Category Archives: Censorship

Twitter introduced new safety measures this week meant to crack down on online harassment and protect people from viewing offensive material, but some free-speech advocates are concerned the changes could lead to censorship of unpopular ideas.

The social media company announced Wednesday that it would start hiding potentially menacing tweets, even if the tweets or accounts in question hadn't been reported as abusive.

"We're working to identify accounts as they're engaging in abusive behavior, even if this behavior hasn't been reported to us," the company said in a statement announcing the changes. "Then, we're taking action by limiting certain account functionality for a set amount of time, such as allowing only their followers to see their Tweets."

The so-called stealth bans could be placed on accounts, the company's statement said, if a Twitter user sent unsolicited messages to another user who was not following the sender.

Twitter said it would "act on accounts" only when it was confident abuse had taken place, based on the algorithms it uses to identify illicit posts.

This new automated stealth ban capability became a cause of consternation for Suzanne Nossel, executive director of the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, because she said it could easily become a solution "where there is really no problem that needs to be solved."

FILE - A Twitter app on an iPhone screen is shown.

'Mistaken' moves?

"To take action when there hasn't 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 under pressure to address abusive speech and trolling on its platform in recent months after celebrities and others complained of sustained, coordinated abuse campaigns.

Actress Leslie Jones notably swore off the social media service for a brief time last year after she was targeted by online trolls and harassed with racism and death threats. The incident led to a personal meeting between Jones and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and several months later the company began introducing new tools to address online abuse.

Twitter expanded its "mute" feature to allow users to block specific words or phrases from showing up in their notifications. It expanded users' ability to report hateful conduct. And it retrained its support teams on dealing with online abuse.

These types of changes that allow users to have more control over what content they see and whom they interact with are positive steps, Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told VOA.

FILE - Twitter's Jack Dorsey is interviewed on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Nov. 19, 2015. The chief executive apologized Thursday, Nov. 17, 2016, after the service let through an ad promoting a white supremacist group.

Control for users

The ACLU encourages companies to focus less on a top-down approach to censorship and more "on tools that allow users to control their experience on the platform," she said.

"Attempts to put the thumb on the scale on the censorship side are prone to error and prone to human biases," Bhandari said.

Newer tools introduced by Twitter, though, give the company a far greater role in controlling what content gets seen.

In February, Twitter began pre-emptively hiding what it called "potentially abusive or low-quality tweets" from conversations on the website. The tweets will still be visible to users, but only to "those who seek them out."

"Our team has also been working on identifying and collapsing potentially abusive and low-quality replies so the most relevant conversations are brought forward," Twitter said in a February statement.

VOA contacted Twitter multiple times for clarification on guidelines used to identify "low-quality" tweets but received no response.

Twitter also introduced a "safe search" feature in February that automatically removes tweets that contain "potentially sensitive content" from search results. A request for clarification on how this content is identified was not returned.

Being a non-government entity, Twitter has no real obligation to preserve free speech on its website. But Twitter has billed itself as a platform for free expression, and on the Twitter rules page, it says it believes in "speaking truth to power."

FILE - The Twitter symbol appears above a trading post on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, July 27, 2016. Twitter, long criticized as a hotbed for online harassment, has been expanding ways to curb the amount of abuse users see.

Global town square

This is a role both PEN America and the ACLU take seriously. Both Nossel and Bhandari referred to the website as a sort of global town square, where everyone's voice has equal weight.

"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," Bhandari said.

Nossel noted that Twitter has a financial incentive to be cautious on issues involving the balance between allowing 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]," she 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."

Bhandari said it's important to find that balance, because if Twitter "allows a heckler's veto to take over," it will have a chilling effect on speech that's similar to pre-emptively hiding content.

"One of the really important parts of that has to be transparency," she said.

See the rest here:
Could Twitter's New Abuse Crackdown Lead to Censorship? - Voice of America

Censorship, whether at a broader or more personal scale, ultimately leaves society with more harm done than good.

Everyone would agree that censoring society from potential evils protects and benefits the people in the long run, wouldnt they? Of course, they wouldnt. Censorship, whether at a broader or more personal scale, ultimately leaves society with more harm done than good.

Though I may not be proud of it, I have experienced censorship firsthand. Witnessing an innocent little boy being bullied by my friend in our local library didnt seem to trigger my preteen brain to spring into action. Not realizing the full severity of the situation, I decided to censor my words and actions in order to not lose my friend. Though I grew to learn that my decision was incorrect, I negatively impacted society by letting a bullying situation go untouched. I could have easily stopped this incident, if not for my personal censorship.

American author Charles Bukowski told how censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real, and I can't vent any anger against them. I only feel this appalling sadness. Somewhere, in their upbringing, they were shielded against the total facts of our existence (Bukowski, Charles Bukowski on Censorship).

Essentially, hes describing the simple principle of how censoring is only us pushing away reality, and it is unhealthy for us to do so. Chinas censorship of critical health information validates Bukowskis beliefs that censorship is used by those who want to intentionally withhold facts from others. In 2012, the World Health Organization estimated that about 4,000 people died each day in China due to severe air pollution, a devastating7 million each year (Jolley, End the censorship). Chinese citizens reacting to this created Under the Dome, a documentary created to grow awareness of this increasing health issue. However, the film, as well as posts regarding it, were deleted from the public eye. The Chinese government was trying to protect their image by not having society understand this issue, though it truly hurt China as a whole in the long run, considering this problem continued to worsen at the expense of human life. Meanwhile, President Xi announced that he was fully involved in cleaning this polluted air and expected all his people to be as well (Jolley, End the censorship). However, that idea of society helping out is unattainable considering how people arent even allowed to discuss it openly. This unnecessary censorship put not only China but also bordering nations at risk, considering how air doesnt remain within borders.

Another excellent example of censorship harming society revolves around global warming. It's well known in the media how burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide adds to the gradual worsening of the climate, though its barely known how arctic ice sheets containing tons of methane are melting extremely fast in some locations (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). As methane enters the atmosphere as ice melts, it damages the environment much more than carbon dioxide would. American Journalist Dahr Jamail stated that a 2013 study, published in Nature, reported that a 50-giganton burp of methane is highly possible at any time, and that would be the equivalent of at least 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide...since 1850, humans have released a total of approximately 1,475 gigatons in carbon dioxide (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). He also spoke about how a massive, sudden change in methane levels could, in turn, lead to temperature increases of four to six degrees Celsius in just one or two decades - a rapid rate of climate change to which human agriculture, and ecosystems more generally, could not readily adapt (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). Since this isnt talked about in the news, the majority of society is unaware of how terrifying this situation is and that it is happening right now. The media believe that they are helping by keeping the people in the dark about this horrible issue, though it only leaves us without the knowledge to stop it.

Taking away books from the public is another form of censorship that is incredibly hurtful toward society. Judy Blume, an American writer, notes how tragic the idea is that there are some books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers (Blume, Judy Blume Talks About Censorship) When books are taken away from society, this unexplainable connection we have to books is cut, as well as the possible knowledge that it could provide us.

There are multiple forms of censorship that are damaging to society and individual life. Whether it be a countrys government withholding critical health information, or swallowing your words when witnessing an act of bullying, censorship is detrimental toward people on both sides of the act. Overall, if you ever find yourself in a situation where you feel the need to censor your voice or opinion out of fear that you may harm others, remember that your censorship will only do more damage to both sides in the end.

Katie O'Brien

Tyler Lane

Middleton

Read the original:
Censorship, in all its forms, is damaging - Wicked Local Topsfield - Wicked Local Topsfield

The Great Firewall of China is famed for the restrictions it places on what Chinese citizens can access online. If a site provides access to news from the west, conflicts with state propaganda, or criticizes China or its ruling Communist party in any way, it is blocked. But some officials are now suggesting that it's time things changed.

The impetus is not a sudden softening of the political agenda, but a suggestion from the leading advisory body the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference that censorship is damaging China's progress in terms of the economy and science.

Vice-chairman of the body, Luo Fuhe, has taken the unusual -- and potentially dangerous -- step of speaking out against the internet restrictions put in place by the Chinese government. With the government not only blocking access to key websites (including making it near-impossible to circumvent restrictions), but also actively monitoring what citizens are posting online and engaging in barely-concealed state propaganda, Luo says that researchers in China have a difficult time accessing the sites they need.

As reported by the Guardian, as well as censoring sites completely, the Great Firewall of China also makes using the internet prohibitively slow:

From within China, attempting to visit to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization or a lot of foreign university website is very slow. Opening each page takes at least 10-20 seconds and some foreign university sites need more than half an hour to open.

Although China has taken steps to block the use of VPNs that could be used to get around restrictions, Luo says: "Some researches rely on software to climb over the firewall to complete their own research tasks. This is not normal."

Proponents of free speech might laud Luo's stand against the government, but there are issues. Firstly has not proposed that anything other than scientific websites be allowed to make their way through the Great Firewall. Secondly, he is doing nothing to question what the Chinese government is doing controlling general internet usage so powerfully.

Image credit: BeeBright / Shutterstock

Read the original here:
Officials say it's time for the Great Firewall of China to ease up on censorship - BetaNews

Its always something with the Indian censors.

This time, its the refusal of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant filmmaker Alankrta Shrivastavas Lipstick Under My Burkha certification for a theatrical release in India. The film, a drama following four women in small-town India exploring sexual empowerment, freedom from patriarchy, and personal fulfillment won the Oxfam Award for Best Film on Gender Equality at the Mumbai Film Festival last October and the Spirit of Asia Award at the 2016 Tokyo International Film Festival, with upcoming screenings at festivals everywhere from Miami to Glasgow. The boards rejection of the film reignites familiar outrage, as the filmmakers and audiences alike have taken to social media to slam the decision as an assault on womens rights.

Infuriating as it is, this is hardly the boards first frustrating clampdown. The CBFC has long been the bane of films that push the envelope as far as social issues or physical intimacy are concerned. Some may recall the outright bans in the past of movies deemed too vulgar, like Shekhar Kapurs Bandit Queen in 1994, or Mira Nairs Kama Sutra A Tale of Love in 1996. More recently, in 2015, it raised objections to sex scenes in films like Anupam Sharmas UnIndian and Shonali Boses Margarita With a Straw, calling for re-edits that shortened the allegedly offensive depictions before clearing them for release.

And in its most high-profile and heavily disputed controversy to date, the CBFCcalled for a record 94 cuts pertaining to strong language, drug use and the mention of state names in last Junes star-studded Udta Punjab, arguing that the content jeopardized the countrys integrity and could compromise tourism in the region.

With a group as notoriously orthodox as the CBFC so often standing between films and theaters, then, some may say that the content of Lipstick Under My Burkha bold in the context of Indian cinema was bound to raise a few flags. But the refusal to certify this film, while unsurprising, has hit a particularly raw nerve for the wording used to explain its decision. The boards letter to the films producer, Prakash Jha, stated that the story is lady-oriented, their fantasy above life. There are contanious [sic] sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography, and a bit [sic] sensitive touch about one particular section of society, hence film refused under guidelines.

Its already flawed logic to deem a film inappropriate merely because it provides a perspective that could be displeasing to a certain segment of the audience. But to specify that the content is unsuitable precisely because it prioritizes the physical and emotional expression of female characters takes the decision to new levels of hypocrisy. Despite the widespread outrage over social media by industry members and audiences alike, the CBFC has only doubled down on its rejection. Board member Mamta Kale defended the decision, claiming that being a woman, you can talk about your sexual rights but you have to keep one thing in mind as to how you are showing that issue. Can families go together to watch such a movie? No, they cannot.

The argument is weak, given that watching movies especially non-mainstream ones like Lipstick Under My Burkha is less of a family affair in India today than it once was. More importantly, its a tone-deaf assessment from a group that evidently believes that routinely objectifying women for the sake of the male gaze qualifies as family-friendly entertainment.

In fact, if placing fantasy above life werentacceptable, an overwhelming proportion of mainstream, escapist Bollywood should have been banned as unsuitable for Indian audiences by now. For decades, weve watched item numbers cater predominantly to male sexual imaginations, whether in their early iterations in 1930s, when actresses playing cabaret dancers would shimmy for a roomful of men to lyrics dripping with innuendo, topresent-day Bollywood, where lithe actresses do essentially the same thing, only in even skimpier costumes, much to the delight of men ogling and hooting from the lower stalls of cinema halls.

Theres been little pushback by anyone of influence to the notion of stalking as an appropriate form of wooing a woman, a strategy that began in the 60s, when heartthrob Shammi Kapoor made it look like innocent persistence rather than harassment, and has continued to this day with 2014s Raanjhanaa, 2016s Sultan, and possibly even in the upcoming Badrinath Ki Dulhania next month. Actors over the age of 50 still woo heroines less than half their age, and actresses half-naked bodies are still plastered on posters and highlighted in film trailers to shamelessly lure in the male contingent.

The CBFC has protested to little, if any, of this. Yet the moment an outspoken film like Lipstick Under My Burkha gives female perspectives a realistic voice, or attempts to shed light on how women discover and experience their own fantasies, the censor board decides that a lady-oriented film is inappropriate. The message is clear: A male fantasy is a natural expression of masculinity; its female equivalent is somehow a threat to the sanctity of Indian society.

Its a double standard so blatant, it delegitimizes any lingering credibility the CBFC enjoyed, and throws into question the sincerity of any government calls to support creative liberty over excessive moral policing. The eventual court ruling last June to release Udta Punjab with an A (restricted to adults) certificate and a single cut, seemed to be an encouraging move pushing the board to stick to its role of certification rather than censorship. For many, it was an indication that audiences could henceforth make their own judgements about what they should or shouldnt watch. The ability of a movie like last years Parched a daring and sometimes explicit critique of misogyny in rural India to escape relatively unscathed from the boards easily offended sensibilities further re-stoked the sputtering confidence of the public.

But those hopes were extinguished just as fast when the CBFC kicked off a year-long battle with the makers of Haraamkhor, the BAFTA-nominated film about arelationship between a teenage student and her teacher, after deeming the subject matter not suitable for India. (The film was finally released in January after several enforced cuts made it suitable for a U/A certificate.) Later last year, outrage was sparked once again after the trailer of Hansal Mehtas Aligarh was restricted to adult-only audiences simply due to its mention of the word homosexuality.

By outright refusing to give Lipstick Under My Burkha a certification at all, effectively blocking a theatrical release, the CDFC confirmed that for all the alleged intent to certify rather than cut, it essentially remains a censorship body. Exercising creative liberties in India remains an exhausting, one step forward, three steps back process, at the mercy of an overly conservative boards arbitrary guidelines of what constitutes appropriate entertainment or art.

As far as Lipstick Under My Burkha goes, director Shrivastava has vowed to fight for the films big-screen release in India though it remains to be seen whether it can happen with or without edits that inevitably dilute the films message. As the country misses out on the bold storytelling talent of its own natives, well appreciate that the rest of the world can still acknowledge what India has to offer and hope that Netflix is watching.

Watch the trailer of Lipstick Under My Burkha below:

Read the original post:
Why Indian Censorship Is Hurting the Country's Cinema - IndieWire

China restricts outside websites including Google. Photograph: Sinopix/REX

Chinas sprawling internet censorship regime is harming the countrys economic and scientific progress, a senior official has said in a rare public rebuke of longstanding Communist party policy.

Internet restrictions had also cooled enthusiasm among overseas investors and should be relaxed for politically innocuous content, said Luo Fuhe, vice-chairman of the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference, the top advisory body to Chinas rubber-stamp parliament.

It is a rare criticism of the countrys censorship policies, which have become more severe since Xi Jinping assumed power in 2012.

China operates one of the worlds most sophisticated and far-reaching internet censorship systems. Known as the Great Firewall, it completely blocks many foreign websites including Google, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.

China was the worst abuser of internet freedom in 2016, ranking lower than Syria and Iran, according to a report by Freedom House. Aside from banned websites, censors frequently delete comments deemed politically sensitive from social media, and posts have led to jail time in some cases.

From within China, attempting to visit to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization or a lot of foreign university website is very slow, Luo said. Opening each page takes at least 10-20 seconds and some foreign university sites need more than half an hour to open.

Slow internet speeds and the increasing number of banned sites would have a significant impact on Chinas economic and social development and scientific research, Luo said.

Some researches rely on software to climb over the firewall to complete their own research tasks. This is not normal, Luo added.

Luo, a former scientific development official, said he hoped to work with others to introduce legislation lifting the ban on websites that are not politically sensitive and are necessary for scientific purposes.

His chances would appear to be slim. Censorship has increased in recent years with Chinas leadership advocating for what it calls internet sovereignty, a doctrine that encourages nations to aggressively police what is allowed to enter each country over the internet.

China will open the annual session of parliament, the National Peoples Congress, on 5 March.

More:
Chinese official calls for easing of internet censorship - The Guardian

The arXiv.org (said as archive) is one of the oldest websites on the internet and serves as a curated collection of scholarly preprints submitted by recognized scientist. I even have a paper there on massive star formation (arXiv:1311.3983). I tried to publish in another area and they say submit to a journal and get feedback. Then a favorable review isnt enough, so I need to get it published. Then in a subsequent email from them, I must get it published in a mainstream journal with no guarantee that being published in any journal would do the trick.

What is arXiv, why they moderate, and why that can go wrong.

The arXiv has to maintain a certain standard for a reason. The value of arXiv is that it provides a copy of papers that cost money either way. That means it is moderated. This is a reasonable thing to do. There is also an appeals process which is supposed to avoid abuses. However, when moderation devolves into unreasoned censorship and even doing what they tell you to get a paper up there may not sway them someone has to call it what it is.

So, I get endorsements, twice, that is not so unusual.

They ask that I submit to a peer reviewed journal for the requisite feedback. I get back a review from Science/Nature (does not matter which one) a long detailed review stating that the paper is not bad, and would be of interest to a small audience. Just not a big enough audience for Nature/Science.

Then arxiv says they need for it to be published in a mainstream journal. I ask for clarification of just what comprises a mainstream journal which would ensure acceptance on arXiv. Then I get this.

So even if I did what they asked it would probably not be enough. Supposed I submitted to another Nature/Science journal more focused on a specialty . What would the result be. I could never pay an open access fee for such a journal it would be too much. So even if I got it published in Nature/Science or a journal in one of those families that may not be enough. Hypothetically acceptance in Nature/Science wouldn't be enough for them.

Whats the big deal?

In this day and age most papers, in the fields of Physics, and Astronomy, are published open access in some form or fashion.

In this climate being published in a paywalled, traditional, and what I surmise they mean by mainstream, format is little better than not being published at all.

If one is browsing for papers on their Ipad, or phone or other device and has to pay they are not going to read it. If one has to even enter university library credentials that can be a pain in the rump many will simply avoid.

The assumption that serious researchers would be reading on a computer, on a campus, logged into a university or national lab IT system, etc is from the early 2000s or really the 1990s.

Philosophically, I believe in open access and I believe in public, post publication, peer review. The peoples taxes pay my salary, and for my retirement, and whos taxes loaned me money for school and pay for the facilities I rely on. They shouldnt have to pay Springer or Elsevier $30 bucks to read my work. If anything I should pay them to host it.

As for public, peer review, post publication, the attitude of the arXiv moderators shows why thats needed. It is possible to be frank, honest, and negative, without being unreasonable or insulting. Having to be publicly accountable for ones words ensures fairness in the process. Individual researchers are then free to use their own judgement on the pros and cons of a paper and contribute to the flow of ideas that will lead ultimately to greater knowledge accepting or rejecting all or part of a paper individually. The mainstream and traditional process is based on authority and belongs to a past era of paper and ink not hard drives and internet.

The bottom line

Yes, the arXiv does in fact censor ideas that dont fit the taste of the moderators. Even if those ideas have been found acceptable enough to publish, or have at a conference. . Yet they accepted how many papers about faster than light neutrino physics based on a clearly obviously flawed set up? Accepting those and not papers like mine which have a prayer of being right and propose an experiment to prove or disprove them is not scientific moderation. What that is is art criticism based on ones feelings about an idea without reasons and logic. That is the essence of censorship, not moderation.

Read the original here:
Censorship at the arXiv: endorsements, and even publication won't matter. - Science 2.0

Censorship, whether at a broader or more personal scale, ultimately leaves society with more harm done than good.

Everyone would agree that censoring society from potential evils protects and benefits the people in the long run, wouldnt they? Of course, they wouldnt. Censorship, whether at a broader or more personal scale, ultimately leaves society with more harm done than good.

Though I may not be proud of it, I have experienced censorship firsthand. Witnessing an innocent little boy being bullied by my friend in our local library didnt seem to trigger my preteen brain to spring into action. Not realizing the full severity of the situation, I decided to censor my words and actions in order to not lose my friend. Though I grew to learn that my decision was incorrect, I negatively impacted society by letting a bullying situation go untouched. I could have easily stopped this incident, if not for my personal censorship.

American author Charles Bukowski told how censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real, and I can't vent any anger against them. I only feel this appalling sadness. Somewhere, in their upbringing, they were shielded against the total facts of our existence (Bukowski, Charles Bukowski on Censorship).

Essentially, hes describing the simple principle of how censoring is only us pushing away reality, and it is unhealthy for us to do so. Chinas censorship of critical health information validates Bukowskis beliefs that censorship is used by those who want to intentionally withhold facts from others. In 2012, the World Health Organization estimated that about 4,000 people died each day in China due to severe air pollution, a devastating7 million each year (Jolley, End the censorship). Chinese citizens reacting to this created Under the Dome, a documentary created to grow awareness of this increasing health issue. However, the film, as well as posts regarding it, were deleted from the public eye. The Chinese government was trying to protect their image by not having society understand this issue, though it truly hurt China as a whole in the long run, considering this problem continued to worsen at the expense of human life. Meanwhile, President Xi announced that he was fully involved in cleaning this polluted air and expected all his people to be as well (Jolley, End the censorship). However, that idea of society helping out is unattainable considering how people arent even allowed to discuss it openly. This unnecessary censorship put not only China but also bordering nations at risk, considering how air doesnt remain within borders.

Another excellent example of censorship harming society revolves around global warming. It's well known in the media how burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide adds to the gradual worsening of the climate, though its barely known how arctic ice sheets containing tons of methane are melting extremely fast in some locations (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). As methane enters the atmosphere as ice melts, it damages the environment much more than carbon dioxide would. American Journalist Dahr Jamail stated that a 2013 study, published in Nature, reported that a 50-giganton burp of methane is highly possible at any time, and that would be the equivalent of at least 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide...since 1850, humans have released a total of approximately 1,475 gigatons in carbon dioxide (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). He also spoke about how a massive, sudden change in methane levels could, in turn, lead to temperature increases of four to six degrees Celsius in just one or two decades - a rapid rate of climate change to which human agriculture, and ecosystems more generally, could not readily adapt (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). Since this isnt talked about in the news, the majority of society is unaware of how terrifying this situation is and that it is happening right now. The media believe that they are helping by keeping the people in the dark about this horrible issue, though it only leaves us without the knowledge to stop it.

Taking away books from the public is another form of censorship that is incredibly hurtful toward society. Judy Blume, an American writer, notes how tragic the idea is that there are some books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers (Blume, Judy Blume Talks About Censorship) When books are taken away from society, this unexplainable connection we have to books is cut, as well as the possible knowledge that it could provide us.

There are multiple forms of censorship that are damaging to society and individual life. Whether it be a countrys government withholding critical health information, or swallowing your words when witnessing an act of bullying, censorship is detrimental toward people on both sides of the act. Overall, if you ever find yourself in a situation where you feel the need to censor your voice or opinion out of fear that you may harm others, remember that your censorship will only do more damage to both sides in the end.

Katie O'Brien

Tyler Lane

Middleton

Original post:
Censorship, in all its forms, is damaging - Wicked Local Boxford

Friday marked the third it's the real okay NC I would daresay first for the real case he probably can't hear Chris Curtis we are in the air studio I was rattled as an American. Sheila alliance it was just the kind of a cluster (%expletive) finish but it bumps from our normal studio but the soccer cat. Welcome on into the WEE guys' soccer cast and I'm too nice of you got to tell you all in the other room Alex is a good guy Alex does those guys are in every week joining me on the phone as always rusk gold and how we doing today era I was not aware it's 10 o'clock until nicely got to say it is the real okay NC this pissed off many in the office I know he's pissed that I'm not this who. Who who I didn't booted out these pissed that he's the only one that's this about the soccer cast giving clearance over and then that's sort of set up the whole thing happened to. A good show or not I couldn't see the force of the trees I enjoyed it this was a classic example of us having. Pretty much all the sound ready we had multiple podcast come up we have the die to broadcast. The crevice podcast per easily just hide in the studio we had some reaction to Paula cap predict there. They we learned Colin Capp permit will change his stance on the National Anthem is sol where do you stand. You wish you just it is Tom. And we start the show with. The new Comcast TV show. Right into Michael polish right Pauly or remain in his day job as an afternoon drive host at WE I the program will air at 9 PM to midnight every weeknight. It is how the every night every night and here's how to buy the network is a cross section of opinion. Information and Feingold signal that that is a secret other management 10 on information and final like god. What price information once. Opinion opinion who well late edge really good ripping on Paulie you know we can do a good job as an afternoon drive time this would Wear me costs. And be the fact that once again the afternoon show has an opportunity. To address and massive story and chooses to avoid. Good radio went over Sharkey part it's a Madonna I missed I missed a completely. At the very fair point I don't know of keep herta is usually a way to the party maybe Pete can tellem today you're in the men they have Pope blessed I like the first hour of the show they got us into it a a new staple possibly the real choice of the real choice was. Cross section of opinion information fondness that struck me as that's that's a good idea for she asks what's been the wields in the Boston sports night we'd like to. Curtis and into. One couldn't we have information. Cool yeah. Well as always but for the first hour is coming applaud and good. That's rock that's a so like Curtis for I guess an hour at the action headlines. Was feisty today Jeff Sessions Obama take down art and all classless. 44 president is now. In. As a full time job out of his mansion as he eyes as he doing his job is to bring down at trump how's he doing discredit trump as he doing it. As to what what does he do you just have a that's tied to sessions has its. You were trying to weigh in with did you at any real idea what Obama's plan was called Kirk won at a group names of and in their creativity surrogacy to save his legacy Valerie Jarrett as we've operation hours from our Daily Mail. To the name of it to be honest the budget would come up with one IE I said the insurgency. Apparently. It's but he got a lot of hours of I was reading the word insurgency in front of me in a story by the Daily Mail put he'll Bonnie insert my two Brothers. And a crock pot but kinda does his voice back in that segment kind of set that one a little bit these how realistic do you. I'm not sure the the former president is directing it. But it was Martin no win situation Megan and appalled at what he thought he briefly bigger and gave him shoot at the end of the segments or you we've been here while he was called Jerry Jude right he's called Jerry Julia I'm surprised and disappointed disappointed I. YUN the generalized and can't handle it can help us and your journey one that I'm the one analyst agrees with me because Sophie gets into starts depending Jerry Kirk shoots over him for just being you know try to deter his approval and -- doesn't ways and Denny's killed for not being a part of the segment and this. Oh we can't violence. After that Kirk got upset we had a debate. Behind the glass it was a miscommunication or off that is would markets upset which does lead do you could come in and discussed coming out some internal podcasts out he was with your obvious you were able to dig deep and led. Kirk exhaust you that was our kind of a tentative plan right I tried to read the situation at the line of scrimmage. Kirk looked at me when there was no audio playing I thought let's hold off people who are obviously is he started ago and he asked me oh no sound of art. I'm guessing that I responded in his ear which is a mistake. Hey I'm so happy that which. Jesus with him here semen got a and then. At the end Latvians at all I thought he threw a break yet. The break completely yet I think there's one would get to that we get execs want separate 779790. Three's. This thought of the downward spiral for me at least just from from 8 o'clock on I was at. It was salute the start the segment Kirk came back from getting his cocoa puffs. Yeah they put it again new sugar cereals eggs from cocoa Cory Coco Crisp user policy and I ask them a sedate you wanna do this year we get into orcas drill a point there we're gonna get between the show was a relic. I'm gonna metallic podcasters and thanks to us. In his appearance. Obviously nick Kurt and Callahan nothing helps like your personal brands like arguably they're stronger. But today with the shorts and we deploy this new parliament so yeah whatever sure so I've really that Cuba were literally within seconds of coming back from the break at that point. And then you were sort of Reading Kirk with user instinct there. Is that nobody in their car knows who kept who. The people with podcasts arbiter of course that's off lower staples and so welcome back persona as everybody knows who you speak. Right and that's on the Kircus WI about saying you know why would you do that why would you place out of nova in the car knows it is so I understand were reflecting on our. But guess. Kirk pause was anticipating a sound Lagos and flipped out because of that the I it's his rhetorical question in easier shot hop Jesus. And that is no fun and in the segment and anybody cot this actually well he started to get the phone number up we are going to break each. Happy and this week by anchors one we'll get to that league execs want separate 779790. Three's. Eluded him the talk practice say in what the (%expletive) you doing. And them was not pleased with there routes and. Yes that we had a commercial spot that did run. Where was scheduled not their fault com. We recorded it in another studio Paul's intern barged in and for the first on Kirk is seen posted there. Bob is the state. You need chat on a first look so curt saddened that. The ball Augusta I had no idea what is the order to reflect the volume with the X 600 possible to be looking at Leo like what am I doing I'd never see in person before. It's appalled six months to get and we're happy he got the progress we've put it. Lessons challenge like that interns from. I don't know that likelier to crack or. Trade violence all could be. I'm not a violent person so we barged in Colombia the I don't know Imus just literature capitol of her sisters stories now can. Where are the reasons why the world is ending another one yesterday we finished the show. And I thought yesterday I was going to go to was a client yet I -- has declined for Kirk or Kirk and get some talking points near my house there will be no big deal turns out today so what bump into the sales lady who's in charge of this account is expecting me there and I don't know I don't go to a lot of these I just threw out there are saying you know always there like some sort of a dress code or Alamo like with me. Yet you've. Is this okay as things went well I was wearing us there was a vineyard vines shirt and you're very typical Michael J. Fox puff for code which where you're totally hard though I'm not hipster and she said well don't like hustle law. Look over for for her and in a way Kirk for the show that you know about it. I or you get matches are out. I see it if I do but I don't know it's the point is is that this is nothing but driving to Dorchester just because like I happen to be in the neighborhood doing it because at master I'm happy to do it. Told him. I've been told to and part of this I just wanna I'm going there aren't a lot of the around people in suits or jackets or should be wearing slacks I don't know. It's like a pretty logical question in the roots it's just so rude and condescending like. Oh. IC meant it to be that out of its out its its its name offers yet like I'm a teenager. Like us off. That the go marshals pigs slobs and dogs anyway and then click back bogeys and whatever I can. It's what you can only hear from these people when when anything goes wrong. You never hear from them when you're getting fourteen the number one rated show on the market. When there are sold out spots because of the success of the show you never hear a peep from them. One spots out of place. Or one thing is is not right and you have an email chain with 300 people on that under selling minicamp to be nice to know the bank Q once in awhile but thanks for the show running smoothly today they Vicksburg. Doing a fifteen and you know giving me new. Hey hey hey back on us but let's walk the course where during Thursday's anymore I will say we've added outpouring of support. On social media I get at least two tweets that comedy you've got pepper is that the five is like at three in the last report it is people saying freed or brought freedom bombarded yeah open kitchen he's getting crushed free the real king at CB one of five days a week you know people drops in their head. Makes me happy that does make you proud legacy we've created a we have got back to three days a week. Soccer cast is going to be five days and yet it's been teaching did sit down with revolution center in mid Scotty Caldwell for 1005 AM and holidays going on yard are coming up the search for us Paul's in turn is coming out of podcast also turn has missed the door. I understand people that are hurting out there we have to look back the Thursday it out to. So it's up twice a week now we're going to be double recapture. One of two days kept. What was the big take any day I think probably the most viral sound if there were to be some. Would be the wheel on we will choice the real fun. Part two might be album from Rhode Island totally. And plus. If we you know we're together quite quite. Would have secured it they'll grow peak unfortunately. That the joke was taken the wrong way that's I was joking. You were not sure why not lower at you like salaries. She's right on. Such an idiot. Such community well teams not the right term woody do leaders seek he claims dual slider try to play a joke on us or the guy doesn't have a funny bone and what he has no ability to laugh at quarter to take anything as it's like personal satire or sarcasm there is no. Mean talk about miserable human being which proves that he was telling the truth. In his appearance couple days ago he and his wife for a rocked for eight after six months how is married life horrible horrible. So she's left and ready albums. She left guard you really think about it now he's gotten heat for it. The home office. Made things worse so who's trying to pretend it was a joke of the money Jones joked we got here telling jokes you're on the phone lose he's there or could you play with it for like a minute. Before you say and it's not true you know are set him up saying that he thinks strings federal and he told me that yesterday. You can at least be you know all I need to see pictures no do something. Just totally pop the balloon immediately into the entire era outlets that I would say load Kirk is rightly seated at all. Answer either wants wants the segment we went south good luck Lucy are losing will try to do with ties the next time. I hate she was there she regretted ago was Albert the room that's that I think Thursday shows what shall show would you do not agree oh absolutely I thought yesterday was good we had obviously bigger problem who's got lots fallen in mouse. They give Mott a hard time today that they showed it was at its best when we were off the rails on the keep him impersonation by right by Kirk the guy that is are rich. Yeah and that thing with Lester as he went to the cubs. He's a lefty and ago. Through. A terrible rich keep. Really it was yesterday. Was good as you know the contentious you know that the back and forth between Terry and Kirk on the future grow up blow the show after reports from one year back one more like making 25 mil like he would ensure they can't for one year you can't he can't reaction to hand you can't to possible it's a book she gets a legal religious liberals I know. And you had late breaking news with with David Price as we get Bradford on which is huge for us is to Brett response. I. Stock up on a big group as they say yep and then we had a about the last two that one's pretty good Beau Biden. Widow is a duck with saving the day it was a two day story we got that at 630 days from it wasn't that those are information that's different age they are boys aren't. I love the information. Can I start right we you know what we do with the real tells us to do so. Among the wheels organist for any trigger a story today which they. Sort of referenced where she said that she is offended when people refer to her knees as a cute girl. Edit that words matter it's just words and looks chillingly called beautiful baby food that I really truly. Don't know what you meant by I have a daughter my daughter has friends I'd seen my daughter's friends. I may man how to lie interpret that. Anyway it was somewhere written on this story I don't know what he was doing doughnuts. She'll be here on Monday I've a feeling at that story will be mentioned with her and the guys also affirm as the first Monday for her zeroed in on little money. I don't know what she was governor Tuesday she prefer Monday and she sort of reached that status were we'll do Monday is Jerry now what likes people on Monday guest fastening trillion on Monday we'll have the new Comcast show to talk about and some big breaking news behind the scenes. T see what's or less than I don't know Casey said Smith nip this in the normal yet Casey so Casey Smith is falling Kirk and Callahan. Yet you correspond with her. Sent a note haven't heard back LC you know maybe one Avaya appearance by the new star of the Michael Holley show but I do pray for you. Casey's meant yeah beat out Kirkland I cut it is unbelievable can you imagine that news breaking during your show when you don't talk about another. A three hour show until midnight the same husband should on cue for doing an hour showed til seven with with mud. Give us Keefe. From two to six and don't put anything else on its plate. Saying it's distract you really gonna be there all three hours is that. He has battled but it Scotty some nice to beat Italy it's a three hour show that he's at a headline and so no matter what it's going to be taking a time. But the big take away yesterday the big reaction was of course a play by placing all Micah and which I thought was gold at 745. And management. Got involved. You and I were put a tough spot. Put a kibosh on some recent play by play calls. And you know been in Dallas supporters he always does. Censored here Peta people like here that their cars that the number one start the BI and a common goal family might say it's it's got some handcuffs on all of this was Wednesday a around eleven that we started coming out that mastered an auto and Britain were calling the game that's pick. OPEC DeVon relic listen himself heap praise than yesterday ailment podcast in Caracas. It was the Tim Britton and Jason after not as great called game excellent call guys. Radios everywhere 850000 on a number like that you wanna years not since Levitt's arms and where we on in Boston so you had a huge audience going there and Kirk with a brilliant radio mind that he has gets on twittering to starts doing his own. Play by play. So Wednesday this real I'm not sure we can replay here in the post a podcast that we even replay Errol segment I believe they burn the tapes it. But a delicate week a delicate week and it's all we gotta attract people that's been more than. Well it's been like every quarter it's either we had a performance review in the middle of that we had the texting about the show content and we we can't talk about. The pos socks play by play guy and then we had Kirk's reaction and everyone of these were you and I were planning for what the next steps are because if you say one thing to Kirk. You have to be ready for his response and then you have to be uber ready for what that leads to some were talking to like six steps felt alive today in the control room. Try to figure out what you know we're gonna give the dissidents like all be all because the market pulse like skies are tailor made fifty. Yet actually highlight the Thursday ship to me was when Jerry called for more pos socks play by play audio at nine. It by year and I had to tell him discreetly subtly in Europe Kirk on the level of play that's Jack series at a look like it and the league. And Robson blame me my car broke down that was erupt when you're also like it's not a solution. In baton a bad idea and I do what's about it. Tell you was not planning drops from put the game play by play guys allowing you to be kidding me. He paused. It. He get a little corner glanced to Kirk as Kurt was the there was no doubt he said Allah shall I tell Immersion and not element you know a 100%. Jerry is anything to get cart there oh my god that was funny I can OK okay and capsules took all of a millisecond from beside him and his eyes light up in the it is who sit a lot of focused or that he knows that a set Kirk on fire. I'll be clear about the type I might have I he's a parable play by play again. I asked my opinion I'm not allowed to talk show host in the biggest archer host in New England to have that opinion. I can I can have an opinion why. It hurts people's feelings advocates say eye socket is a talk show host an open air heavenly feelings your monster I feel like it you cut me I believe. It goes a bit and that was just a man. While we appreciate the dedicated listeners of the rookie as to podcast for sticking with us this has been trying week for you and I this has been our worst podcasts I think ever. I may just replace stretches of the soccer cast here. Even mentioning he also has still Bob Berry if you want you to know lumber. You also have up front they've brought back fabricated in its betrayed for that it. It should go listen to the soccer casts instead of our show I think I'm cinnamon and seed here in the main air studio and I'm impairment committed and yet I feel. Off Cayard and headphones and they bizarre way to finish the week but Curtis you have work to do. You're gonna represent Kirk minute well Dorchester where are heading I only do like a slob even sales people were concerned. Through my best to represent sales with with some real style and glamour with great passion and reconvene here Monday and try to do better on Monday and it could weaken. This early threat. Jesus where that's what's trending show on WE RU WEP I'd like trump. Could weaken.

Link:
The Real K&C The Wheel of Choice, censorship & slobbery 3-3-17 - WEEI.com

Marine Le Pen

A presidential candidate in France who is riding the wave of anti-globalist populism that helped fuelBrexit and Donald Trumps victory is facing prosecution for tweeting graphic images of ISIS executions.

On Tuesday, the European Union took one step toward allowing the prosecution of Marine Le Pen as the legal affairs committee of the European Parliament voted 18-3 to lift her immunity as a member of parliament, Reuters reported.

Le Pen is under investigation in France for posting three images of ISIS executions on Twitter in 2015.

The images included the beheading of American journalist James Foley.

A Paris prosecutor is examining whether or not the photos violate a law against distribution of violent images.

Le Pen reacted to the EU decision Tuesday.

This only shows French citizens what the EU is, what the European Parliament is and that its all part of the system that wants to stop the French peoples candidate that I am, she said, according to Agence France-Presse

Le Pen, who is leading a tight, three-way race to succeed Francois Hollande, is president of the National Front Party, which opposes French membership in the EU and the mass immigration of people from mostly Islamic countries who largely are not assimilating into French society.

Le Pen tweeted the graphic photographs of ISIS killings in December 2015 in response to a journalist who compared her party to ISIS, which is also known by the Arabic acronym Daesh.

Daesh is THIS! she wrote, along with the photos.

Her tweet drew strong criticism from the victims families and French politicians across the political spectrum.

Le Pens immunity also was lifted in 2013, leading to prosecution of her in 2015 for incitement to discrimination over peoples religious belief because she compared Muslims praying in public to the Nazi occupation of France during World War II. The charges eventually were dropped.

Major terrorist attacks over the past two years by members of the Muslim immigrant community in France, attributed to ISIS, have bolstered the National Fronts popularity.

Le Pen is regarded as more democratic and republican than her nationalist father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and has sought to soften her partys image, expelling members accused of racism and anti-Semitism, including her father.

How political correctness handcuffs Americas Homeland Security officers is the story former counter-terrorism agentPhilip Haney tells in See Something Say Nothing. Its available now at the WND Superstore!

Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader who was the face of the successful referendum last yearin Britain to exit the EU, known as Brexit, said in an interview in December he believes that if Le Pen were to win, France would hold its own referendum on leaving the EU, a Frexit.

He summed up his opinion of Le Pen, describing her as very socialist on economic issues but a defender of French sovereignty.

Oh yes, she is (controversial). I mean look, let me absolutely clear about this. Ive never said a bad word about Marine Le-Pen, Ive never said a good word about her party.

That is my position on this. I think she has tried to make things better within the front national. Shes got rid of people who held genuinely extreme positions. I dont agree with her economic analysis at all or her view on trade or many other things.

Its completely different but she does believe in the sovereignty of France.

Incitement to discrimination

Le Pen is not the only member of the European Parliament to be punished for her speech.

Last month, after the parliament refused immunity, UKIPs Jane Collins was ordered by the high court in London to pay 335,000 pounds in damages and court costs for alleging three British members of Parliament had failed to speak out about child abuse carried out by British-Pakistani men in Rotherham, England.

Collinscharged the MPs were guilty of grave misconduct because they kept silent due to political correctness and cowardice.

A report commissioned by the British government supported her claim. It found that failures of political and police leadership contributed to the sexual exploitation of 1,400 children in Rotherham over a 16-year period.

Naming the horror of Islam

The vote Tuesday to lift Le Pens immunity was in response to a request by the French judiciary. The full European Parliament must back the decision. A vote is expected this week, Reuters said.

Prosecutors are considering a charge of publishing violent images, which can carry a penalty of three years in prison and a fine of 75,000 euros, about $79,000.

Reacting to the vote, National Front Vice President Florian Philipott argued: Showing and naming the horror of Islamism allow us to fight against it.

Polls show Le Pen winning the first two rounds of the French presidential election but losing in the runoff.

DHS agent Philip Haneys blockbuster revelations of the federal governments appeasement of supremacist Islam are told in his first-person account, See Something Say Nothing

More:
Censorship weaponized against anti-globalist wave - WND.com

Well, not quite. The assumption that students share the political views of their officers forgets that SUs and their overlord - the NUS - are entirely unrepresentative of the people they claim to represent. In UCLs union elections last year, only 12% of the study body bothered to vote. In 2015 at the University of Manchester, turnout reached a national record of around 25%. Hardly a resounding victory for democracy.

Indeed, contrary to the claim that students spend their time printing off topless calendars of Jeremy Corbyn, research carried out by the Universities of Southampton and Sheffield revealed that todays young people are more right-wing and authoritarian than any generation in recent history.

And even if students did support their student unions, the increasingly warped regard for genuine left-wing politics by union officers makes it hard to label their cause as truly left-wing. In an attempt to demonstrate their leftie credentials, working class officers have been created at Manchester, Soas, King's College London, and St Hildas, Oxford to ensure working class students dont feel marginalised.

This demonstrates just how far todays student Left has wandered from the barricades manned by its predecessors. Back in Paris in 1968, student activists took to the streets in a genuine attempt to overthrow capitalism. Todays self-labelled lefties are more concerned with fighting for Meat Free Mondays. Rather than uphold the power of the proletariat, student union officers view their working class peers as vulnerable creatures who need protecting. Marxs claim that workingmen have nothing to lose but their chains no longer resonates. Todays campus warriors just want to make the chains are a bit more comfortable.

See the original post:
We can't just blame the Left for student censorship every side is at it now - Telegraph.co.uk