as a society an understanding, caring and respectful society.

The responsibility is unique and completely ours. It is our job to grow as a society and understand that we can all think differently. Because we think differently, because we like different things, we cannot look at the other as a stranger and separate him, her or they. Being different is normal. It is just a matter of respecting those differences.

Related

See the original post here:
The claims of censorship | The Current - The Current - The Student-Run Newspaper of Nova Southeastern University.

THEY SAY that Bollywood is where Indias dreams are made. But at the moment it is not romantic reveries, fantasies of vengeance or snappy dance moves that preoccupy its film-makers. It is instead a dystopian nightmare, as two simultaneous epidemics threaten a century-old industry that produces more movies than its closest rivals, in China and America, put together.

Your browser does not support the

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

One of these scourges is relatively new, and wreaking havoc in plain sight. For six months last year, covid-19 kept Indias 10,000 cinemas completely closed. The screens have since begun to open, but mostly at half-capacity andbecause spooked producers have postponed their hoped-for blockbustersshowing only second-run fare. As a result ICRA, a credit-rating agency, anticipates that box-office revenue during the year to April will tumble by a crushing 80-85%. By last September these direct losses were already reckoned at $1.2bn; then there is the ripple effect along an entertainment-industry food chain that employs perhaps 300,000 people, as hundreds of productions were delayed or cancelled.

The other scourge is older and more subtle, though it seems suddenly to have grown more virulent. This is the chronic disease of interference, as various outsiders seek to bend, shape and influence Bollywood to their liking. Such creeping pressures take many forms, from the blunt obstruction of state censorship, to financial squeezes, to legal challenges that can lead to labyrinths of litigation, to the threat of audience boycotts or even violence.

The blow from covid might seem to be the bigger peril. But although traditional feature production has indeed been hit, and cinemas themselves bruised, in a sense the challenge has accelerated a transition that was already under way. As in Hollywood, the ebb of money from big screens to smaller ones, specifically towards on-demand streaming video, known in India as OTT (over-the-top), has turned to a flood as millions of households enlivened their lockdowns with new subscriptions. Revenue from OTT in 2019 was less than half the $1.5bn earned from movie tickets, but by 2024 it could be twice as large, industry insiders believe. Small wonder that global firms such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney poured some $520m into streaming production in India last year. For the first time, dozens of Indian feature films chose to launch on OTT rather than in cinemas, a trend that will stick now that big-name stars have eschewed their doubts about small-screen roles.

Yet while the shift to OTT has helped keep Mumbais studios working, it has also invited scrutiny. Politicians long ago developed a habit of using Bollywood to score points. Such overweening concern has successfully tamed traditional cinema and television: producers are all too aware how many ways there are to wreck a production, or for them to go broke. Top actors have boosted careers by fawning over ministers, and been rewarded with sinecures as MPs, among other perks. Unregulated and largely foreign-financed, OTT has proved a refreshing exception. In a few years it gained a reputation for punchy realism and politically daring allegory. It was like the teacher is not in class, so go have some fun, explains Tanul Thakur, a film critic.

This is where the meddling plague has come into play. Powerful people were not amused by portrayals of police, politicians and religious figures as corrupt, brutal and hypocritical in OTT series such as Mirzapur and Sacred Games. More alarmingly for many in the industry, which historically has adopted the broadly secular, liberal leanings of cosmopolitan Mumbai, official displeasure has been backed by noisy and highly organised public campaigns, an often compliant press and approving judges. Compared with past episodes of bullying, such as in the 1990s when local parties in Mumbai rallied emotions by attacking specific films, this time something wider is at stake. The driver now is control of Bollywood, and it is indeed very vulnerable, says Shakuntala Banaji of the London School of Economics.

Pressure has been mounting since the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took power in 2014, thinks Mr Thakur, accelerating after the landslide re-election in 2019 of Narendra Modi, the prime minister. The heat reached OTT platforms last year. Following complaints, among them that a kissing scene in A Suitable Boy, a British serialisation of an Indian novel, encouraged intimacy between people of different faiths, in November the government decreed that OTT production would fall under the supervision of the Ministry of Broadcasting and Information.

This January the screws tightened, particularly following the release of Tandav, an edgy thriller produced by Amazon Prime that contrasts the viciousness of politics with the idealism of student activism. NewsLaundry, an investigative news website, revealed the workings of a social-media campaign to attack the series, spearheaded by a BJP politician. As soon as Tandav aired he ordered 20,000 followers to demand that it be banned for disrespecting the police and Hindu religious feelings. Half a dozen lawsuits assailed the show (which received mediocre reviews). Its director and producer quickly apologised, agreeing to cut an ostensibly offensive scene in which a student in a play acted the role of a Hindu god. They appealed to Indias Supreme Court to protect them from prosecution, but in a perturbing ruling a bench of judges refused, holding that even actors should be held accountable for any offence their roles might cause. Not surprisingly, several scheduled OTT releases were soon postponed or cancelled.

Had this been an isolated case, there would be less worry in the industry. But the particular interest in Tandav reflected another trend. Two of its main actors happen to be Muslim, as many of Indias leading stars have been since the birth of Bollywood. Only in the past decade, however, has religious affiliation become much of an issue. Now legions of social-media trolls see the three Khans, a trio of top-billing he-men, as fair game for attack as alleged Pakistani sympathisers, or promoters of love jihad. For instance, a Twitter account called Gems of Bollywood smears the industry as a tool of Muslim propaganda; Urduwood is the term used, a reference to the language predominantly spoken by South Asian Muslims. It recently accused Salman Khan, one of the celebrity trio, of having one missionto convince Hindus to be circumcised.

They are going after a few big names to teach them a lesson, says Ms Banaji. And also to install their own heroes instead. According to Mr Thakur, anyone who stands up against the pressure is liable to be cold-shouldered by their peers. But it is not just critics who are worried for Bollywoods future. In a blog post, Siddharth Roy Kapur, president of the Producers Guild of India, a lobbying group, urged Indias government to protect a vital industry by breaking its silence and denouncing witch-hunts. Producers should be overseeing films, not running helter-skelter between police stations and courts across our vast country. You cannot run a business, he added, which is subject to veto by every one of Indias 1.3bn people.

This article appeared in the Books & arts section of the print edition under the headline "The siege of Bollywood"

Read more from the original source:
Covid, cinema and censorship - The siege of Bollywood | Books & arts - The Economist