Daily Archives: September 14, 2022

Artists who have faced censorship are taking center stage at Unit London. Sensitive Content, curated by artist Helen Beard and art historians Alayo Akinkugbe and Maria Elena Buszed, presents artworks that have challenged the status quo by raising questions on artistic freedom and foregrounding issues linked to the circulation and suppression of art.

On view through October 16th, the group exhibition examines censorship and artistic freedom from multiple standpoints. The interrogative nature of Sensitive Content expands on social, cultural, and political issues touching upon gender, sexuality, religion, race, and eroticism, among other topics. Featuring 19 artists whose works have fought against the culture of censorship, the showaddresses agency, access, and power to encourage viewers to engage in an expanded public discourse.

The personal is political in Sensitive Content. The works of Polly Borland, Micol Hebron, and Emma Shapiro draw attention to sexisms role in the policing and censoring of specific body types, deeming them as inherently sexual when unclothed. Feminist themes also emerge in Leah Schragers Infinity Selfie series (2016) and Caroline Coons performance piece I AM WHORE (2019). Schragers digitally manipulated photographs blur the line between model and photographer to question how one is represented and by whom. Meanwhile, in Coons compelling historical examination of misogynistic tropes, the artist forces the viewer to encounter the uneasy truths about the violence women still face in todays patriarchal societies.

With artworks depicting erotic and sexual themes that have often been deemed obscene, controversial, or inappropriate, Sensitive Content features pioneers in feminist artsuch as Carol Rama, Betty Tompkins, Penny Slinger, and Linderwho prominently incorporate explicit imagery in their practices. In the 1970s, French customs confiscated photorealistic works from Tompkinss Fuck Paintings series, declaring the pieces obscene. Whereas thousands of copies of Slingers 1978 book Mountain Ecstasy were seized and destroyed by British customs, Linders collages had to be published covertly due to the ongoing restrictions. Many of the shows artists still frequently battle with the limitations placed on exhibiting and disseminating their work.

One such artist is co-curator Beard, whose radiant paintings depicting female pleasure seduce through vivid and bold graphic shapes. Beards social media posts of her paintings are frequently removed due to alleged violations of community guidelines. Like Beard, Beverley Onyangunga has often been shadow-banned on social media. Onyangungas archival photomontages depicting the history of colonial violence remind viewers of the excruciating atrocities that took place from 1885 to 1908 in Congo Free State, present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo. Under the gruesome, 23-year-long colonial rule of Belgiums King Leopold II, Congolese children and adults were brutalized and denied access to food if they failed to meet their daily rubber quotas.

Onyangunga recalls this period of history in her installation Parts of a Rubber Tree (2022), in which the leaves of a tree are replaced by red rubber gloves. In Onyangungas photo collage Archive I (2022), a red rubber glove appears again; this time, it occupies the space where a Congolese childs hand was severed. A missionary grips the childs arm, while Black children pay witness to the scene and Leopold IIs head and torso peek up from behind them.

Other artists have faced repercussions outside of the digital sphere for the content in their work. Russian activist and performance art group Pussy Riot and Chinese artist Xiao Lu have previously been detained by their respective government authorities for political dissent. Pussy Riots three artworks in Sensitive Content, all titled Push This Button (2022), feature a call to action followed by a kaomoji: This button makes you squirt =^.^=, This button eliminates sexism =^_^=, and This button neutralizes Vladimir Putin =^.^=. Despite their cutified appearance, the politically charged works are met by viewers with caution.

In Xiaos performance Polar (2016), the artist climbs into a semi-transparent cubicle made of ice. With only a kitchen knife, Xiao repeatedly hacks at her icy confinement, even as she begins to draw blood and stain her surrounding environment. The violent and aggressive subtexts found in Polar are recurring themes in Xiaos transgressive work critiquing the CCPs political and social policies. Perhaps Polar can also be understood as a symbolic pursuit of breaking free from the constraints of a patriarchal society.

Meanwhile, Renee Coxs photograph Yo Mamas Last Supper (1996)which features Cox as Jesus in the center of the composition, surrounded by 11 Black men and a white man, Judaswas deemed sacrilegious and offensive by both the Catholic Church and thenNew York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. The latter called for a commission to set decency standards for all publicly funded art. Its worth asking whether the artwork sparked such opposition due to its reinterpretation of a biblical scene or because such artistic license was taken by a Black woman.

Operating as a site for thought-provoking public discourse that welcomes both contemporary and historical artistic acts of resistance, Sensitive Content responds to the complex sociopolitical and cultural mechanisms involved in silencing and suppressing narratives deemed threatening, disruptive, obscene, divergent, or offensive. As the curators stated in the exhibition catalogue, Ultimately, despite their many differences, the artists in Sensitive Content have a shared commitment to the real over the fakewhether in our politics, interactions or expressionsthat binds them more deeply than their works censorship. This exhibition hopes to honor that courageous common bond. And indeed it does.

Follow this link:
With Graphic Works on Sex and Inequality, a New Show Addresses Artistic Censorship - Artsy

Finance Magnates got the opportunity to get the thoughts of Brian Pasfield, CTO at Fringe Finance on the future of Ethereum's move to PoS, DeFi's split into permitted and non-permitted, and shares his vision of where this could lead DeFi in the future.

Q. The transition to PoS is the dawn of the bifurcation of DeFi into 'permitted' and 'non-permitted' DeFi. What are the possible consequences of it?

Authorities have commenced attacks on the DeFi ecosystem by introducing censorship. The core value proposition of DeFi is censorship resistance. So, any implementation of DeFi that enables censorship is not DeFi. Permissioned DeFi = on-chain CeFi, which eliminates all that is valuable about DeFi. Not even composability as a benefit remains, as it poses existential risks for protocols composed with sanctioned/permissionless protocols. And, much of DeFi has centralized components, which, therefore, attack vectors for authorities to coerce censorship.

Q. What are the prospects of DeFi then?

Keep Reading

DeFis only path is to pursue avenues that assure its censorship resistance. This means removing the reliance on a number of things that are variously characteristic of DeFi today, including doxxed teams, centralized pegged stablecoins and any notion of PoS given PoS introduces a greater attack surface for authorities to enact bribery attacks that can compromise the network.

Q: So Why is DeFi so valuable?

Many participants in the DeFi ecosystem do not recognize DeFis core value proposition of censorship resistance. Many view DeFi as just an additional way to deliver financial services and a way to achieve rapid financial gains. But, DeFi is distinct because of its core value proposition. This proposition is valuable to those who have a security mindset - and those who do not want to be stolen from. A security mindset refers to the notion of personal sovereignty and that the aims of authorities and some supra-national organizations are all too often not in the people's interests. A good introduction to understanding this can be found in The Prince by Niccol Machiavelli.

Q. The censorship calls from the authorities will increase. Does this mean that DeFi projects will soon face new difficulties in obtaining licenses? Will they close more often due to censorship?

Any reference to licenses and DeFi in the same sentence indicates a misunderstanding of what makes DeFi useful. The core value proposition of DeFi is censorship resistance. A truly censorship-resistant DeFi protocol can not be regulated, as it is not susceptible to state coercion. Any nominally DeFi protocol that does require a license is an example of on-chain CeFi. Given DeFis core value proposition, by definition, DeFi will not and cannot be regulated by authorities. It is the centralized aspects of current DeFi that are censorable.

Q. Give examples of DeFi projects with centralized aspects. What are their risks?

Examples of DeFi projects with centralized aspects are USD-pegged stablecoins. Ultimately, they rely on meat-space entities that can be and have been coerced by authorities to enact censorship. DeFi will move away from its current love affair with USD-pegged stablecoins because of the attack surface they represent in terms of coercion and censorship by authorities.

Q: Many people strongly hold that PoW is a danger and that a move to PoS is necessary. However is there a risk of PoSs attack vectors being exploited by vested interests?

Yes, there is a significant risk. PoS bribery attacks will be attempted. DeFi on PoS will then be TradFI but on a censored blockchain. For humans to unshackle themselves from coercion and censorship and to move to a state of greater freedom, a security mindset is needed. Proper DeFi, with its core value proposition of censorship resistance, is necessary. There are people in the DeFi ecosystem who understand the core value proposition of censorship resistance, and DeFi will find a way. Look for these people and follow their projects.

Q: The industry uses PoS for several reasons: to lower fees and use less energy, and it is also claimed to increase security. Is this true and are there any security issues caused by the adoption of PoS?

Lets analyze new security issues added by the adoption of PoS. Fees are a function of demand for block space. The market dictates the price. The participants demand the security afforded by the current blockchain and are willing to pay the fees. If participants did not demand it, the price would be lower. And we now have L2s which increase throughput and correspondingly reduce fees.

The remaining reason for Eth PoS is energy usage. PoW and PoS have different properties; hence, there are trade-offs moving from PoW to PoS. Particularly, PoS represents a greater attack surface for censorship via bribery attacks, which, if successful, could be fatal for the network. If more people were aware of this, they would ask, is the energy usage matter really as its been described by untrustworthy supra-nationalists? And if so, is reducing DeFis energy usage at the price of removing DeFis core value proposition of censorship resistance worth it?

The solution to this is (proper) DeFi will find a way to remain uncensorable in the long term. This may or may not be on the Eth blockchain Blockchain Blockchain comprises a digital network of blocks with a comprehensive ledger of transactions made in a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or other altcoins.One of the signature features of blockchain is that it is maintained across more than one computer. The ledger can be public or private (permissioned.) In this sense, blockchain is immune to the manipulation of data making it not only open but verifiable. Because a blockchain is stored across a network of computers, it is very difficult to tamper with. The Evolution of BlockchainBlockchain was originally invented by an individual or group of people under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. The purpose of blockchain was originally to serve as the public transaction ledger of Bitcoin, the worlds first cryptocurrency.In particular, bundles of transaction data, called blocks, are added to the ledger in a chronological fashion, forming a chain. These blocks include things like date, time, dollar amount, and (in some cases) the public addresses of the sender and the receiver.The computers responsible for upholding a blockchain network are called nodes. These nodes carry out the duties necessary to confirm the transactions and add them to the ledger. In exchange for their work, the nodes receive rewards in the form of crypto tokens.By storing data via a peer-to-peer network (P2P), blockchain controls for a wide range of risks that are traditionally inherent with data being held centrally.Of note, P2P blockchain networks lack centralized points of vulnerability. Consequently, hackers cannot exploit these networks via normalized means nor does the network possess a central failure point.In order to hack or alter a blockchains ledger, more than half of the nodes must be compromised. Looking ahead, blockchain technology is an area of extensive research across multiple industries, including financial services and payments, among others. Blockchain comprises a digital network of blocks with a comprehensive ledger of transactions made in a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or other altcoins.One of the signature features of blockchain is that it is maintained across more than one computer. The ledger can be public or private (permissioned.) In this sense, blockchain is immune to the manipulation of data making it not only open but verifiable. Because a blockchain is stored across a network of computers, it is very difficult to tamper with. The Evolution of BlockchainBlockchain was originally invented by an individual or group of people under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. The purpose of blockchain was originally to serve as the public transaction ledger of Bitcoin, the worlds first cryptocurrency.In particular, bundles of transaction data, called blocks, are added to the ledger in a chronological fashion, forming a chain. These blocks include things like date, time, dollar amount, and (in some cases) the public addresses of the sender and the receiver.The computers responsible for upholding a blockchain network are called nodes. These nodes carry out the duties necessary to confirm the transactions and add them to the ledger. In exchange for their work, the nodes receive rewards in the form of crypto tokens.By storing data via a peer-to-peer network (P2P), blockchain controls for a wide range of risks that are traditionally inherent with data being held centrally.Of note, P2P blockchain networks lack centralized points of vulnerability. Consequently, hackers cannot exploit these networks via normalized means nor does the network possess a central failure point.In order to hack or alter a blockchains ledger, more than half of the nodes must be compromised. Looking ahead, blockchain technology is an area of extensive research across multiple industries, including financial services and payments, among others. Read this Term - and likely will not be, given the current PoS adherents ideological positions distort their ability to make decisions with the required objectivity.

Q: What's your vision of the future of DeFi?

B: DeFi is just starting. It is so new. Many DeFi projects have not fully embraced Its core value proposition of uncensorability. Were now seeing authorities taking action not only to sensor DeFi, but to confiscate assets and take legal action. There is effectively no reason for censored DeFi to exist. DeFi needs to divest itself of its current vulnerabilities to censorship so that it continues to deliver on its core value proposition.

DeFi is one part of the decentralized economy. It's a part of the future decentralized world. A whole new body of legal precedence would evolve in this decentralized space that completely bypasses the distortions of state-based legislation systems. In the areas where it competes with meat-space legacy institutions, the decentralized world will be more efficient and deliver greater prosperity to communities.

Brian Pasfield is the CTO at Fringe Finance with almost 10 years of expertise in blockchain, cryptocurrency, fintech and DeFi. He has delivered technically-complex projects that have leveraged his engineering background and keen understanding of industry trends and philosophies. Furthermore, Brian has worked with industry blockchain bodies to lobby for legislation and government policy changes.

Finance Magnates got the opportunity to get the thoughts of Brian Pasfield, CTO at Fringe Finance on the future of Ethereum's move to PoS, DeFi's split into permitted and non-permitted, and shares his vision of where this could lead DeFi in the future.

Q. The transition to PoS is the dawn of the bifurcation of DeFi into 'permitted' and 'non-permitted' DeFi. What are the possible consequences of it?

Authorities have commenced attacks on the DeFi ecosystem by introducing censorship. The core value proposition of DeFi is censorship resistance. So, any implementation of DeFi that enables censorship is not DeFi. Permissioned DeFi = on-chain CeFi, which eliminates all that is valuable about DeFi. Not even composability as a benefit remains, as it poses existential risks for protocols composed with sanctioned/permissionless protocols. And, much of DeFi has centralized components, which, therefore, attack vectors for authorities to coerce censorship.

Q. What are the prospects of DeFi then?

Keep Reading

DeFis only path is to pursue avenues that assure its censorship resistance. This means removing the reliance on a number of things that are variously characteristic of DeFi today, including doxxed teams, centralized pegged stablecoins and any notion of PoS given PoS introduces a greater attack surface for authorities to enact bribery attacks that can compromise the network.

Q: So Why is DeFi so valuable?

Many participants in the DeFi ecosystem do not recognize DeFis core value proposition of censorship resistance. Many view DeFi as just an additional way to deliver financial services and a way to achieve rapid financial gains. But, DeFi is distinct because of its core value proposition. This proposition is valuable to those who have a security mindset - and those who do not want to be stolen from. A security mindset refers to the notion of personal sovereignty and that the aims of authorities and some supra-national organizations are all too often not in the people's interests. A good introduction to understanding this can be found in The Prince by Niccol Machiavelli.

Q. The censorship calls from the authorities will increase. Does this mean that DeFi projects will soon face new difficulties in obtaining licenses? Will they close more often due to censorship?

Any reference to licenses and DeFi in the same sentence indicates a misunderstanding of what makes DeFi useful. The core value proposition of DeFi is censorship resistance. A truly censorship-resistant DeFi protocol can not be regulated, as it is not susceptible to state coercion. Any nominally DeFi protocol that does require a license is an example of on-chain CeFi. Given DeFis core value proposition, by definition, DeFi will not and cannot be regulated by authorities. It is the centralized aspects of current DeFi that are censorable.

Q. Give examples of DeFi projects with centralized aspects. What are their risks?

Examples of DeFi projects with centralized aspects are USD-pegged stablecoins. Ultimately, they rely on meat-space entities that can be and have been coerced by authorities to enact censorship. DeFi will move away from its current love affair with USD-pegged stablecoins because of the attack surface they represent in terms of coercion and censorship by authorities.

Q: Many people strongly hold that PoW is a danger and that a move to PoS is necessary. However is there a risk of PoSs attack vectors being exploited by vested interests?

Yes, there is a significant risk. PoS bribery attacks will be attempted. DeFi on PoS will then be TradFI but on a censored blockchain. For humans to unshackle themselves from coercion and censorship and to move to a state of greater freedom, a security mindset is needed. Proper DeFi, with its core value proposition of censorship resistance, is necessary. There are people in the DeFi ecosystem who understand the core value proposition of censorship resistance, and DeFi will find a way. Look for these people and follow their projects.

Q: The industry uses PoS for several reasons: to lower fees and use less energy, and it is also claimed to increase security. Is this true and are there any security issues caused by the adoption of PoS?

Lets analyze new security issues added by the adoption of PoS. Fees are a function of demand for block space. The market dictates the price. The participants demand the security afforded by the current blockchain and are willing to pay the fees. If participants did not demand it, the price would be lower. And we now have L2s which increase throughput and correspondingly reduce fees.

The remaining reason for Eth PoS is energy usage. PoW and PoS have different properties; hence, there are trade-offs moving from PoW to PoS. Particularly, PoS represents a greater attack surface for censorship via bribery attacks, which, if successful, could be fatal for the network. If more people were aware of this, they would ask, is the energy usage matter really as its been described by untrustworthy supra-nationalists? And if so, is reducing DeFis energy usage at the price of removing DeFis core value proposition of censorship resistance worth it?

The solution to this is (proper) DeFi will find a way to remain uncensorable in the long term. This may or may not be on the Eth blockchain Blockchain Blockchain comprises a digital network of blocks with a comprehensive ledger of transactions made in a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or other altcoins.One of the signature features of blockchain is that it is maintained across more than one computer. The ledger can be public or private (permissioned.) In this sense, blockchain is immune to the manipulation of data making it not only open but verifiable. Because a blockchain is stored across a network of computers, it is very difficult to tamper with. The Evolution of BlockchainBlockchain was originally invented by an individual or group of people under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. The purpose of blockchain was originally to serve as the public transaction ledger of Bitcoin, the worlds first cryptocurrency.In particular, bundles of transaction data, called blocks, are added to the ledger in a chronological fashion, forming a chain. These blocks include things like date, time, dollar amount, and (in some cases) the public addresses of the sender and the receiver.The computers responsible for upholding a blockchain network are called nodes. These nodes carry out the duties necessary to confirm the transactions and add them to the ledger. In exchange for their work, the nodes receive rewards in the form of crypto tokens.By storing data via a peer-to-peer network (P2P), blockchain controls for a wide range of risks that are traditionally inherent with data being held centrally.Of note, P2P blockchain networks lack centralized points of vulnerability. Consequently, hackers cannot exploit these networks via normalized means nor does the network possess a central failure point.In order to hack or alter a blockchains ledger, more than half of the nodes must be compromised. Looking ahead, blockchain technology is an area of extensive research across multiple industries, including financial services and payments, among others. Blockchain comprises a digital network of blocks with a comprehensive ledger of transactions made in a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or other altcoins.One of the signature features of blockchain is that it is maintained across more than one computer. The ledger can be public or private (permissioned.) In this sense, blockchain is immune to the manipulation of data making it not only open but verifiable. Because a blockchain is stored across a network of computers, it is very difficult to tamper with. The Evolution of BlockchainBlockchain was originally invented by an individual or group of people under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. The purpose of blockchain was originally to serve as the public transaction ledger of Bitcoin, the worlds first cryptocurrency.In particular, bundles of transaction data, called blocks, are added to the ledger in a chronological fashion, forming a chain. These blocks include things like date, time, dollar amount, and (in some cases) the public addresses of the sender and the receiver.The computers responsible for upholding a blockchain network are called nodes. These nodes carry out the duties necessary to confirm the transactions and add them to the ledger. In exchange for their work, the nodes receive rewards in the form of crypto tokens.By storing data via a peer-to-peer network (P2P), blockchain controls for a wide range of risks that are traditionally inherent with data being held centrally.Of note, P2P blockchain networks lack centralized points of vulnerability. Consequently, hackers cannot exploit these networks via normalized means nor does the network possess a central failure point.In order to hack or alter a blockchains ledger, more than half of the nodes must be compromised. Looking ahead, blockchain technology is an area of extensive research across multiple industries, including financial services and payments, among others. Read this Term - and likely will not be, given the current PoS adherents ideological positions distort their ability to make decisions with the required objectivity.

Q: What's your vision of the future of DeFi?

B: DeFi is just starting. It is so new. Many DeFi projects have not fully embraced Its core value proposition of uncensorability. Were now seeing authorities taking action not only to sensor DeFi, but to confiscate assets and take legal action. There is effectively no reason for censored DeFi to exist. DeFi needs to divest itself of its current vulnerabilities to censorship so that it continues to deliver on its core value proposition.

DeFi is one part of the decentralized economy. It's a part of the future decentralized world. A whole new body of legal precedence would evolve in this decentralized space that completely bypasses the distortions of state-based legislation systems. In the areas where it competes with meat-space legacy institutions, the decentralized world will be more efficient and deliver greater prosperity to communities.

Brian Pasfield is the CTO at Fringe Finance with almost 10 years of expertise in blockchain, cryptocurrency, fintech and DeFi. He has delivered technically-complex projects that have leveraged his engineering background and keen understanding of industry trends and philosophies. Furthermore, Brian has worked with industry blockchain bodies to lobby for legislation and government policy changes.

Read more here:
Censorship in DeFi and the Transition to POS: Causes and Consequences - Finance Magnates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the climate in American libraries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On defunding libraries for political leverage

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

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

On what we stand to lose when libraries are under threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

The boards targets included:

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

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

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

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

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

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

Why did they ultimately disband?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With Russia increasingly cut off from the world following its 24 February invasion of Ukraine, the countrys remaining contemporary art market, facing evident economic and often unspoken ideological pressures, is increasingly looking inward. The tenth Cosmoscow International Art Fair, which runs from 14 to 17 September, was no exception.

Even before the event began, such ideological pressures had apparently been felt by some of the participating dealers. A Telegram channel called Courier of Culture, run by a contemporary art publicist, reported that three unnamed galleries had complained about censorship by the fair, at the application stage, preventing any political works or anything that could in any way be linked to the current state of affairsmeaning the warfrom being exhibited.

One anonymous dealer tells The Art Newspaper: "Cosmoscow asked that we change the design of the stand, the artists, their work and the hanging of it. There was nothingpolitical in the works, nor in the idea of the stand, but it was as if the board was trying to choose works where in the current context definitely no second hidden meanings would be sensed."

They add: "Every year [at Cosmoscow] we show young artists of roughly the same style, and this year there was a feeling that the objections were at the level of 'degenerate art'."

A law signed by President Vladimir Putin just days after the invasion makes it illegal to call the invasion a war and threatens those who spread fakes about the Russian military with up to 15 years in prison.

In April a criminal case was opened against the artist Oleg Kulik on charges of rehabilitation of Nazism for his sculptural installation Big Mother (2015), which was shown at the Art Moscow fair at the Gostiny Dvor centre, just yards from the Kremlin, which is also the venue for Cosmoscow. The work came under fire for allegedly mocking The Motherland Calls, a monument in Volgograd commemorating the Battle of Stalingrad. Kulik, who grew up in Kyiv, has said it was meant to depict the pain of his divorce.

Margarita Pushkina, fair director

Photo: Alexander Murashkin

Censorship not allowed

Margarita Pushkina, Cosmoscows founder and director, says: We have never allowed and do not allow internal censorship. Meanwhile, the fairs expert committee is working as usual, selecting the best galleries to participate in the fair.

The most important thing right now, Pushkina adds, is not to multiply contradictions and conflicts, but instead to maintain human and professional relations, continue the dialogue and discuss ways to resolve complex issues. The fair and galleries, she points out, are all directly dependent on the state of the economy.

For a long time there was a question mark over whether the fair would go ahead at all. Simon Rees, the artistic director of the fairs previous edition, resigned immediately after the invasion. Pushkina says a successor has not been appointed because the fairs priorities have shifted.

One of the tasks of the artistic director of the fair has always been to develop international cultural dialogue and to attract galleries from other countries, Pushkina says. In the current situation, we understand that there is emotion involved for international galleries, as well as many difficulties and risks. First of all, there are logistical difficulties, so their participation does not seem simple and obvious.

Indeed, there are no longer any direct flights to Moscow from the US, UK and elsewhere in Europe, except for Turkey and Serbia, and leading shipping companies are boycotting Russia over the invasion.

The only solution, Pushkina says, is to now concentrate on working with Russian gallery owners in order to try to stabilise the situation and continue working on the development of the domestic art market.

The vast majority of the more-than 65 participating galleries at Cosmoscow are Russian, compared with 82 galleries in 2021, when the fair had the broadest geography in its history, and on par with the 62 participants in 2020, at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Ukrainian artists were always an organic and integral part of the Russian art scene, but understandably no Ukrainian galleries applied for stands this year, Pushkina says.

In recognition of the present situation, Cosmoscow is not marking its tenth anniversary with any special events, Pushkina says, though she did not directly mention the war.

All of us in one way or another are influenced by current events and react to what is happening in our country and in the world, she says. In the current situation, it is impossible to remain indifferent. Everyone determines for himself which path to follow, to remain silent or to continue the activity in a modified format.

Excerpt from:
First Cosmoscow fair since Russian invasion of Ukraine to open with no foreign galleries and internal complaints of censorship - Art Newspaper