Category Archives: Censorship

Censorship is the act or practice of suppressing the speech or public communication which is considered objectionable, harmful and sensitive, by a government, media outlet or other controlling bodies. This public content is censored for many reasons that the active bodies believe are immoral. Some reasons include: controlling obscenities, pornography, hate speeches, protecting young children, to promote or restrict political or religious views or even to protect the national security of a country.

Types of Censorship:

Almost everything at some point could be placed underneath a category of censorship. Depending on where people[E1] are located and who or what is going on in your nation or even community, your public media on the television, Internet, radio, music, movies and books could be censored. There are dozens of different forms of censorship implemented everyday, including all the following:

Moral Censorship- the removal of materials that is considered obscene or morally unacceptable. For example, pornography is usually censored from the public and even prosecuted if it involves young minors.

Political Censorship- This is a form of censorship by the government that occurs when information is [E2]withhold from their citizens[E3], mostly used to prevent hateful expressions.

Book Censorship- The censorship of novels is either implicated nationally or by state[E4]. So, if a community finds a book to be inappropriate, they can have the book removed from public and school libraries. Such books include The Harry Potter series, Animal Farm, the Goosebumps series, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and To Kill A Mockingbird[E5].

Films- All movies released for public viewing in theaters are censored in some way or another. The usual censored items include pornography and obscenities, up to a certain age. Other movies are censored due to racial or political correctness.

Music- Moral authorities are determined to find what behavior is acceptable for individuals in todays society. Most cases of musical censorship involve lyrics which deal with drugs, violence and sexual topics.

Internet- The extent of Internet censorship varies from country to country. Many countries, like the Untied States have little to no Internet censorship, while others limit basic new information from their citizens. Many times the Internet[E6] in these countries will be censored after elections, protests and riots.

Effects of Censorship

Many people agree that some things need to be censored. While others are outraged at the thought of any individuals work being censored. Many times things that are being viewed or heard by larger masses of people should be censored for the sole fact that you do not know who is in that group of people.

I think it is fine to censor T.V. because it is something that all the public can use, including kids, and parents cant always control what shows come up, grade Kalie Jurries said.

Exposing underage children to inappropriate and vulgar content can have negative effects on a child. Adults have a much easier time choosing what to watch, and are able to work around inappropriate work.

I filter[E7] by choosing not to watch television at certain times or certain channels, librarian Joanne Willis said.

Their ways of thinking and understanding are not always able to understand adult content.

While many believe television should be censored, many feel the complete opposite about the Internet and printable material like books.

No, I do not think the Internet should be censored. If[E8] people cant handle the content of the Internet[E9], maybe they should not be on it. Everyone on the Internet should be old enough to deal with those things, Jurries said.

The Internet is a very useful tool in todays society, and just like any other great tools in life, there will be people who abuse it.

Access at certain age levels or times should be controlled. Example[E10]: access to sexually explicit internet materials should not be allowed at the high school level or in an office environment where it would/could be offensive to coworkers, said Willis.

Pros and Cons of Censorship

Censorship is all about perspective. Whether you are the over the top strict parent or the care free, young kid who wants to know everyone. Censorship will always be a heated debate, both sides have their pros and cons. Religious conflicts often times can be avoided by the censorship of certain material that people deem insulting or offensive. Censorship can be used to prevent politically motivated propaganda. Plagiarism can be prevented. It prevents companies from spreading inaccurate or exaggerated claims about their products or other companies.

Freedom of speech is compromised. Media giants can push their agendas under the censorship. it hinders upon the freedom of the press. It shelters people from things that they need to know about. Censorship in books, plays, and movies may effect the overall feeling and meaning of the writing.

More:
Censorship does both harm, good - waterloo.k12.ia.us

What is Censorship? Censorship is the act of altering, adjusting, editing, or banning of media resulting from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the presiding governmental body of a specific country or nation or a private institution. The ideology and methodology of Censorship varies greatly on both domestic and international levels, as well as public and private institutions. Governmental Censorship

Governmental Censorship takes place in the event that the content, subject matter, or intent latent within an individual form of media is considered to exist in contrast with preexisting statutory regulations and legislation. In many cases, the censorship of media will be analogous with corollary laws in existence. For example, in countries or nations in which specific actions or activities are prohibited, media containing that nature of presumed illegal subject matter may be subject to Censorship. However, the mere mention of such subject matter will not always result in censorship; the following methods of classification are typically enacted with regard to a governmentally-instituted statutory Censorship: Censorship within the Public Sector The public sector is defined as any setting in which individuals of all ages inhabit that comply with legal statutes of accepted morality and proper behavior; this differs by locale the nature of the public sector is defined with regard to the nature of the respective form of media and its adherence to legislation: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sanctioned by the federal government of the United States in order to regulate the activity taking place in the public setting-based media Censorship and Intent With regard to Censorship, intent is legally defined as the intended result for which one hopes as a result of their participation in the release or authorship of media; typically, proponents for individual censorship will be required to prove that the intent latent within the media in question was enacted knowingly and deliberately in any lack of adherence to legislation Censorship and Privacy

With Regard to censorship, privacy is a state in which an individual is free to act according to their respective discretion with regard to legal or lawful behavior; however, regardless of the private sector, the adherence to legislation and legality is required Private and Institutional Censorship

Private institutions retain the right to censor media which they may find objectionable; this is due to the fact that the participants in private or independent institutions are defined as willing participants. As a result, upon joining or participating in a private institution, the individuals concede to adhere to applicable regulations:

comments

Go here to read the rest:
What Is Censorship - Censorship | Laws.com

View of Scott Daniel Williamss Storefront Sign for the Ungovernable City (2016) partially installed at the Loisaida Center (image courtesy the artist)

Ifyou visitthe Loisaida Centerin the next month, the firstthing youll notice is the sound of running water and voices some in English, some in Spanish telling stories about the Rio Grande river. Then youll see the rest of El Paso-based artist Zeke Peas collaboration with local musicianEureka The Butcher,River Border, a large graphite drawing on cloth that maps the stretch of the MexicoUS border where a military wallruns along the banks of the Rio Grande in the El Paso del Norte region. The combined effect of the Peas drawing and Eurekas recordingsis powerfully evocative, transporting the visitor to the rivers edge.

The next sound you mightve heard would have come from Albuquerque-based artistScott Daniel Williamss interactive sculpture, Storefront Sign for the Ungovernable City which, behind a sign that reads Police Not Welcome, can be toggledby pulling a chainto simultaneously play a recording of Ornette Colemans The Artist in America and audio ofthe killing ofJames Boyd byAlbuquerque Police Department officers in 2014. That workwas originally installed near Loisaidas main entrance by the curators ofFuture Now // Futura Ahora, Atomic Culture(the duo of Matthew and Malinda Galindo), but was removed on February 3, the day before the exhibitions opening. The decision, taken unilaterally by one of Loisaidas directors, was spurred by a fear that the centers CEO, Raul Russi a former Buffalo police officer who was injured in the line of duty would object to the work.This act of censorship repeatedly threatened to undo Atomic Culturesvital exhibition.

Its a very difficult situation for us as artists because this is a community center, and its a Latin Americancommunity center specifically, thats done a lot of really, really incredible work and we want to stand as allies with the center, Williams told Hyperallergic. It was a difficult decision to even take any sort of stand, but at the same time I think we [the artists in the show]feel like thats where we have to start. If were going to talk about expression and social justice we have to start at home, in these places where we should all be most accountable.

Russi who only became aware of the situation after Williams had issued a public statement and protested the exhibition opening, and negotiations between the artist, curators, and Loisaida directors had reached an impasse finally saw Storefront Sign for the Ungovernable City and the rest ofFuture Now // Futura Ahoraduring a visit to the center on Saturday. Today, he releaseda public statement about and apologyfor the works removal, paving the way for the reinstallation of Williamss work in a different space at Loisaida tomorrow.

Unfortunately, our team jumped to the wrong conclusion that I would object to the exhibition of one of the pieces without consulting with me in advance, Russis statement reads. I had the opportunity over the weekend to have a dialogue with the Atomic Culture organizers, to clarify all of this and to offer my apologies on behalf of Loisaida, Inc. As CEO, I let Atomic Culture know that the piece can be part of their ongoing exhibit.

Indeed, Williamss work seems especially relevant for an exhibition about social justice at a community center that represents a historically over-policed community and is located directly next to a major NYPDstation. Add to this the fact that all the featured artists in Future Now // Futura Ahoraare based in the southwestern United States, an area poised to become an intensified zoneof activity for the USs militarized border patrols under President Trump, and the show takes on an added sense of urgency.

In addition to Williamss piece, several other works in the exhibition condemn the excessive use of force and systemic abuses of agents paid to uphold the law. For instance, the mural On Both Sides of the Border Women Are Still Being Murdered (2016) a collaboration between Albuquerque-based artist Nani Chacon and author Tanaya Winder highlights the vulnerability of women in both Mexico and the US. And Peas aforementioned map of the Rio Grande and border wall includes a drawing of a threatening US Border Control vehicle alongside the words: You have the right to remain silent.In one of the exhibitions main rooms, a row of small, vintage-looking cell phones emits poetry and displays compass faces that seem to point the viewer north. The work, Transborder Immigrant Tool, is a safety systemdeveloped by San Diego-based artistsRicardo Dominguez and Brett Stalbaumto help disoriented travelers in any desert setting to find their way. The program offers tips for desert survival in the form of poetry recited in several different languages, and logs the coordinatesof known water caches, offering a vital tool for people crossing, for instance, the MexicoUS border in southern California, where the artists developed and tested it between 2009 and 2012.

Atomic Culturehas brought together a powerful group of artists from the southwestern US, many of whom are making work at theconfluence of art and activism, and most of whom are too rarely exhibitedin New York. Fortunately, Loisaida has rectifiedthe earliercensorship of one work and, in doing so, avoided jeopardizing the telling of all the other featured artistsimportant stories. Indeed, the reinstallation of Williamss piece will provide a crucial link between the issues of migrant safety and anti-immigrant infrastructure along the MexicoUS border that many of these artists are addressing. Police brutality often targets the most vulnerable residents in the country, and some US cities situated near the Mexican border are particularly prone to this type of institutionalized violence. The fact that many of the artists here are from Albuquerque is particularly poignant, since the citys police department is under investigation for use of force by the Department of Justice.Future Now // Futura Ahora is a testament to the works artists make not only to cope with such conditions, but to combat them.

Future Now // Futura Ahora continues at the Loisaida Center (710 East 9th Street, Lower East Side, Manhattan) through March 18.

Here is the original post:
Despite Censorship Row, a Show Connecting Immigrant Rights and Police Brutality Goes On - Hyperallergic

Nick Cannon announced his abrupt resignation from NBCs America's Got Talent Monday, accusing the network of trampling on his free speech rights and trying to censor him following a racial joke he made on his recent Showtime stand-up special.

The comedian announced his unexpected exit on Facebook, saying he was deeply saddened about being threatened with termination after his controversial joke on Stand Up, Dont Shoot reportedly irked NBC executives.

I find myself in a dark place having to make a decision that I wish I didnt have to, but as a man, an artist, and a voice for my community I will not be silenced, controlled or treated like a piece of property, Mr. Cannon wrote. There is no amount of money worth my dignity or my integrity.

My moral principles will easily walk away from the millions of dollars they hang over my head, he added. Its never been about the money for me, what is difficult to walk away from is the fans, the people who love me on the show. This hurts tremendously.

Mr. Cannons resignation came after rumors swirled that NBC executives were considering terminating his contract following a racial joke he made about America's Got Talent on his comedy special that aired on Showtime Friday night.

Sometimes I wish I could say the stuff that I really want to say, Mr. Cannon said on stage, according to a clip posted by TMZ. Cause yall see my face on America's Got Talent? Like, This next crazy motherfer coming to the stage gonna be juggling blindfolded with knives and shit, so nas be careful! But I cant say that. I cant talk like that. Cause that would mess up the white money.

Sources familiar with the situation told TMZ that NBC executives thought Mr. Cannon was disparaging the network. Sources said NBC considered terminating Mr. Cannons contract but ultimately decided to keep him after determining the joke was a passing comment, TMZ reported.

Still, Mr. Cannon said his decision to resign was based on a moral duty to stand up for what he believes is right.

I have fought many battles in my career and have never been afraid to go up against the system. I have mulled over my process for days and felt it was best to once again speak my mind about an unjust infrastructure that treat talent like they own them, he wrote Monday. So I wish AGT and NBC the best in its upcoming season but I can not see myself returning. As of lately I have even questioned if I want to even be apart of an industry who ultimately treats artists in this manner.

Production on season 12 of America's Got Talent is scheduled to begin next month. A replacement for Mr. Cannon, who served as the host since 2009, has not been named.

Continue reading here:
Nick Cannon accuses NBC of censorship, leaves 'America's Got Talent' after 8 years - Washington Times

As of late, a wave of censorship has swept over this campus. Those who would silence the free speech of UCSB students are not authorities but private individuals. The College Republicans have set up signs around campus in an effort to advertise for their Ben Shapiro event on the topic of Black Lives Matter. They have followed all of the correct procedure. They have been met with vandalism. Their wood signs have been repeatedly painted over and their fliers ripped from sight.

Those who have repeatedly defaced the College Republicans signs are unwilling to reason. This would be obvious to any outsider looking in to the enclosed environment of this UC campus. In a place where one-sided classes on political issues are taught as fact, it is a wonder that there are any students at the university who would challenge the doctrines imposed on them at all.

Art by Sierra Deak / Daily Nexus

When knowledge is transmitted in such a way as it is in the university system, there is little hope for dialogue. I hear those on the left clamoring for a national dialogue, yet they offer nothing but the destruction of property, both private and public. Observe the force employed by the individuals at UC Berkeley in response to the Milo Yiannopoulos event scheduled there. And now, in a small act of what is perhaps imitation of their more violent comrades at Berkeley, leftists of UC Santa Barbara have destroyed the signs advertising the Ben Shapiro event. Nothing else could be expected from those who consider speech violence.

To equivocate speech and violence is to obliterate the distinction between reason and force. Free speech is a principle of this liberal society for one reason: so that thinking individuals may partake in a discussion of their ideas with other individuals. It is the political prerequisite to freedom of the mind that is, the freedom to reason. As humans are thinking, rational animals, such an ability as reasoning is essential for our existence within a society.

Reason is exactly the means that humans use to avoid predation on each other. In the personal sphere, reasoning is absolutely essential. Consider sex, the most personal and intimate of all human relations. Any good persons intuition regarding sex would prescribe a consensual basis for it. Consent requires a state of consciousness and agency. Such a state is the state of reason. Reason demands conscious awareness and the ability to exercise ones volitional faculties, and so it is the heart of consent. When consent is not given by all parties involved, when force is substituted for reason, the interaction becomes rape or sexual assault. Voluntary, willful consent is required in the realm of sex. It is considered most vital in this context but abandoned in others.

If the free expression of our ideas is not protected by a just government, then where is justice in our law?

The person who forces another person to be his or her friend has nothing to offer. Friends help each other. Friends do good to their friends. This is common sense. If force is used, real value and worth is absent. Just as this applies to friendship, so it applies to politics. Particularly, freedom of speech. It is a truth that no one wants something that must be forced on them. Furthermore, no one wants what is theirs to be taken away by force. Ideas are the most intimate kind of possession. They make up our minds and ourselves. If the free expression of our ideas is not protected by a just government, then where is justice in our law? Are we to apply principles of freedom to one area of our life and not the other? I would say the freedom to speak and not necessarily to be heard is more valuable than a friendship. What friendship could survive without being grounded on a firm slab of truth? What truth can be arrived at except by the free expression and exploration of ideas?

When we apply the principle of reason to economic and political relationships, we get a free market. When we apply it to academics, we should get a free market of ideas. If there is any place in the nation to glorify free speech, it should be the university. Knowledge is the business of the university. Knowledge requires truth. Truth is not easy to obtain. To obtain truth, there is only one principle that can be brought to bear. This is reason and its corollary, freedom of speech.

I am an individualist, so I do not believe everyone on the left condones the savage actions of those students who defaced the College Republicans signs. I do not believe even the majority of those on the left are gripped by a fundamentally irrational Marxist ideology that denies the premises of reason and freedom. In the coming weeks, there will be events which promote unpopular ideas. If for no other reason than to affirm that it is okay to hold an unpopular idea, these events are a blessing. With regards to the administration of this university, the vandals who ruined the College Republicans signs should be found and punished. Their punishment should not be minimal. They should serve as an example so the university can assure its students that freedom of speech will be protected.

Connor Pardini believes in the right to hold an opinion, popular or not.

Read more:
Unwilling to Reason: Why Censorship is the Wrong Answer - Daily Nexus

plus55 (blog)

BRAZIL'S PRESIDENT IMPOSES CENSORSHIP OVER CASE INVOLVING FIRST LADY plus55 (blog) Brazil's First Lady Marcela Temer has been a victim of extortion. A hacker entered into her phone and e-mail accounts, threatening to pull President Temer's name through the mud. The First Family reacted quickly. The State Court in Braslia, at the ... Brazil's Two Largest Newspapers Forced by President and Judge to Delete Reporting; We're Publishing It HereThe Intercept Brazilian judge censors O Globo and Folha for publishing first lady's ...Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas (blog) Judge Censors Folha Article about an Extortion Case Related to the First Lady, Marcela TemerFolha de S.Paulo teleSUR English all 10 news articles »

View post:
BRAZIL'S PRESIDENT IMPOSES CENSORSHIP OVER CASE INVOLVING FIRST LADY - plus55 (blog)

Just remember, when an authoritarian government expresses interest in your opinions, its not necessarily with your best interests at heart.

Thats what the Chinese government has been doing over the last few years, according to a study by researchers in Hong Kong, Sweden, and the United States.

The study found that the regime has been selectively loosening its grip on social media censorship and allowing users to discuss some sensitive topics but its doing this in part to better track dissent and nip potential protest movements in the bud.

For the study, titled Why Does China Allow Freer Social Media? Protests versus Surveillance and Propaganda and published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, researchers analyzed more than 13 billion posts made to Sina Weibo, a Chinese-language microblogging platform akin to Twitter, and correlated these with 545 collective protest events.

They discovered that online censors often allowed free discussion of controversial topics including official corruption and pollution, in many cases accompanied by calls for protests and strikes, apparently with an eye to preventing or limiting the latter.

advertisement

advertisement

Overall, around three million posts relating to protests or social conflict and another 1.3 million relating to strikes were allowed to remain by censors.

Towards that end, the authors state we find that social media can be very effective for protest surveillance, as Most of the real-world protests and strikes that we study can be predicted one day in advance based on social media content.

In one case, the city government of Chengdu simply canceled the weekend, requiring workers to show up at their workplaces and students to be in school, in order to head off a protest over a planned toxic chemical factory.

In fact, users seem to assume that their social media is being monitored, and use it as a channel to circumvent local officials and communicate directly with the central government.

In one interesting example, the user wrote: Billions of money went into the pockets of local officials and their business partners! President Xi, Premier Li, and Secretary Wang in the Central Discipline Inspection Department, do you read our microblogs? Can you hear our voice? Please eradicate these corrupt officials! Right now!

Continue reading here:
China Loosens Social Media Censorship To Uncover Dissent - MediaPost Communications

By Catherine Rampell, Washington Post Writers Group

What's the best way to make sure a message gets heard? Try to muzzle it.

Both liberals and conservatives are newly rediscovering the political power of this phenomenon, known as the Streisand Effect.

The term refers to what happens when an attempt to censor information backfires and instead unintentionally draws more attention to the censorship target. Its namesake is Barbra Streisand, who in 2003 sued a photographer for including a photograph of her Malibu home among a series of 12,000 aerial images documenting California coastal erosion. Thanks to the lawsuit, which was unsuccessful, this previously little-seen photo soon received enormous publicity and hundreds of thousands of views.

Plenty of other celebrities, companies and government agencies have come to rue the times they inadvertently publicized things they were trying to smother. Meanwhile, provocateurs and activists have learned how to weaponize the Streisand Effect, using censorship attempts to amplify their own voices.

After all, suppression of speech not only generates more public interest, as bystanders scramble to learn what all the fuss is about; it can also win the speaker sympathy and the moral high ground.

So far this month, there have been two major and, in different ways, instructive examples of political speech being amplified by censorship.

On Tuesday, during Senate debate over the confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., as attorney general, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., began reading a 1986 letter from civil rights icon Coretta Scott King. King had opposed Sessions' nomination to a federal judgeship on grounds that he had used his position as a federal prosecutor to suppress black votes.

As she read King's letter, Warren was stopped, scolded and formally silenced by Republican senators. The reason? She had apparently violated Senate Rule 19, which bars the impugning of motives and conduct of a colleague.

These senatorial snowflakes, it seems, were more interested in silencing speech they disliked than rebutting it.

Never mind that Rule 19 is rarely invoked, or that it seems particularly wrongheaded to shut down criticism of a senator when the subject of debate is precisely that senator's character, conduct and suitability for another office. Whatever Republicans thought they were achieving, the primary consequences were to energize the left and make King's once-obscure letter go viral.

Warren has not indicated that she was trying to goad her colleagues into silencing her. But she could have hardly conceived of a better way to magnify her message, or her own stature.

"She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted," Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared, in phrasing that seems perfectly scripted for a 2020 presidential campaign ad.

A week earlier, on the opposite coast, a completely different kind of character from the other side of the political spectrum appeared to leverage the Streisand Effect for less noble purposes.

Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart writer and sleazy professional troll, has built a career out of stoking Pavlovian outrage and censorship attempts from the left in order to build his audience on the right. He has mocked Jews, Muslims, African Americans, feminists, people who are overweight and the LGBT community (though he himself is gay), among others.

Clearly, the goal is to bait his intellectual opponents (not all of whom are liberal, mind you) into trying to forcibly silence him.

Sometimes you're not trying to score. Sometimes you're just trying to draw a foul.

Sure enough, Yiannopoulos' opponents happily oblige, with heckles, threats and sometimes even violence such as the riots that erupted at the University of California at Berkeley this month, which led to the cancellation of his talk and his evacuation from campus.

The riots didn't silence Yiannopoulos, however; instead, the resulting coverage megaphoned his ugly message to a much broader audience and will help him sell more books, schedule more lucrative speaking gigs and receive more sympathetic tweets from our sitting president. (President Trump, under the guidance of former Breitbart publisher Stephen K. Bannon, has also proved especially adept at alchemizing liberal indignation into self-aggrandizing news coverage.)

There are many compelling arguments for why protecting free speech, including speech you disagree with or even abhor, is important. It's enshrined in our Constitution; it is among the sacred liberal values we promote throughout the world; free and open dialogue helps advance scientific inquiry; and so on.

But one underappreciated argument is self-interest. Forcibly silencing and thereby martyring your opponents rather than employing counter-speech to expose them as wrong or, better yet, ridiculous may be exactly what they want you to do.

Washington Post Writers Group

Email: crampell@washpost.com. Twitter: @crampell

See the original post here:
Rampell: Censorship will backfire - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

The company we keep Elvis Presley, Big Bird, South Park, Lena Dunham have all been censored. Composite: Michael Ochs Archives/Getty; Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Alamy; Chris Buck for the Guardian

If Lena Dunham had her way, one episode of Girls would have featured a shot of freshly-ejaculated sperm looping through the air. This was brought up during a recent oral history of the show ahead of its last ever series as well as the fact that HBO stepped in and stopped it from happening on the grounds of basic taste.

With its money shot that never was, Girls has now entered the hallowed halls of censored TV shows. Heres a potted history of the company it keeps.

When Elvis Presley waggled his pelvis on the Milton Berle Show in 1956, an appalled New York Daily News described the performance as being tinged with the kind of animalism that should be confined to dives and bordellos. So, when Elvis appeared on the Steve Allen Show some months later, nervous executives forced him to tone down his sexually suggestive dance moves by making him perform Hound Dog to a dog in a hat on a plinth.

One evening, Tonight Show host Jack Paar told a long and rambling anecdote that contained several references to the term WC as a euphemism for toilet. NBC censors, outraged at the filth inherent in discussing water closets on television, cut the anecdote without informing Paar. The following night Paar close to tears walked off set mid-episode and refused to return for a month.

An episode entitled The Fix saw Hutch get addicted to heroin, and the BBC refused to broadcast it. The episode would eventually air during a special Channel 4 Starsky and Hutch night 24 years later. Note: this video is a fan-made montage, although the original would have arguably been more traumatic had it also been soundtracked by How to Save a Life by The Fray.

A first-series episode entitled The Klansmen has never been broadcast in the UK. This could be because it deals with a violent white power organisation and is therefore full of racial epithets. Or it could be because Bodie one of the good guys, remember repeatedly outs himself as a racist in fairly graphic terms. Or it could be down to its big reveal: the leader of the racist organisation was black. Either way, ick.

No footage from the episode Snuffys Parents Get a Divorce exists, because it has never been aired in any form. The story was meant to deal with the breakup of Mr Snuffleupagus family, but test screenings revealed the litany of unintentionally negative effects the episode had on children. Reports suggested that the kids who watched it were in tears, adding They thought nobody loved Snuffy. They worried their own parents were going to get divorced. As a result, the episode was canned forever.

Although it may appear placid to the point of tedium, an episode of the plodding American sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond entitled Maries Sculpture has never been broadcast on British television. Why? Perhaps because this is the episode where Raymonds mother unwittingly creates a giant (and fairly graphic) statue of a female sexual organ. And, since Everybody Loves Raymond only airs at 8am in the UK, its likely the channel decided that a colossal ceramic vagina shouldnt be the last thing kids see before they leave for school of a morning.

When Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad in 2005, the outrage was such that South Park was bound to weigh in at some point. The episode Cartoon Wars Part II was initially supposed to show another depiction of Muhammad, but ended up running a black title card reading Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network in its place.

Between 2001 and 2006, Fear Factor was a modestly diverting dare show, like Im a Celebritys Bushtucker Trials stretched out over an hour. However, when NBC revived it in 2011, Fear Factor became a programme where girls in skimpy outfits drank donkey semen while men watched and vomited. After viewing the episode in question, NBC chose not to air it in America. Still, its good to know where the line of decency is. That line is donkey sperm.

Read this article:
South Park to Sesame Street: the TV censorship hall of fame - The Guardian

Free expression seems to be top of mind in the Bay Area these days. Ive been thinking about it, too but not in the context of how one should respond to a decadent disrupter whos chosen to threaten vulnerable people as part of his personal brand.

No, Ive been thinking not about Berkeley but about a quieter case in San Jose.

Thats where the Rev. Jeff Moore, a counselor at Independence High School in San Jose and president of the San Jose/Silicon Valley branch of the NAACP, was putting together the annual Black History Month display for the district office of East Side Union High School District.

Moore had seen and liked the work of Mark Harris, 47, a San Francisco painter and mixed-media artist. So he asked Harris to pull together a small exhibit of his work. Harris agreed. He drove down to San Jose and installed the work in the districts display cases on Jan. 30.

On Jan. 31, Harris woke up to a two-line email from Moore, saying that his work had been taken down.

So began a local censorship controversy thats stretched into a third week. Multiple media outlets have covered the story, and the National Coalition Against Censorship has taken an interest.

I should mention that Harris was an acquaintance of mine before any of this happened.

"Immigration Theory," a mixed-media piece by Mark Harris

"Immigration Theory," a mixed-media piece by Mark Harris

But my hunch is that Id probably have the same response even if I didnt know him: oh, no.

Pretty much, Harris said, Ive never had this happen before. Its disappointing because we have to tackle these issues if were going to come together as a country. And what better place to start this conversation than a school district?

Moore said hed hung Black History Month displays at the district for several years in a row, with no problems. Previous displays had been portraits of civil rights leaders, libraries of slave narratives and other pieces from Moores home.

This year, I thought these paintings were educational and gave us a chance to be in a dialogue with what America is talking about, Moore said.

The paintings are definitely political, verging on agit-prop: They juxtapose wholesome, 1950s-era kitsch images of white America with images of slavery, the Confederate flag and anti-police-brutality protests. These are certainly ideas that are in the public conversation.

I called Chris Funk, the superintendent who removed the paintings. He described the incident as a big misunderstanding.

This was an unfortunate incident that had nothing to do with Mark Harris, Funk said. It was about an employee who didnt have permission to display that work.

Moore didnt receive district approval for the contents of the display before inviting Harris to install his work, Funk said. After Harris left, Funk said he was called out of a meeting because parents and staff members had complained about the works content.

So he took all of it down.

When the public comes into the district office, they have an expectation that they shouldnt be surprised by provocative or political artwork, Funk said. Our responsibility is to provide a safe place for discussion, not to push an agenda.

Den of Iniquity, a mixed-media piece by Mark Harris.

Den of Iniquity, a mixed-media piece by Mark Harris.

I didnt find this convincing, for a few reasons. The first and most obvious reason is that children watch adults in classrooms push agendas each and every day.

The idea of a neutral, idea-free education may be a comforting one for adults, but no child would be naive enough to believe it, and theyre right.

The second reason I found Funks argument unconvincing is the matter of providing the specific students at East Side Union High School District with a safe place for discussion. East Side Union is a majority-minority school district 46 percent of the students are Latino, 34 percent are Asian. Only 8 percent of students are white, as is Funk.

How in the world, I asked him, can you say youre providing those students with a safe place for discussion if the political viewpoints of people of color African Americans, in this case are considered to be too controversial to be admitted?

Funk returned to the idea of a process that hadnt been followed.

The good news is that all of the attention inspired Harris and Funk to sit down and hammer out a solution. At 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 15, the districts office will host a workshop with Harris, the students and their parents.

The workshop is open to all of the districts students, parents and with an RSVP the public. Harris plans to lead the students through a discussion of his work and ask them to talk about their own reactions.

Its a great moment to talk about these issues, and I want the kids to feel empowered to do so, Harris said. Weve been ingrained to not discuss this stuff, and its not healthy.

Tell me about it. If the district officials had been a little more comfortable talking about difficult issues, this entire mess could have been prevented.

Caille Millner is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: cmillner@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @caillemillner

Original post:
Censorship versus free speech at a very local level - San Francisco ... - San Francisco Chronicle