Category Archives: Censorship

It is fascinating that so many individuals on the censorious left of politics are cheering the demise of Milo Yianoppoulos, but as of yet are still unable to grasp why he fell from grace. After years of attempting to no-platform Milo or shut down Yianoppoulostalks through vicious protests, disruptive riots, seeking to remove him from campus: these actions only fed his growing persona and thrusthim into the media spotlight. Ultimately, it was Milos own words that caused him to fall on his own sword.That free speech brought down MiloYianoppoulos is apt and not entirely unforeseeable. Milos achilles heel is that he served as a controversialist.

Controversialists have a limited pool of resource, much like a watering hole in the Serengeti in the height of the dry season. Making controversial statements shocks individuals that someone dared utter a naughty and contemptible thing. However, dare they say that too many times, then they risk becoming tedious, or monomaniacal: much like the Serengetis drying water hole, the water is limited, you can only drink a single gulp of water once. Hence any provocateur requires to delve into making other statements, or taking even more concerning stances. A controversialist needs to be careful, dare they say too much, then they will run out of material all too quickly. Then, they risk becoming seen as someone who solely exists to shock, and like that Serengeti watering hole, run dry.

Stopping Milo from speaking is what gave him the bizarrely subservient cult like support which he commands. It stopped his voice from becoming hoarse and him running out of opposition or ridiculous stances to take. Milos own messages, often a little vapid and designed to be reviled by the minorities and those who defend them, became slowly dwarfed by opposition to those on campuses who decided that he should not have the right to speech.

Individuals who would be at the forefront lambasting Milos ideas were uncomfortably forced to defend his right to speak.

Milo could have been dismissed, or simply ignored, yet the fierceness of the opposition was what made Milo a credible force. It is a valid piece of advice to give anyone seeking to shut down the career of a controversialist or provocateur, often just let them continue speaking. Giving people enough rope to hang themselves by allowing them to speak is a devastating tactic.

There are so many flaws in Yianoppoulos logic that one can easily pounce on them. Rather than allowing Milo to speak and exposing him for some severe inconsistencies, authoritarian campus troglodytes decided that they would censor him. These people, of course, claimed that they were stopping Milo due to his rampant and many prejudices, but these people became so intolerant of Milo and his argument that their violent reaction became the story of intolerance. Their intolerance of discussion became the intolerance that was focused upon and weaponised against them, even if these liberation and equalities movements made logical points opposing him.

Provocateur should not in itself be a dirty word, it is a good thing that we have individuals who provoke discussion and opinion. Universities and academic spaces that do not challenge established thinking lead to sterile thinkers. These thinkers tend to struggle with controversial ideas, hence requiring protection from them, and this also results in groupthink.Whilst safe spaces are inherently flawed, it is groupthink that poses a real danger. Milo Yianoppoulos presence and ability to be allowed to debate on a campus often reassures me: why? Not because I agree with much of what Milo says, or think he is a helpful proponent of his arguments, rather I believe being able to debate Milo or allow him to speak shows a tolerance of ideas.

If you observe Milo speaking, you might observe that often, whilst he presents some cogent cases for free speech, he is both reactionary and often unable to defend his more controversial outbursts. Cathy Newman, on Channel 4 News, effectively skewered him on his previous writings about women and the headlines he chose whilst he was Breitbart Editor that demonstrated an unnecessary prejudice. Milo really isnt that hard to debate.

So why are students finding it so hard to debate Milo fairly and openly? That elements of the student population violently protested, and later rioted at UC Berkley gave Milo the ability to claim that he was the victim. Any scrutiny was ultimately dismissed in the clamour to condemn the actions of is opposition. Why not, instead of lobbing a Molotov cocktail, walk into a lecture hall and ask him about some of his statements on women or circumcision?

Take circumcision, Milo argues: Women dont want to hurt your feelings, so they say its fine and they dont mind. Butthey do. Cut your kids. Are we really unable to propose an argument that indicates that perhaps engaging in a non-consensual, irreversible, cosmetic alteration because women aesthetically prefer it, may be a deeply flawed argument for the rescinding of fundamental rights to individuals to be protected from irreversible bodily alterations that they cannot consent too? Students really think the most effective way to oppose Milo is to no-platform this individual. It took me 3 minutes to find that link noting his opinions. Consider how much I could find after a day of research.

Perhaps if students had engaged more rationally with Milo, his prominence would never have happened. When students attempts to no-platform, silence and violently riot against his speech, this only led to massive increases in his book sales. A figure over 12,000%, in fact. The no platform was not only ineffective, it became counter-productive.

The Streisand effect seems to be something many modern-day students are unaware of. Preventing individuals from speaking actually draws attention to individuals, others wish to know what was so contemptible an utterance the led to the ban. Additionally, if you seek to constantly silence someone, individuals who may be sympathetic to your argument against that person are often forced to defend the censored. People are then forced to defend an individual they dislike, if they are intellectually honest, from hypocrisy.

If the debate was on Milos ideas and intellectual consistency as merits alone, I suspect he would have faired poorly. Indeed, it was revealing his previous comments led to the cancellation of his book, his resignation from Breitbart and dis-invitation from CPAC, due to seeming inconsistency on child abuse. Also, though Milo claims to have himself never apologised for or supported any form of child abuse and pederasty, there are records of him boasting about underaged sex he witnessed at parties in the United States.

Can students really not see how this individual is easy prey? Simply ask Milo why he didnt report pederasty that he witnessed is a powerful question. Abandoning victims of sexual abuse is a damning weakness. But I have come to the conclusion that many of these individuals dont want to actually silence Milo, or even debate his ideas, they simply need an ideological villain to attack. Milo presents himself as the perfect villain, does he not? With some repulsive and contemptible utterances, he is easily held up as the opposition to these students so keen to silence dissent. They hold him up as a comparison, it seems to be you either have nasty Milo, or benevolent, leftist censorship?

But in all of this, there is a middle ground, surely? Students who can support Milos right to speech, whilst accepting that occasionally, on issues surrounding free speech and hypocrisy on the left, he makes coherent points. However, we should acknowledge that Milo is also controversial for controversys sake and his slurs against minorities and attacks on individual rights cannot be endorsed.

Perhaps it is time for us to remember: one can defend an individuals rights and rights to expression without defending the individual themselves.

Read more:
Milo Yianoppoulos' Own Speech Hurt him More than Censorship Ever Could - Conatus News

On the occasion of World Day Against Cyber Censorship, ProtonMail and Amnesty International join forces to show how internet restrictions affect people around the world.

As the worlds largest encrypted email provider, ProtonMail is the privacy tool of choice for journalists, activists and privacy conscious everyday users. Today when logging into their inboxes, ProtonMails 2 million users from 150 countries will see Amnesty Internationals latest findings on cyber censorship.

The internet is a powerful tool for free speech and activism, but in the wrong hands it can also be a tool for repression.

The internet is a powerful tool for free speech and activism, but in the wrong hands it can also be a tool for repression. Amnesty International has documented cases of advanced "techno-censorship" across the world, as governments race to find new tools and tactics to silence dissent. The range of cyber censorship and surveillance tactics being employed by governments is getting more sophisticated with each passing year, with dire consequences for freedom of expression, said Sherif Elsayed-Ali, Head of Technology and Human Rights at Amnesty International.

Amnesty International and ProtonMail want people who believe in a free internet to take action. The tech firms developing the architecture of the internet need to build in stronger security, with end-to-end encryption for example, that we can use to protect our rights to privacy and free speech online. The decisions made about the nature of the internet will affect our societies for a generation to come.

The decisions made about the nature of the internet will affect our societies for a generation to come.

Each year governments around the world are increasingly restricting internet freedom. With the use of IP address blocking today Turkey and Saudi Arabia block over 50,000 and 400,000 websites respectively; including news and social media networking sites. Chinas Great Firewall continues to restrict internet to over 800 million users.

Cyber censorship not only steals peoples rights to freedom of information but can also have the disastrous effect of hampering creative and scientific development needed for a brighter future.

Cyber censorship not only steals peoples rights to freedom of information but can also have the disastrous effect of hampering creative and scientific development needed for a brighter future Dr. Andy Yen, co-founder and CEO ProtonMail.

It is becoming an increasingly common practice for governments to shut off the Internet during moments of unrest and protest, such as Ethiopia did on more than one occasion in 2016. Last year several governments also shut down encrypted messaging apps, like Signal in Egypt and Whats App in Brazil.

Cyber censorship is further exacerbated by the indifference from some of the biggest tech companies towards their users privacy. Last year, Yahoo confirmed that it cooperated with the NSA to implement a special surveillance software to scan all its users emails for the agencys use.

On 21 October 2016, Amnesty International warned that tech companies like Snapchat and Microsoft are failing to adopt basic privacy protections on their instant messaging services, putting users human rights at risk. Only 3 of 11 tech firms examined in Amnesty Internationals Message Privacy Ranking provide end-to-end encryption by default on all their messaging apps.

Today we are changing our login page to stimulate a debate about online privacy, digital freedom and cyber censorship. Many of our users are journalists, dissidents and everyday users who have experienced internet restrictions in one way or another and who have turned to encrypted email to secure their communications, said Dr. Andy Yen, ProtonMail co-founder and CEO.

Cyber censorship not only steals peoples rights to freedom of information but can also have the disastrous effect of hampering creative and scientific development needed for a brighter future. Earlier this year ProtonMail launched a Tor hidden website to combat censorship and today we are happy to highlight the brave work Amnesty international is doing to protect civil liberties online.

Read this article:
Amnesty International and ProtonMail join forces to fight cyber censorship - Amnesty International

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Mashable first reported on the feature when one of their contributors attempted to view the profile of tech analyst Justyn Warren but was unable to determine why or how the account was flagged. Warren was notinformed that his profile was hidden, nor understood exactly why Twitter imposed the measure on his account. Warrens tweets seem to contain some swearing, but nothing serious enough to seem to warrant a sensitive content warning. His profile has since been unflagged.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Soon enough, there were reports of other accounts being grayed out:

Twitter claims that this new feature is to make the experience safer for users, and that it follows similar steps to their other safety features. Media, such as photos or videos,can already be reported as sensitive, with Twitter having the ability to mark an entire users media posts as sensitive permanently if they so choose. However, this new step verges away from stopping everyone immediately seeing pornography or graphic images to something potentially more worrying.

Abhimanyu Ghoshal writing atTheNextWeb posited some of the negative outcomes, imagining if a potential employer looked up your profile and found that it was greyed out; its possible they could get the wrong impression about your online presence. Or, if you had an important idea to share, but people couldnt see your tweets because you cursed once [Twitter] needs to be careful that it doesnt end up censoring its users and stifl[ing] free speech.

Twitters safety features are done via an opt-out system, whereby users have to go into their profile and deliberately change their settings in order to ensure that they see everything they want to. There is merit to allowing people to avoid things they do not want to Gab, the free speech alternative to Twitter, implemented a word-filtering feature that Twitter lateradopted but this was the choice of the users, and not forced upon them as default.

This is not the first time Twitter has implemented new features that tend towards censorship. If accounts are seen to have potentially abusive behavior, they are locked out for a certain period of time.In February, Twitter announced safer search results, filtering out sensitive tweets, and collapsing abusive tweets from being seen as replies underneath a tweet.

Jack Hadfield is a student at the University of Warwick and a regular contributor to Breitbart Tech. You can follow him on Twitter @ToryBastard_ or on Gab @JH.

Read more:
Twitter Tests Censoring Entire User Accounts over 'Sensitive Content' - Breitbart News

Justin Chaffee

Anyone disturbed or surprised by the content and presentation of Logan has never read any of the comics/graphic novels involving this character, aka Wolverine.

Concerned moviegoers should understand producers of previous films involving Marvels popular foul-mouthed, cigar-toting antihero were not only doing audiences a huge favor by omitting the realistic gore that would result from Logans slicing and dicing, but also protecting their own budgeting-butts, bub. Ever bothered to track the body count in other movies?

Logan is a womanizing, problem-drinking, pro-bone-oh curbside-ampu-surgeon. Mutate this with a soft spot for defenseless loners and a rageful disposition toward oppressive organizations, and the result is a perfect role model for any Generation X-er.

Previous films subtly portray the heros true attributes and abilities as best as PG-13 ratings would allow. In X-Men: First Class, 20th Century Fox grants Wolverine the only allowable f-word, in his brief 60 seconds on screen. The new release comforts true fans in that Hollywood is finally growing a pair (of claws) to show audiences the real Logan through Logan.

American censorship is just a manifestation of unnecessary fear. It was culturally necessary that the conservative, home-schooling mom accidentally took her kids to see Sausage Party, before realizing its content was not suitable for her family. She should have done her research first.

How does she protect her children from hearing what some people publicly blast through the car radio? A theater accidentally showing a red-ban trailer in front of a family feature holds slightly different circumstances, yet all children grow up and will experience similar themes in the real world eventually. These types of mistakes just expedite the process.

Its a brave new world, again. Endless possibilities.

Justin Chaffee is a resident of Winchester and Newport News.

See the article here:
Commentary Open Forum: The real 'Logan' Movie slices through censorship - The Winchester Star

The social networking website Twitter has put new measures in place to try to stop users from being harassed or from seeing things that offend them.

Some free-speech activists are worried that the changes could lead to unpopular ideas being censored.

The measures were announced last week. They include hiding possibly threatening messages even if no one has complained to the company that the person who sent them is abusive.

In a statement announcing the change, the company said, Were working to identify accounts as theyre engaging in abusive behavior -- even if this behavior hasnt been reported to us."

The company said it would take action only when it strongly believes abuse has taken place. It uses software to identify abuse.

Risk to free speech?

But some free speech supporters are worried about the changes.

Suzanne Nossel is the executive director of the free speech activist group PEN America. She said Twitter is considering taking action, in her words, where there is really no problem that needs to be solved. To take action when there hasnt been a complaint raises the concern of whether there will be mistaken blocking of accounts or suspending of accounts, she said. That raises a risk.

Twitter has been pressured to deal with abusive speech in the past few months after some famous people complained about long-term, planned abuse campaigns.

Actress Leslie Jones left Twitter for a brief time last year after she received many racist messages and death threats. Several months after she met with the head of Twitter, the company announced it had developed new ways to deal with abusive messages.

Those ways included strengthening the ability of users to stop receiving messages that had certain words or expressions in them, and expanding the ability of users to report abuse.

Twitter also retrained its workers on how to deal with online abuse.

Esha Bhandari is a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Unions Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. She told VOA that she supports these kinds of changes, which permit users to have more control over what messages they see and from whom they receive messages.

She said the ACLU encourages companies to focus less on ways it can stop abuse and more on tools that allow users to control their experience on the platform."

Low-quality tweets and safe search function

But some tools launched by Twitter give the company a lot of power to decide what messages are seen. In February, the company began hiding what it called potentially abusive or low-quality tweets. The messages will still be able to be seen, but only if people search for them.

VOA asked Twitter many times for more information on how it decided which messages are low-quality. Twitter did not answer our questions.

Also in February, Twitter introduced a safe search function that removes messages that have potentially sensitive content from search results. VOA also asked the company how it identified this kind of message, but Twitter again did not answer our questions.

Global town square

As a private company, Twitter is not forced to permit free speech. However, spokespeople say the service permits free expression. And they say they believe in speaking truth to power.

PEN America and the ACLU support this role. Nossel and Bhandari say they consider Twitter a kind of global town square, where everyones voice has equal weight.

Bhandari said, As a practical matter, decisions made by Twitter have a huge impact on the messages that we receive, and I hope that Twitter and other companies take those responsibilities seriously."

Nossel noted that Twitter has financial reasons to be careful as it seeks to balance free expression and stopping abuse.

The power and influence of their platform depends on the free flow of ideas, so I think there are commercial reasons why they would not want to limit (free speech), Gnossel said. And I think for their users, they do have a kind of softer, implicit contract that they are going to be a platform in which you can express things freely.

Im Ashley Thompson.

VOA News Writer Joshua Fatzick reported this story from Washington. John Smith adapted the story for Learning English. Kelly Jean Kelly was the editor.

We want to hear from you. Write to us in the Comments Section, or visit our Facebook page.

________________________________________________________________

account n. an arrangement in which a person uses the Internet or e-mail services of a particular company

complain v. to say or write that you are unhappy, sick, uncomfortable, etc., or that you do not like something

engage in phrasal verb to do (something)

encourage v. to make (something) more appealing or more likely to happen

allow v. to make it possible for someone or something to have or do something

focus v. to direct your attention or effort at something specific

racism n. the belief that some races of people are better than others

potentially adv. capable of becoming real

function n. the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

platform n. something that allows someone to tell a large number of people about an idea, product, etc.

practical adj. likely to succeed and reasonable to do or use

impact n. logical and reasonable in a particular situation

implicit adj. understood though not clearly or directly stated

See the original post here:
Twitter Fights Abuse, But Free Speech Activists Worry About Censorship - Voice of America

Climate change has a long list of known human health consequences, not the least of which is a set of adverse impacts on mental health. As more and more people are directly affected by destructive floods, heat waves, drought, deadly storms and other extreme weather events all worsened by increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide experts predict a steep rise in mental and social disorders: anxiety, depression, PTSD, substance abuse, increased suicide rates, and outbreaks of violence. Hardest hit will be children, the poor, the elderly, and those with existing mental health problems: collectively, this amounts to about half the US population! Worse, the consensus seems to be that the mental health profession is unprepared to handle these challenges.

Just three days after the presidential inauguration, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced in a terse email that it was cancelling a three-day conference, the Climate and Health Summit, that was to take place in Atlanta from February 14-16. With the translation of science to practice as the planned theme, scientists were to present their most recent research on the physical and mental health effects of climate change, and conferees were to explore ways to improve interagency cooperation and stakeholder engagement. Though no official reason was given, it quickly became evident that the CDC had engaged in self-censorship. President Trump has alleged that global warming is a notion invented by the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing noncompetitive and, more recently, that climate change is a hoax. This strategic retreat, as one scheduled speaker characterized it, was the result of a fear-based decision to shut down the event preemptively, before the new administration had a chance to shut it down for them, absent any foreknowledge or hint that they would.

As taxpayers who underwrite interagency federal climate science to the tune of about two billion dollars a year, we should be as intolerant of self-censorship as we are of outright censorship of government information. The unfettered communication of research findings regarding climate change impacts across regions and sectors is necessary for public awareness, preparedness, and sound policymaking. As global temperatures rise, all will be better served if civil servants inoculate themselves against the chilling effect that normally accompanies the sort of tyrannical rule weve already witnessed from our new President. In all likelihood, the CDC Summit was not on the White House radar, and could have proceeded unimpeded. Instead, Al Gore and several health-related organizations swooped in, came to the rescue, and sponsored a distilled down, one-day version they called the Climate & Health Meeting. But it is not the responsibility of private citizens and organizations to pick up the slack when agencies cower.

Source: http://bit.ly/2niCFcN

Truth be told, climate change is scary; the only thing scarier, we argue, is a culture of repression in which government employees opt for the safety of silence over the invaluable service of disclosure. Fear appears to be the common denominator: deep-seated fear often underlies psychological suffering in response to dangerous conditions, and fear of retaliatory budget cuts and potential job loss motivated CDC conference organizers to cut bait in an act of anticipatory surrender. If we subscribe to the notion that knowledge is power and empowering, it only follows that the more we can know and understand how our climate system is changing and what sorts of abnormal weather patterns we can expect where we live and work, the more we can prepare ourselves across the board, including mentally and emotionally. Were calling on the CDC and all federal and state entities conducting climate research to be fearless, to stand up in defiance of those who prefer to bury their heads in the sand and insist everyone else do the same. The stakes are too high to remain in the dark.

Climate change is already taking an emotional toll, but affects people differently. Dismissive, doubtful, disengaged, cautious, concerned, and alarmed: these words have been used to describe the wide-ranging responses people have to climate change. Those who are dismissive simply refuse to accept mounting scientific evidence, and often put forth bogus arguments in an effort to disprove global warming. There are at least two underlying explanations. As can happen with a diagnosis of life-threatening cancer, some people are thrown into fear-based denial. Simple greed or zealous protection of a financial interest can also motivate some to be dismissive and deny outright the veracity of the climate threat. Some treat climate change as if it were a religion, and declare a disbelief in climate change. To this, Neil deGrasse Tyson often says that the good thing about science is that its true whether or not you believe in it. It is as ridiculous to say, I dont believe in global warming as it is to say, I dont believe in gravity both are simple laws of physics.

Those who are doubtful are reluctant to accept climate change as a reality, and tend to defend carbon-intensive lifestyles while pointing to unsettled science and denier rhetoric to defend their view. Then there are people who simply havent plugged in, are disengaged, and have failed to notice climate change as a problem that may affect them. Still others react more neutrally, are cautious, and neither fully embrace nor reject the threat of climate change, and take a wait-and-see attitude.

Yet, the science behind climate change is well-developed, so it is no surprise that a growing percentage of people are becoming deeply concerned about worsening impacts associated with climate change severe and more frequent flooding, prolonged droughts, heat waves, devastating forest fires, sea level rise, storm surges, ocean acidification, and so on. The less fortunate of us have already been the victims of one or more extreme weather events, such as massive flooding, and have lost homes, livelihoods, even loved ones. Humans are emotional creatures. People who see unchecked climate change as an existential threat, who walk around every day acutely aware of the very real prospect of an increasingly inhospitable climate system most climate scientists are in this group can easily become alarmed.

Climate change exacts a psychological toll. A landmark 2015 report in The Lancet warns that mental health disorders are one of the most dangerous indirect health effects of global warming. Multiple studies, such as those described in the US Global Change Research Programs Third National Climate Assessments Health Chapter, have shown that climate change can cause people to become chronically worried and anxious, frustrated, overwhelmed, exasperated, even clinically depressed. Hyper-vigilance, obsessive-compulsive disorders, even full-blown PTSD can result. Some mental health professionals have dubbed the uncomfortable feeling of anticipatory anxiety pre-traumatic stress disorder. Stress levels can be the greatest for those whose livelihoods are tightly wedded to the natural environment. For example, in some parts of the world, in response to a rapidly changing climate and abnormal weather conditions, farmers are committing suicide at alarming rates.

Even if we are not directly adversely affected by it in our daily lives, simple awareness of the climate threat, via the media and in normal discourse, is enough to cause anxiety. In most areas of the world, its difficult not to notice abnormal weather patterns: higher average temperatures, wild temperature swings, a lot more precipitation, or a lot less. Instinctively, many of us know something is wrong: were experiencing the small drip of climate reality.

The Climate & Health Meeting Al Gore organized was held on February 16 at the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia.

Over 300 people attended; Gore made opening remarks; there were two panels, about a dozen speakers, and a lunch keynote address. President Jimmy Carter made a surprise appearance and delivered a few remarks. With the possible disapproval of Congress, the CDC has to be a little cautious politically, he said, adding, The Carter Center doesnt. The Chicago Tribune noted that the move sends a powerful signal: Civil society and academic organizations will try to fill the conversation gaps about climate change left by the new administration. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association (APHA), one of the meeting sponsors, commented, Were committed to making sure the nation knows about the effects of climate change on health. If anyone doesnt think this is a severe problem, they are fooling themselves. The APHA has declared 2017 the Year of Climate Change and Health. Its not clear how many CDC employees who were slated to attend the original conference were at the February 16 meeting. However, it is worth noting that two CDC staffers who did attend Dr. Patrick Breysse,director of the National Center for Environmental Health, and Dr.George Luber, an epidemiologist inthe Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects were requested for media interviews, but a senior CDC press officer declined to make them available. Restrictions on interactions with the press were put in place across all federal agencies soon after Trump took office; reportedly, some of these restrictions are beginning to loosen up, but we still dont know how much this administration will attempt to impede normal communications going forward.

Presenters at the meeting covered a wide variety of topics: air quality, infectious diseases, heat waves, extreme weather, vulnerable populations, state and local initiatives, adaptation measures, and the role of the health care sector. Children are particularly vulnerable, so much so that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a formal statement in 2015 urging pediatricians and politicians to work towards solving the climate crisis to protect the young. An AAP spokesperson noted, Their future is at stake, yet they do not vote and they have no voice in the debate. We have a moral obligation to act on their behalf. Indeed. Washington, DC-based psychiatrist Dr. Lise van Susteren, who presented on mental health at the Climate & Health Meeting (see transcript below), is convinced that the chronic failure of adults to tackle the climate change problem and implement effective solutions puts our children in harms way, and amounts to nothing less than child abuse. Its difficult to disagree; failing to provide our kids with a world thats as safe to live in as the one we were born into is something all parents should do their best to avoid.

Political interference in climate communication was a recurring problem in the Bush-Cheney administration. In October 2007, the Bush White House removed six entire pages of Congressional testimony offered by CDC Director Julie Gerberding, which linked climate change to adverse health impacts. Climate Science Watch covered the story of the eviscerated statement and published the unredacted testimony as submitted by Gerberding to the White House for customary review. It was later confirmed that Vice President Dick Cheneys office had pushed for the deletions.

Under the fossil fuel-friendly Bush Administration, many lessons were learned, and some provisions have since been put in place that protect the right to free speech of federal employees wishing to share the results of their research with the media and the public.

Given the rapidly accelerating threat of climate change and associated risks to human populations not just in America but all over the globe political interference in the communication of scientific findings crucial to informing policymakers and the public is literally a life-threatening act of betrayal against current and future generations. Keeping our Constitutional right to free speech requires that we exercise it. Please, no more self-censoring.

CSPW Senior Climate Policy Analyst Anne Polansky has 30 years of experience in public policies relating to energy and the environment, with a strong focus on climate change and renewable energy. She is a former Professional Staff Member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TRANSCRIPT Mental Health Consequences of Climate Change By Dr. Lise Van Susteren, Psychiatrist

Everything related to climate change either directly or indirectly all the losses, injuries, illnesses, displacements carry with them an attended emotional toll that must be acknowledged as we tally up psychological impacts of climate change. Ill start with a few of the mental health impacts for which we have precise data, and then move onto those for which we do not.

We know of the link between extreme climate and weather events to aggression. For each standard deviation of increased temperature and rainfall, we can expect a four percent increase in conflict between individuals, and a fourteen percent increase in conflict between groups. The findings are valid for all ethnicities and regions.

So, more assaults, murders and suicides, and increase in unrest all over the world should come as no surprise.

Air pollution forms more readily at higher temperatures, with particulate matter crossing of the brain via the olfactory nerve, causes neural inflammation linked to multiple mental and neurologic problems: cognitive decline in all age groups, including Alzheimers and other neurodegenerative disorders, such as Parkinsons disease and ALS. It is linked to autism and to psychiatric disorders. The American Psychological Association reports that children exposed in utero to air pollutants were more likely to have symptoms of anxiety or depression. Emergency room visits for panic attacks and threats to commit suicide are higher on days with poor air quality. Exposing workers to increasing levels of CO2 has significant impact on their cognitive functioning. The testing at indoor concentrations to which Americans are frequently exposed shows the most serious decline in our ability to think strategically, to use information, and to respond to a crisis. Not good.

But, not everything that counts can be counted. Indeed, it is the inchoate, insidious, complex, and unconscious psychological states driven by climate trauma, not lending themselves to studies and precise numbers, that are the most profoundly damaging, and drive systemic emotional conditions society will find difficult to treat and surmount.

We must think about the balance between the need for data with the need to connect emotionally, because emotional connection is at the heart of what moves people to action. Action now turns on our success, in part at least, in stirring empathy. When the place you call home is burned down, blown away, dried up, flooded when you lose your possessions, maybe your pets, your livelihood, your community see injuries, illness and death the mix of fear, anger, sorrow, and trauma can easily send a person to the breaking point. Mental health professionals are seeing a full range of psychiatric disorders: PTSD, major depression, generalized anxiety, a rise in the abuse of drugs and alcohol, domestic violence (most often against women) and a rise in child-abuse.

Some of us are lucky enough to be at a distance from the worlds climate disasters, but were not potted plants sitting here. This is empathic identification with the victims. It is painful seeing people drowned, burned, flooded, starved right? Special populations that are at risk [include] children; the elderly; the sick; the disabled; the mentally ill (of course); the poor, and those living in the bulls-eye, disaster-prone areas: along coastlines and rivers, in tornado alleys, in cities with the heat island effect. [They also include] first responders, and climate Cassandras who suffer from pre-traumatic stress disorder in the grip of images of future disasters they cant put out of their minds.

In the first published climate change delusion, a 17-year-old Australian boy had to be hospitalized for refusing to drink water, believing it would cause millions in his drought-ridden in country to die of thirst. The Melbourne childrens hospital doctor who treated him told me he has a clinic full of children with climate anxiety.

Through the result of multiple forces, climate change poses both a threat multiplier and a root cause of the mental health crisis from the explosion of refugees today searching for safety, destabilization of regions, with groups dangerous to world security rising in these feral conditions. In Europe, a sharp turn to the far right politically, the once open question about America was answered in November. In times of peril and scarcity people regress, they turn to what they perceive as strong leaders to protect them and are willing to give up their freedoms and values in exchange for perceived security.

Fears often flip to a more empowering form: anger explaining why hearing about scary climate change can evoke so much aggression. The experiences of citizens stranded at the Superdome in New Orleans in the days after Katrina are an example of how quickly our systems can be overwhelmed, and our faith in them turned upside down. Faith in a functional government is the sine qua non of a stable society.

When disasters are no longer experienced solely as acts of God or nature, but derived from the behavior of humans, it will be much tougher on us, because what happens from intentional negligence is harder to put behind us than what happens accidentally. Carried by an on-off switch, the activation of a human gene for stress in the face of trauma can be passed on to succeeding generations, compounding the toll.

A new term has been coined, solastalgia to describe the pain as seeing lands that once gave the treasured sense of home now lost or irreparably damaged. Should I have a baby? is the question increasingly being asked by young people worried about the carbon cost of bringing another person into the world. A doctoral student in anthropology at Stanford and one of his friends with whom I am in contact are discussing rational suicide in the face of climate and carbon impacts.

As we register the warning that by mid-century, 30 to 50 percent of species may be on the path to extinction, and considering the life-sustaining biodiversity, the overwhelming beauty and complexity of nature, inspiring us with awe and wonder, what our friend Eric Chivian would likely ask, is the cost, not only to human health, but the cost to our souls.

When we put people in harms way, theres a name for it, its called aggression. To our children, though they are not yet calling it this, its clearer every day that destructive inaction on climate and this is my professional opinion will be experienced as child abuse, with all the attendant mental health impacts we would expect.

Thank you.

See more here:
The Insanity of Self-Censorship: Climate Change, Politics, and Fear-Based Decision-Making - Climate Science Watch

Taiwan's universities are reeling from accusations that they are indulging in widespread academic censorship to secure lucrative fee-paying exchange students from the Chinese mainland.

This week the Ministry of Education launched an emergency probe of pledges allegedly signed by universities with their Chinese counterparts to uphold Chinas official view on Taiwans status and avoid teaching sensitive content like Taiwanese independence.

The controversy has struck at a particularly sensitive time, with the island nation smarting from a strong rebuke last weekend by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, who warned that China would not tolerate any activity attempting to separate Taiwan from the motherland.

Taiwan, a democracy of 23 million, has its own parliament, military and foreign policy, but Beijing views it as a renegade province that will eventually be reunited with the mainland by military force if necessary.

The Education Ministry refused to confirm press reports that at least 80 out of 157 universities may have compromised their academic independence to attract Chinese students, until it completes its full investigation next week.

But Yang Min-ling, head of the ministrys International Department, warned that any institution found guilty of violating laws governing cross-strait relations between Taiwan and China could face fines of up to $16,000.

Fearful that Beijing is trying to erode their jealously guarded academic liberties, Taiwanese professors and students are in revolt.

A new campaign against political restrictions on academic freedom by Professor Fan Yun, who teaches sociology at National Taiwan University, has been supported by professors and students from over 20 institutions.

Universities are supposed to protect the democratic values of a society, says Fan.

I visit Hong Kong universities and whats happening there is quite depressing. They already lost the freedom to talk about what they want to. So I hope that we are overworried, but we dont want to wait until its too late, she argues.

We still want to facilitate academic exchange with China, but we have to have our bottom line.

With Taiwans low birth rate fueling fears of a future shortfall in students, however, that line appears to be flexible for many universities competing for funding. Taiwan, which has a glut of universities, gratefully receives over 30,000 Chinese exchange students every year.

The latest controversy began at Shih Hsin University in the capital, Taipei, after it revealed that in letters to some mainland Chinese students it vowed to avoid sensitive subjects.

A spokesman, Yeh I-jan, argued that the letters were nonbinding and only necessary for about 5% of the institutions annual 1,500 Chinese students.

Shih Hsin and other universities claim such documents are a formality to placate the Chinese authorities, denying that teaching standards are compromised. But Yeh did recall several instances where Chinese students had complained about the content of lessons and stopped attending.

Young activists in both Hong Kong and Taiwan have irked Beijing in recent years by pushing for greater autonomy or even independence. In 2014, hundreds of students formed the Sunflower Movement and occupied Taiwans parliament to protest Chinas political influence.

Lin Fei-fan, one of Sunflowers leaders, is alarmed that the letters issued by universities have both violated Taiwans academic freedom and burdened visiting Chinese students with self-censorship. But he also sees an opportunity.

This incident actually gives us a rare chance to rethink how a democratic Taiwan can engage with an authoritarian and inimical neighbor country through education exchange, he says.

Concerns about China using its overseas students for political leverage have occurred elsewhere.

In San Diego, Chinese students protested against a decision by the University of California to invite Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. Meanwhile, the Chinese embassy in the U.K. is said to have warned students at Durham University against engaging with human-rights activist, Anastasia Lin.

Its part of how they want to promote their cultural and social agenda in other societies, particularly in Taiwan, said Hsu Yung-ming, a legislator with the government-aligned New Power Party.

We worry that our universities maybe have some under-the-table compromise with China.

But Jason Hsu, a legislator from the opposition party, the Kuomintang, warned the government against a kneejerk reaction.

While opposing pledges to Chinese universities, Hsu believes that the Ministry of Education probe, with the threat of financial penalties, is also overreaching.

He asks: Do we want zero students from China in Taiwan, or do we want to promote more exchange and understanding towards each other? I think I would vote for the latter.

More:
Taiwan Is Desperate for Fee-Paying, Mainland Chinese Students. That Could Be Bad for Academic Freedom - TIME

Serbian pop singer Vlado Georgiev will consult his lawyers about suing pro-government station TV Pink for spreading false information about his concert cancellation during an interview it broadcast with Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic, Danas newspaper reported on Wednesday.

Vucic told TV Pink on Monday that the concert scheduled for March 4in Smederevo, a town 80 kilometres south of Belgrade, wasnt forbidden but cancelled due to poor ticket sales.

Georgiev claims however that it was cancelled because he has expressed support for the former Ombudsman Sasa Jankovic, who is running against Vucic in the presidential election on April 2.

He accused TV Pink of broadcasting the most brutal lies and said he was considering suing the channel for spreading such stupidities.

He said he had not decided yet whether to sue Vucic too.

On the day of the cancelled concert, large numbers of fans of Georgiev protested by taking to the streets of Smederevo at 8.30pm, when the gig should have started, in a rally organised via Facebook.

Vucic insisted to TV Pink that only 970 people demonstrated, not 5,000 as media reports said.

Georgiev said he was informed about the cancellation of his concert via Twitter 18 days prior to the event.

To tell someone that a concert has been cancelled due to unsold tickets 18 day before the event is a brutal insult, he told Danas.

The situation I experienced made me think that Im living in Russia in Stalins times, and maybe Stalin would have killed me, but for sure he would not cancel my concert, which means that this country [Serbia] is completely subject to censorship, he added.

Original post:
Serbian Singer Slams PM Over Concert 'Censorship' - Balkan Insight

A person armed with a gun is seen on a live video posted to social media onApril 31, 2016 in Chicago.

Facebook/WBBM

Facebook Live gives people an easy way to broadcast live video, but it has also reportedly given Facebook a real live headache: how to decide when to censor video depicting violent acts.

In the year since its launch, the feature has been used to broadcast at least 50 acts of violence, according to theWall Street Journal, including murder, suicides and abeating of a special-needs teenagerin Chicago earlier this year. One of the problems is that Facebook didnt grasp the gravity of the medium during the planning process for the feature, an unidentified source told the newspaper.

Facebook Live, which lets anyone with a phone and internet connection live-stream video directly to Facebooks 1.8 billion users, has become a centerpiece feature for the social network. In the past few months, everyone from Hamilton cast members to theDonald Trump campaignhas turned to Facebook to broadcast in real time.

Soon, we believe a camera will be the main way to share, instead of the traditional text box, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said during an earnings conference call last November. We think its pretty clear video is only going to become more important.

But the focus on video has prompted some tough philosophical questions, like what Facebook should and shouldnt show.

In July, a Minnesota woman named Diamond Reynolds used the service tolive-stream her fiance Philando Castileafter he was shot by police. The next day, Facebook Live captured the scene as five Dallaspolice officers were gunned downduring a peaceful demonstration.

Play Video

Police are searching for the gunman who fatally shot two people and wounded one more in a Chicago alley. The incident was captured in a Facebook ...

Both the Castile and Dallas videos were initially streamed unedited and uncensored. The Castile video temporarily disappeared from the social network because of a technical glitch, according to Facebook. It was restored later with a warning about its graphic nature.

Zuckerberg addressed this issue last month inan open letter to the Facebook community, conceding that errors in judgment were made.

In the last year, the complexity of the issues weve seen has outstripped our existing processes for governing the community, he wrote, referencing how some newsworthy videos were handled.

Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This article originally appeared onCNET.com.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.

View post:
Violence on Facebook Live presents censorship dilemma - CBS News

Musicwe all love it, in various forms and degrees. Some just enjoy a casual radio buzz in the background, while others need to listen to albums in their entirety to get any pleasure. This broad spectrum has led to a wide variety of music, from introspective concept albums to simple, catchy, so-called radio tunes, crafted to set an upbeat mood and stick in ones head.

Its very easy for these paths to cross. I mean, radios second purpose is to introduce the listener to new, interesting songs and bands that the station thinks they will enjoy, as fans of the stations repertoire.

So its natural that you find, every so often, an unconventional piece of music garnering radio time. No one would say that this is a problem; radio is good for the artist, good for potential fans and good for the already present fans, glad to see their favorite band getting the recognition that they deserve.

The problem, I feel, is when the song is viewed as unpalatable by either the FCC, the radio station or even the record label. With the rise of rap in popular culturea genre founded on the plight of the disenfranchisedas well as a push for artistic integrity and free speech, vulgar language is at its peak in music.

However, radio still finds the need to censor this music. This censorship ranges from the changing of lyrics (Cee Lo Greens claim to fame, Forget You, comes to mind) to the outright removal of words deemed inappropriate (as in the chorus of Starboy, by The Weeknd). This is done for one reason: to sell the song to radio, and to people who feel that foul language is a legitimate sign of immorality.

Those who deem vulgarity to be a negative aspect of music do it for a multitude of reasons, but the two most common appear to be:

While both of these points come from a place of real worry, I do not feel that they are effective arguments for the censorship of music. Lets address each point individually, and then answer the question of censorship as a whole.

Children are the pride of American culture. We view children as fragile tokens of youth and innocence, unable to understand the nuance of humanitys interactions with itself. Thus, we must shelter them from anything that could corrupt that innocence.

In protecting from that corruption, we do things like censor media. However, in the digital age, this censorship does not work as we want it to. Most children have access to the internet, and the idea that they will be able to avoid the uncensored media is laughable.

Censoring radio merely piques the interest of these children, who will then search for the naughty words, sidestepping their parents attempt at protecting them and avoiding any positive dialogue on the use of adult language.

The second issue is a more complex one. Class issues throughout the centuries have led to a demonization of bad language, and is why we as a culture do not feel that it is a proper thing to do.

The problem with this stance, especially in media, is that media defies culture. Rock, punk and rapthese movements started as counterculture, before evolving into fully fleshed out genres that became adopted by the mainstream.

These movements were born out of cultural defiance, taboo behavior and the freedom of expression. Censorship kills this freedom of expression, as well as defanging any relevant criticism that the movement has against the mainstream.

But then, keep the vulgarity out of the mainstream and separate the counterculture from the popular movements, you say. The issue with this is twofold:

There is nothing to gain from separating the subversive elements of a musical movement from its appealing ones, and any attempt to do so should be viewed exclusively as a controlling form of censorship.

Music has become a product. Art for arts sake, while existent, is hard to come by in the mainstream these days. The industry, in fear of losses, allows for the perverted censorship of an art form to be maintained.

Filler does not exist in art. Artists pick lyrics with purpose, to convey emotion, make a point or satirize an establishment. The censorship of these artists takes the power that they have over their own creation away, and reduces them to nothing more than a vessel for public appeal, the antithesis of art as a whole.

Dean Cahill is a first-year student majoring in English literature. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

Continue reading here:
Music, censorship and the industry - Quad (subscription)