Daily Archives: February 5, 2024

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [emailprotected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification. Shortly after Taiwan elected independence-leaning candidate William Lai Ching-te as leader, Chinese President Xi Jinping said the Chinese Communist Party must win the hearts of people in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan by strengthening patriotic and reunification forces.

Although this election could be seen as merely a regional issue, its impact extends far beyond the islands coast. How can China win the hearts of Chinese inside and outside of mainland China?

Censorship and propaganda are becoming less effective in ensuring social harmony. A globalised China in a digitalised era means that the government can no longer completely control information. Many mainland Chinese gained full access to information related to the Taiwanese election via the internet. Some even flew to Taiwan to observe the election.

Therefore, China cant return to the closed-door policy and maintain its stability merely through propaganda and censorship.

Censorship and economic power are not enough to win Chinese hearts. In an ever-changing environment, China has to change.

Christophe Feuille, Bordeaux, France

Joseph Chan, chairman, Silk Road Economic Development Research Centre

Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu commences a very public display regarding the implementation of Article 23 legislation, vowing to actively explain it. Is this to be done in a similar manner to local elections, where English was barely used? Are we to assume non-Chinese-speaking residents of Hong Kong are exempted? Laws are implemented to serve all and one hopes to see a multilingual discussion of Article 23.

Mark Peaker, The Peak

Continue reading here:
China must look beyond censorship and economic power to win hearts and minds - South China Morning Post

Chinas top intelligence agency issued an ominous warning last month about an emerging threat to the countrys national security: Chinese people who criticize the economy.

In a series of posts on its official WeChat account, the Ministry of State Security implored citizens to grasp President Xi Jinpings economic vision and not be swayed by those who sought to denigrate Chinas economy through false narratives. To combat this risk, the ministry said, security agencies will focus on strengthening economic propaganda and public opinion guidance.

China is intensifying its crackdown while struggling to reclaim the dynamism and rapid economic growth of the past. Beijing has censored and tried to intimidate renowned economists, financial analysts, investment banks and social media influencers for bearish assessments of the economy and the governments policies. In addition, news articles about people experiencing financial struggles or the poor living standards for migrant workers are being removed.

China has continued to offer a rosy outlook for the economy, noting that it beat its forecast for economic growth of 5 percent last year without resorting to risky, expensive stimulus measures. Beyond the numbers, however, its financial industry is struggling to contain enormous amounts of local government debt, its stock market is reeling and its property sector is in crisis. China Evergrande, the high-flying developer felled by over $300 billion in debt, was ordered into liquidation on Monday.

The new information campaign is wider in scope than the usual work of the governments censors, who have always closely monitored online chatter about the economy. Their efforts now extend to mainstream economic commentary that was permitted in the past. The involvement of security agencies also underscores the ways in which business and economic interests fall under Mr. Xis increasingly expansive view of what constitutes a threat to national security.

In November, the state security ministry, calling itself staunch guardians of financial security, said other countries used finance as a weapon in geopolitical games.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Read the original post:
How China Censors Critics of the Economy - The New York Times

Even so, a little more than two weeks after publishing its investigation into Appin Technology, on December 5, Reuters complied with the Indian court's injunction, removing its story. Soon, in a kind of domino effect of censorship, others began to take down their own reports about Appin Technology after receiving legal threats based on the same injunction. SentinelOne, the cybersecurity firm that had helped Reuters in its investigation, removed its research on an Appin Technology subsidiarys alleged hacking from its website. The Internet Archive deleted its copy of the Reuters article. The legal news site Lawfare and cybersecurity news podcast Risky Biz both published analyses based on the article; Risky Biz took its podcast episode down, and Lawfare overwrote every part of its piece that referred to Appin Technology with Xs. WIRED, too, removed a summary of Reuters' article in a news roundup after receiving Appin Training Centers' threat.

Aside from the injunction that Appin Training Centers has used to demand publishers censor their stories, Appin cofounder Rajat Khare has separately sent legal threats to another collection of news outlets based on a court order he obtained in Switzerland. Two Swiss publications have publicly noted that they responded to court orders by removing Khares name from stories about alleged hacking. Others have removed Khares name or removed the articles altogether without a public explanation, including the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the UKs Sunday Times, several Swiss and French news outlets, and eight Indian ones.

This is an organization throwing everything against the wall, trying to make as many allegations in as many venues as possible in the hopes that something, somewhere sticks, says one person at a media outlet that has received multiple legal threats from people connected to Appin Technology, who declined to be named due to the legal risks of speaking out. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. Unfortunately, in India, its worked.

Even before the EFF, Techdirt, MuckRock, and DDoSecrets began to push back against that censorship, some had immediately resisted it. The New Yorker, for instance, had mentioned a subsidiary of Appin Technology and Rajat Khare in a feature about India's hacker-for-hire industry in June of last year. It was sued by Appin Training Centers, but has kept its piece online while the lawsuit proceeds. (The New Yorker and WIRED are both published by Cond Nast.) Ronald Deibert, a well-known security researcher and founder of the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab, a group that focuses on exposing hackers who target members of civil society, had also mentioned Appin Technology in a blog post. Deibert received and refused Appin Training Centers' takedown threat, posting a screenshot of its email to his X feed in December along with his response: seven middle-finger emojis.

As the backlash to the censorship of reporting on Appin Technology's alleged hacking snowballs, however, it may now be going beyond a few cases where Appin Training Centers and Rajat Khares censorship attempts have failed, says Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, who has written about the censorship campaign. Instead, it may be backfiring, he says, particularly for Appin Technology cofounder Rajat Khare. It does seem like a sort of dubious strategy to be stirring this up now, and I do wonder if he is starting to regret that given the coverage it's getting, says Stern. You could easily see that it'll do more reputational harm than good for Khare and for Appin.

MuckRock's Morisy says that attention is exactly the intention of his move, along with Techdirt and the EFF, to put a spotlight on the legal threats they've received. Its leveraging the Streisand effect to an extent. But also just finding ways to push back, says Morisy. There needs to be a cost for groups that are trying to silence journalists.

Read more from the original source:
A Startup Allegedly 'Hacked the World.' Then Came the Censorshipand Now the Backlash - WIRED

By: Mark Glennon*

This shouldnt be hard to understand: If you think government should have the power to censor what it says is false, then you dont believe in the bedrock of a democratic republic free speech.

But a group of state attorneys general apparently think government should have that power because thats exactly what they recently asked the U.S Supreme Court to make the law of the land.

Its in an amicus brief signed by 22 state attorneys general in what will be a historic case now pending before the Supreme Court on whether the government can bypass the First Amendment using private sector tech platforms as its agents to censor what the government doesnt like. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul is among the signers.

The case is Murthy v. Missouri, formerly called Biden v. Missouri.

The Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life, wrote the federal appellate court in its ruling against the government.

In a fitting and splendid gift to America last Independence Day, a federal trial judge issued a 154-page ruling on the case laying out the facts against the government in detail. The evidence of tech manipulation directed by the government was so strong and the matter so important that the judge issued a temporary, sweeping order barring the Biden Administration and the rest of the federal government from most all contact with social media platforms.

The federal appellate court upheld the ruling though it changed the wording of the order.

Now comes the Supreme Court, which will hear the case this spring.

And enter the group of state A.G.s

The government will lose. The lawsuit will not be vacated. The only real issue is on what terms they will lose, which is what the A.G.s should have addressed. The evidence is simply too overwhelming to deny. The Biden Administration, including the FBI and the Center for Disease Control, strongarmed social media platforms to squelch unfavorable stories and elevate its narrative of the news about the Hunter Biden laptop scandals, Covid, President Biden, election integrity and more. Its all laid out in the trial courts ruling. Thousands of pages of evidence showing it are summarized therein. Read the trial courts memorandum yourself.

In a ruling of such importance and with such broad consequences, however, theres reasonable disagreement over exactly how to write out what the government must not be allowed to censor.

But the A.G.s brief doesnt do that, asking the Supreme Court to throw the case out entirely: Vacate the lower courts ruling entirely, the brief expressly requests.

Censor away, in other words.

To be specific, this is about stopping the government from skirting its First Amendment obligations by outsourcing censorship to private parties not bound by the First Amendment, like tech platforms, that can censor what they choose if acting on their own.

Government often publishes guidelines and information on foreign travel warnings, cybersecurity threats, scam artists, public health and the like. No problem. But free speech is denied when the government imposes its messaging on private news platforms to suppress competing viewpoints. Those efforts usually travel under the label of combatting misinformation, hate speech or the like.

The line can be difficult to draw. When does the government wrongly coerce and encourage censorship by tech platforms?

Suppose the FBI suggests you censor something. Maybe it would be like saying this, as one of the appellate judges put it perfectly during oral arguments: Thats a really nice social media platform you got there it would be a shame if something happened to it.

The appellate court drew the line between harmless government guidance and unconstitutional strongarming by issuing an order saying this:

The appellate court Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies decision-making processes.

It reached that conclusion based after a long analysis in its opinion of court precedent, logic and practicality. That temporary order was put on hold by the Supreme Court pending its review, but its all but certain to be made permanent in some fashion, the appellate court concluded, and thats surely true subject only to whatever adjustments the Supreme Court sees fit.

How does the A.G.s brief justify throwing out the case entirely, disregarding rafts of evidence and precedent?

It doesnt.

It resorts to red herrings, first with a big list of ways government publishes routine guidance that should be permissible on matters that nobody has a problem with.

When it comes to whats at issue actually censoring what the government doesnt like Raouls brief claims the appellate court ruled that the mere existence of government amounts to coercion, and that it relied on a vague entanglement standard about government involvement with tech companies.

Those, too, are red herrings. Those factors had little role in the appellate courts ruling. Insofar as they were part of the analysis and should be downplayed, fine, tweak the ruling to fix that. The A.G.s might plausibly have argued for the Supreme Court to do that.

Instead, they asked the Supreme Court to throw out the whole lawsuit.

That result would gut free speech and lobotomize democracy.

For a more scholarly summary of the First Amendment infractions in Raouls brief, see the recent column here by my brother, Mike, a law prof. Better yet, read his new book on the full subject of the modern assault on free speech: Free Speech and Turbulent Freedom: The Dangerous Allure of Censorship in the Digital Era.

Illinois is among the worst offenders in that modern allure of censorship. Its long train of abuse and usurpations is often flagrant, listed in the columns linked below. Making that assault on free speech more terrifying is the abandonment by most media of its traditional role defending free speech. You will find little if anything in Illinois legacy media on the matters in that list.

Above all, know this: Your rights include the right to hear. The right to hear what the government doesnt want you to hear is a corollary of your First Amendment right to free speech, as the courts long ago ruled. Its that right to hear that is being stolen from you, and that right is directly at issue in Murthy v. Missouri.

That right was not given to you by the anybody in any level of government. Give it up and youve given up your democratic republic.

*Mark Glennon is founder of Wirepoints.

Illinois recent, long train of free speech abuses:

View post:
Let The Government Censor Away Through Agents It Controls, Say Cabal Of A.G.s To U.S. Supreme Court Wirepoints - Wirepoints

The Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global, also known as the Oil Fund, had a good year. The fund that is managed by the Norwegian Central Bank on behalf of the countrys Ministry of Finance in 2023 returned 16,1 percent, equivalent to 2,222 billion kroner (195 billion), CEO Nicolai Tangen of Norges Bank Investment Management announced this week.

As of 31st of December 2023, the fund had a value of 15,765 billion kroner (1,383 billion), of which 70,9 percent was invested in equities. The Oil Fund now holds about 1,5% of all of the worlds listed companies. It is the worlds largest single sovereign wealth fund.

Despite high inflation and geopolitical turmoil, the equity market in 2023 was very strong, compared to a weak year in 2022, Tangen said.

To a great extent, that turmoil is triggered by Russia and its war against Ukraine. Still, the Norwegian government fund continues to own a significant part of Russias leading companies. According to the list of holdings, there are 52 Russian companies in the portfolio.

The most valuable holdings are in the field of oil and gas, and especially the companies Gazprom and Lukoil, worth respectively 232 million NOK and 288 million NOK. The Fund also owns a 0,72 percent stake in Sberbank that has a value of 326 million NOK.

The Fund also owns more than one percent of companies such as Phosagro, Segezha Group, Rosseti, Bank St Petersburg PJSC and more. On the list are also companies sanctioned by the USA and EU, such as Sberbank and diamond producer Alrosa.

In addition, the Norwegians owns shares in several of the companies actively exploited by the Kremlin to censor and streamline public opinion.

The Oil Fund owns 0.47 percent of VK Holding, the technology company that operates social media vKontakte (VK). The social media now has more than 650 million accounts and is one of the most popular websites in Russia. In late 2021, Russian state-owned bank Gazprombankand insurance company Sogar acquired 57,3 percent of the VK shares and consequently secured full control over the company.

Few years earlier, founder and CEO Pavel Durov had been forced out of the company, reportedly following his refusal to hand over personal details of users to the FSB and his refusal to shut down a VK group dedicated to anti-corruption activistAleksei Navalny.

Over the last few years, the VK has blocked hundreds of accounts operated by independent journalists, civil society activists and other Kremlin critics. In 2022, the company blocked the pages of Aleksei Navalny, Ilya Yashin, as well Mikhail Khodorkovsky and media companies Meduza, MediaZona, Dozhd, Echo Moscow, Current Time and others.

On the list of ownership is also Yandex, the Russian tech company that is most known for its internet search engine. The Oil Fund owns 0,96 percent of company that is considered Russias biggest technology company.

One of the founders of Yandex was Arkady Volozh, a man who in 2017 showed Vladimir Putin around in the fancy downtown Moscow offices, but who five years later emigrated to Israel following war and Kremlin crackdown.

According to Meduza, the tech company was in 2023 taken over by a group of Kremlin-loyal oligarchs. It is now controlled by Vladimir Potanins Interros, Aleksei Mordashovs Severstal, Vagit Alekperovs Lukoil and bank VTB.

The Norwegian Oil Fund also owns minor shares in telecommunications companies MTS and Rostelecom.

The latter is Russias biggest state telecom company. Recently, the company has been busy developing an electronic distant voting system that is to be applied in the upcoming Russian presidential elections, company CEO Mikhail Oseevsky told Putin in a meeting in June 2023.

The most valuable Russian holding of the Norwegian Fund is Sberbank. The Norwegians own 0,72 percent of the company that is Russias biggest bank and one of the countrys major technology developers.

Sberbank is actively working in a wide field of tech development, including in artificial intelligence. When Putin visited the Rossiya exhibition on the 1st of February this year, he had a stop at Sberbanks stand.

In his meeting with Sberbank CEO German Gref in March 2023, Putin revealed that he is in constant contact with the Sberbank leader.

The 52 Russian holdings total only a tiny share of the Norwegian Oil Fund. Whereas the assets had a value of more than 31 billion NOK (2,72 billion) in 2019, they were in 2023 worth less than 1,5 billion NOK (131 million).

But the symbolic effect and moral aspect of holding stakes in Russias war economy and the system of repression, propaganda and censorship is significant.

In a comment to the Barents Observer, Communication Chief at the Norges Bank Investment Management Line Aaltvedt says that the investments in Russia are currently frozen, but that the goal of the Norwegian government is to sell all the holdings.

Read this article:
Norway owns a part of Putin's propaganda and censorship machine - The Independent Barents Observer

According to a report from the Korean media site Herald Corporation on February 4, 2024, the South Korean government intends to make it mandatory to restrict smoking scenes in OTT platform shows, such as Netflix. The government has raised concerns about the portrayal of smoking in these shows without implementing any safety measures.

The authorities are particularly worried about the influence of such scenes on underage audiences, fearing that they may encourage and support smoking among preteens and teenagers in South Korea. The South Korean government is reportedly planning to propose restrictions on the depiction of smoking scenes, aligning with guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO).

Recently, OTT platforms such as Netflix, Disney Plus, and more have released outstanding K-drama original series on their platforms. However, concerns have been raised regarding certain series, such as The Worst of Evil, starring Ji Chang-wook and Wi Ha-joon, and the Netflix original series Doona!, where the main protagonist, Bae Suzy, is frequently seen smoking cigarettes.

Traditionally, in K-drama and films, where sequences involving the usage of cigarettes or tobacco are either left out or subtly obscured, OTT platforms are seen to present such scenes without any restrictions. In an attempt to emulate the original webtoon, media outlets are using the Netflix drama Doona! as a case in point, in which Suzy's character is often seen smoking.

The South Korean government has hence expressed its reservations about such scenes, stating that they would influence teenagers into consuming them.

Meanwhile, several other K-dramas have shown scenes of actors lighting their cigarettes and taking a drag without censorship on OTT platforms, such as Han So-hee's My Name, Song Hye-kyo's The Glory, Song Kang's Nevertheless, Squid Game, and many more. Many people expressed the view that in Korea, cigarettes are often associated with themes of violence, drug abuse, and alcohol consumption.

Bar-themed television series are popular even though authorities have often warned against them for "promoting drinking culture." On tvN's night discussion program Life Bar, three show hosts and star guests openly share their life experiences over cocktails. Wide audiences are exposed to its live drinking situations.

Its top viewership rate was about 3%, while its average rating was approximately 1%. In December 2018, the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC) sent the program its most recent warning for including a scenario involving alcohol consumption.

At present, scenes including drinking are more prevalent in South Korean dramas such as Marry My Husband, Doctor Slump, WWW, Extraordinary Attorney Woo, Vincenzo, Shooting Stars, and more. Talk shows such as BTS member Suga's Suchwita revolves around the concept of drinking with the guest while discussing various topics.

Certain Korean content, such as rapper Lee Young-ji's My Alcohol Diary (Nothing's Much Prepared) and BTS member Kim Seok-jin's Drunken Truth with celebrity chef Baek Jong-won, has been noted for not requiring censorship or facing bans on its sequences involving smoking.

Only 3.5% of Korean women over the age of 15 smoke regularly, compared to 32% of Korean males over the age of 15. TV smoking sequences have been subject to self-regulation by the transmitting station since 2002 due to concerns about their impact on children.

Even in K-dramas or Korean films, actors are often seen to take a fag out of the pack, but they never light it up. It is challenging for filmmakers to incorporate any sequences with smoking because the government has tightened its laws and restrictions.

While drinking and tobacco consumption are among the leading causes of millions of avoidable deaths, alcohol consumption is not strictly regulated since certain TV series with a bar theme are running, which encourages drinking. However, Tobacco TV commercials are prohibited.

However, the 10th Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which is set to take place in Panama from February 511, 2024, will have an entourage from South Korea attending.

The contingent will call on the Secretariat and the convention's organizing parties to restrict the amount of tobacco and smoking sequences that are portrayed on over-the-top (OTT) platforms, such as Netflix series and Korean dramas, during the conference.

They will also stress the importance of working together to adapt to the shifting prevention of tobacco use landscape. That entails the introduction of new tobacco products as well as the expansion of tobacco advertising and promotional activities through international media channels.

However, Korean internet users think that if limitations are implemented, there should be equal limitations across various forms of intoxicants, including tobacco usage or cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs.

Continue reading here:
South Korean government reported to announce plans for smoking scene censorship from K-dramas and films at the ... - Sportskeeda

HONG KONG Nicole Kidmans latest project is set in Hong Kong, but people who live there are blocked from seeing it, prompting speculation about censorship in a city where civil liberties are shrinking fast.

The first two episodes of Expats, a six-episode drama about expatriate women, were released on Amazon Prime on Jan. 26. But when viewers in Hong Kong try to watch it, they instead get a message saying that this video is currently unavailable to watch in your location.

Read More: Lulu Wangs 'Expats' Is the First Must-See Show of 2024

The city has hardened its controls over political speech after 2019 anti-government protests rocked the city.

In 2020, China passed a National Security Law that criminalized political activities, such as protesting for independence. Since then, hundreds of activists have been arrested or driven into exile, while opposition-leaning media have been forced out of business.

Expats is based on a book by Hong Kong-born American writer Janice Y.K. Lee, and is directed by China-born American director Lulu Wang. The first episode includes a brief scene in which people at a rally chant in Cantonese I want real general elections. The trailer for the show also features a crowd holding umbrellas, a reference to the 2014 Umbrella Movement, when protesters demanded the right to choose the citys Chief Executive.

Previously, the Walt Disney Co. removed an episode of the cartoon series The Simpsons that included a reference to forced labor camps in China from its Disney Plus streaming service in Hong Kong. In both cases, its not clear whether authorities were involved in the decision to pull the content or companies acted on their own.

In June 2021, the citys government changed the Film Censorship Ordinance to give them the power to remove films which include portrayal, depiction or treatment of any act or activity which may amount to an offense endangering national security.

Read More: Killing of Winnie the Pooh Flick in Hong Kong and Macau Raises Chinese Censorship Concerns

A spokesperson at the Culture, Sports and Tourism Bureau said the government was not commenting on the issue, and directed questions to Amazon.

Representatives of Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Kidmans role in the series prompted controversy in 2021, during the height of the pandemic, when the government gave her permission to skip a mandatory quarantine when she came to Hong Kong to film the series, according to local media outlet HK01.

On Tuesday, the Hong Kong government announced plans to enact a local version of the 2020 National Security Law.

Read more here:
Prime Video's 'Expats' Was Filmed in Hong Kongbut You Can't Watch It There - TIME

Friday, Feb 2, 2024

The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom, regarding a friend-of-the-court brief ADF attorneys filed Thursday on behalf of The Douglass Leadership Institute, The Radiance Foundation, and Speak for Life at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in the case Melton v. City of Forrest City, in which a firefighter in good standing with the city had his employment terminated after he posted a pro-life image on social media:

All Americans should be free to express viewpoints and ideas without fear of government intervention. When the government decides which topics are appropriate for debate, we all lose. As we explain in our brief, the First Amendments absolute bar on viewpoint discrimination protects the full-bodied discussions necessary for representative democracy to function. If the government monopolizes the marketplace of ideas, organizations like The Douglass Leadership Institute, The Radiance Foundation, and Speak for Life, which stand for life, especially Black communities that are disproportionately affected by abortion, cannot speak without fear of government reprisal. We urge the 8th Circuit to reverse the lower court decision and allow free speech to flourish for all.

The ADF Center for Academic Freedom is dedicated to protecting First Amendment and related freedoms for students and faculty so that everyone can freely participate in the marketplace of ideas without fear of government censorship.

# # #

See the original post here:
ADF to 8th Circuit: Govt can't censor pro-life views - ADF Media

If KOSAs supporters are trying to distance the bill from harm to queer and trans youth, having NCOSE leadership be part of a panel at the Heritage Foundation following Wednesdays Senate Judiciary hearing was an odd choice. In a way, NCOSE fits right in at Heritage: Its senior legal team is drawn from the ranks of Alliance Defending Freedom veterans, a Christian-right legal organization that often partners with Heritage, such as on Project 2025, its plan to (among other things) roll back LGBTQ rights on day one of a presumed Trump presidency. Tech companies arent just protecting the perpetrators of sexual harm, Hawkins said on the panel. They are the perpetrators themselves. Unsuprisingly, given the venue, when speaking about the specifics of such harm, Hawkins failed to mention harm to LGBTQ teens.

But the real tell was this: These tech platforms, Hawkins said, have taken our power and our rights away as parents. Others at the event, like Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, spoke of the hearing as an inflection point, owing to the whole parental rights movement. Repeatedly, speakers emphasized the idea of KOSA and similar legislation as protecting our childrens innocence. Those are the watchwords of the Christian rights investment in legislating the internet: parents rights and childrens innocence.

Republicans have cannily used online safety as code for keeping anything vaguely queer away from kids. Theyve got Democrats on board, some eagerly. Twitter/X is now joining Snap and Microsoft in supporting KOSA. That means these platforms are happy to ally with anti-LGBTQ groups now to pass the bill, or at least avoid another troublesome hearing. We already know that X is fine with letting white supremacists on their platform again, readying for a return to Trump, perhaps. Given this, their willingness to ally with the Christian-right establishment on a backdoor censorship bill shouldnt be such a surprise.

See the original post:
The GOP Has a Plan for Online Safety. It Involves Censoring LGBTQ Content. - The New Republic