Page 141«..10 20..140141142 143..150 160..»

Category Archives: Censorship

Banned Books That Shaped America | Banned Books Week

Posted: November 27, 2016 at 9:44 am

The Library of Congress created an exhibit, "Books that Shaped America," that explores books that "have had a profound effect on American life." Below is a list of books from that exhibit that have been banned/challenged.

(To learn more about challenges to books since the inception of Banned Books Week, check out the timeline created by ALA.)

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain, 1884

The first ban of Mark Twains American classic in Concord, MA in 1885 called it trash and suitable only for the slums. Objections to the book have evolved, but only marginally. Twains book is one of the most-challenged of all time and is frequently challenged even today because of its frequent use of the word nigger. Otherwise it is alleged the book is racially insensitive, oppressive, and perpetuates racism.

The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Malcolm X and Alex Haley, 1965 (Grove Press)

Objectors have called this seminal work a how-to-manual for crime and decried because of anti-white statements present in the book. The book presents the life story of Malcolm Little, also known as Malcolm X, who was a human rights activist and who has been called one of the most influential Americans in recent history.

Beloved, Toni Morrison, 1987

Again and again, this Pulitzer-prize winning novel by perhaps the most influential African-American writer of all time is assigned to high school English students. And again and again, parental complaints are lodged against the book because of its violence, sexual content and discussion of bestiality.

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, Dee Brown, 1970

Subtitled An Indian History of the American West, this book tells the history of United States growth and expansion into the West from the point of view of Native Americans. This book was banned by a school district official in Wisconsin in 1974 because the book might be polemical and they wanted to avoid controversy at all costs. If theres a possibility that something might be controversial, then why not eliminate it, the official stated.

The Call of the Wild, Jack London, 1903

Generally hailed as Jack Londons best work, The Call of the Wild is commonly challenged for its dark tone and bloody violence. Because it is seen as a man-and-his-dog story, it is sometimes read by adolescents and subsequently challenged for age-inappropriateness. Not only have objections been raised here, the book was banned in Italy, Yugoslavia and burned in bonfires in Nazi Germany in the late 1920s and early 30s because it was considered too radical.

Catch-22, Joseph Heller, 1961

A school board in Strongsville, OH refused to allow the book to be taught in high school English classrooms in 1972. It also refused to consider Cats Cradle as a substitute text and removed both books from the school library. The issue eventually led to a 1976 District Court ruling overturning the ban in Minarcini v. Strongsville.

The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger, 1951

Young Holden, favorite child of the censor. Frequently removed from classrooms and school libraries because it is unacceptable, obscene, blasphemous, negative, foul, filthy, and undermines morality. And to think Holden always thought people never notice anything.

Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury, 1953

Rather than ban the book about book-banning outright, Venado Middle school in Irvine, CA utilized an expurgated version of the text in which all the hells and damns were blacked out. Other complaints have said the book went against objectors religious beliefs. The books author, Ray Bradbury, died this year.

For Whom the Bell Tolls, Ernest Hemingway, 1940

Shortly after its publication the U.S. Post Office, which purpose was in part to monitor and censor distribution of media and texts, declared the book nonmailable. In the 1970s, eight Turkish booksellers were tried for spreading propaganda unfavorable to the state because they had published and distributed the text. This wasnt Hemingways only banned book A Farewell to Arms and Across the River and Into the Trees were also censored domestically and abroad in Ireland, South Africa, Germany and Italy.

Gone With the Wind, Margaret Mitchell, 1936

The Pulitzer-prize winning novel (which three years after its publication became an Academy-Award Winning film) follows the life of the spoiled daughter of a southern plantation owner just before and then after the fall of the Confederacy and decline of the South in the aftermath of the Civil War. Critically praised for its thought-provoking and realistic depiction of ante- and postbellum life in the South, it has also been banned for more or less the same reasons. Its realism has come under fire, specifically its realistic portrayal though at times perhaps tending toward optimistic -- of slavery and use of the words nigger and darkies.

The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck, 1939

Kern County, California has the great honor both of being the setting of Steinbecks novel and being the first place where it was banned (1939). Objections to profanityespecially goddamn and the likeand sexual references continued from then into the 1990s. It is a work with international banning appeal: the book was barred in Ireland in the 50s and a group of booksellers in Turkey were taken to court for spreading propaganda in 1973.

The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald, 1925

Perhaps the first great American novel that comes to the mind of the average person, this book chronicles the booze-infused and decadent lives of East Hampton socialites. It was challenged at the Baptist College in South Carolina because of the books language and mere references to sex.

Howl, Allen Ginsberg, 1956

Following in the footsteps of other Shaping America book Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman, Allen Ginsbergs boundary-pushing poetic works were challenged because of descriptions of homosexual acts.

In Cold Blood, Truman Capote, 1966

The subject of controversy in an AP English class in Savannah, GA after a parent complained about sex, violence and profanity. Banned but brought back.

Invisible Man, Ralph Ellison, 1952

Ellisons book won the 1953 National Book Award for Fiction because it expertly dealt with issues of black nationalism, Marxism and identity in the twentieth century. Considered to be too expert in its ruminations for some high schools, the book was banned from high school reading lists and schools in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Washington state.

The Jungle, Upton Sinclair, 1906

For decades, American students have studied muckraking and yellow journalism in social studies lessons about the industrial revolution, with The Jungle headlining the unit. And yet, the dangerous and purportedly socialist views expressed in the book and Sinclairs Oil led to its being banned in Yugoslavia, East Germany, South Korea and Boston.

Leaves of Grass, Walt Whitman, 1855

If they dont understand you, sometimes they ban you. This was the case when the great American poem Leaves of Grass was first published and the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice found the sensuality of the text disturbing. Caving to pressure, booksellers in New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania conceded to advising their patrons not to buy the filthy book.

Moby-Dick; or The Whale, Herman Melville,1851

In a real head-scratcher of a case, a Texas school district banned the book from its Advanced English class lists because it conflicted with their community values in 1996. Community values are frequently cited in discussions over challenged books by those who wish to censor them.

Native Son, Richard Wright, 1940

Richard Wrights landmark work of literary naturalism follows the life of young Bigger Thomas, a poor Black man living on the South Side of Chicago. Bigger is faced with numerous awkward and frustrating situations when he begins working for a rich white family as their chauffer. After he unintentionally kills a member of the family, he flees but is eventually caught, tried and sentenced to death. The book has been challenged or removed in at least eight different states because of objections to violent and sexually graphic content.

Our Bodies, Ourselves, Boston Womens Health Book Collective, 1971

Challenges of this book about the female anatomy and sexuality ran from the books publication into the mid-1980s. One Public Library lodged it promotes homosexuality and perversion. Not surprising in a country where some legislators want to keep others from saying the word vagina.

The Red Badge of Courage, Stephen Crane, 1895

Restricting access and refusing to allow teachers to teach books is still a form of censorship in many cases. Cranes book was among many on a list compiled by the Bay District School board in 1986 after parents began lodging informal complaints about books in an English classroom library.

The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne, 1850

According to many critics, Hawthorne should have been less friendly toward his main character, Hester Prynne (in fairness, so should have minister Arthur Dimmesdale). One isnt surprised by the moralist outrage the book caused in 1852. But when, one hundred and forty years later, the book is still being banned because it is sinful and conflicts with community values, you have to raise your eyebrows. Parents in one school district called the book pornographic and obscene in 1977. Clearly this was before the days of the World Wide Web.

Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred C. Kinsey, 1948

How dare Alfred Kinsey ask men and women questions about their sex lives! The groundbreaking study, truly the first of its scope and kind, was banned from publication abroad and highly criticized at home.

Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert A. Heinlein, 1961

The book was actually retained after a 2003 challenge in Mercedes, TX to the books adult themes. However, parents were subsequently given more control over what their child was assigned to read in class, a common school board response to a challenge.

A Streetcar Named Desire, Tennessee Williams, 1947

The sexual content of this play, which later became a popular and critically acclaimed film, raised eyebrows and led to self-censorship when the film was being made. The director left a number of scenes on the cutting room floor to get an adequate rating and protect against complaints of the plays immorality.

Their Eyes Were Watching God, Zora Neale Hurston, 1937

Parents of students in Advanced English classes in a Virginia high school objected to language and sexual content in this book, which made TIME magazines list of top 100 Best English-Language Novels from 1923 to 2005.

To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee, 1960

Harper Lees great American tome stands as proof positive that the censorious impulse is alive and well in our country, even today. For some educators, the Pulitzer-prize winning book is one of the greatest texts teens can study in an American literature class. Others have called it a degrading, profane and racist work that promotes white supremacy.

Uncle Tom's Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe, 1852

Like Huck Finn, Of Mice and Men and Gone With the Wind, the contextual, historically and culturally accurate depiction of the treatment of Black slaves in the United States has rankled would-be censors.

Where the Wild Things Are, Maurice Sendak, 1963

Sendaks work is beloved by children in the generations since its publication and has captured the collective imagination. Many parents and librarians, however, did much hand-wringing over the dark and disturbing nature of the story. They also wrung their hands over the babys penis drawn in In the Night Kitchen.

The Words of Cesar Chavez, Cesar Chavez, 2002

The works of Chavez were among the many books banned in the dissolution of the Mexican-American Studies Program in Tucson, Arizona. The Tucson Unified School District disbanded the program so as to accord with a piece of legislation which outlawed Ethnic Studies classes in the state. To read more about this egregious case of censorship, click here.

Read the rest here:
Banned Books That Shaped America | Banned Books Week

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off

Ted (Comparison: Theatrical Version – Movie-Censorship.com

Posted: at 9:44 am

Compared are the Theatrical Version and the Extended Version (Unrated Version) (both represented by the Universal UK-Blu-ray)

- 23 differences, including 9x alternate footage - difference: 371.9 sec (= 6:12 min)

MacFarlane's voice is an essential part of the success of Family Guy. So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that his voice can't be missing in it and the story of a talking teddy bear does the trick just fine. For Family Guy and American Dad fans, this movie is kind of a reunion because there are many familiar people involved. The narrator of the movie is Patrick Stewart who's playing Stan's boss in American Dad. Then there's Alex Borstein (voice of Lois, Tricia Takanawa and more) as John's mom, Mila "Shut up, Meg!" Kunis as leading actress, Mike Henry (voice of Cleveland, Herbert the Pervert and more) as Southern newscaster, John Viener as Alix, Danny Smith as waiter and Alec Sulkin as screenplay writer. Furthermore, the movie contains loads of popcultural references. There are also many ansurd scenes isolated from the actual storyline. Sound familiar? Well, that's because Family Guy does the exact same thing. Unfortunately, the movie becomes pretty conventional in the end; just like other Hollywood comedies do. But in this case, it's acceptable. The audience has to have thought the same thing because the movie made $500 million worldwide at the box office. With that amazing result, it's the most successful Original R-rated movie ever (Hangover 2 was more successful but that's "just" a sequel). No surprise that a sequel is already in the pipeline.

As expected, the new footage doesn't reinvent the wheel, that's for sure. And there are no scenes that were censored in the Theatrical Version either (like the F-word in the TV Version of Family Guy). Refering to the rampage at Virginia Tech University might be borderline but then again gags like that are on MacFarlane's shows all the time. Probably a highlight is the scene in the beginning when Donny (as a kid) takes notice of Ted for the very first time. Apart from that, the longer version contains some nice gags that enhance the quality of it. Due to the use of alternate footage for some scenes, the Theatrical Version is still worth being watched because some gags from the Theatrical Version have been removed in the process of editing the longer version. Finally, fans don't get around watching both versions anyway.

Time index refers to Theatrical Version Blu-ray / Extended Version Blu-ray

When the kids approach the little ginger (Greenbaum), the scene is longer in the Extended Version; including alternate footage.

The Theatrical Version only shows Greenbaum saying "Oh-oh...".

In the Extended Version, he says that from a different angle while the head of the bullies is approaching. Then the bully says: "It's Jesus' birthday tomorrow and you know what I'm gonna get him?" Greenbaum: "What?" Bully: "My fist in your fucking face?" Greenbaum: "Why would Jesus want that?"

Extended Version 9.3 sec longer

05:12 / 05:22-05:46

Before John enters the kitchen, the Extended Version contains an additional scene with the parents. After some implications, they get straight to the fact that the mom (Helen) gave the dad (Steve) a BJ the previous evening.

Helen: "Well, I think we've had a wonderful Christmas this year." Steve: "One of the best. And I particularly enjoyed the gift you gave me last night." Helen: "Well, my big strong husband works so hard all year. I figured you deserved a little Christmas treat." Steve: "I think those veneers just make it a smoother ride for me." Helen: "Mmm. Well, that's how much I love you." Steve: "Seriously though, that was an outstanding blowjob!"

24.6 sec

06:23 / 06:57-07:08

A further news report, this time from Japan. The female news anchor speaks Japanese before she's getting slapped by the male anchor.

10.9 sec

06:50 / 07:35-08:13

Additional scene. Little Donny is watching the talkshow with Ted which is why he wants a teddy bear in the first place. In the background, his dad is doing some chick, so he just states Donny already got a rake to clean the yard for his birthday.

Donny: "Dad, I want a teddy bear!" Dad: "Hey! What did daddy just get you for your birthday, huh?" Donny: "A rake." Dad: "That's right. An excellent rake. A birthday rake. So when you clean the yard you don't have to pick up the leaves with your hands." Donny: "But, Dad, I want the bear on TV?" Dad: "Donny, shut up, will ya! Daddy's making love to New Mommy." Donny: "But, Daddy..." Dad: "Go to your hammock!" Donny gets up, takes another look at the TV, then he leaves.

38.4 sec

Alternate 13:31-13:32 / 14:54-15:25

The Tom Skerritt dialog is longer. The Extended Version gives Murphy the opportunity to show off with his previleges.

Murphy: "I don't think of him as an actor anymore. He's just, like, a guy. Like, we work... we worked at my garage two months ago. Helped me hang a garage door. You ever hang a garage door with Tom Skerritt?" John: "No..." Murphy: "No! You ever, uh, go miniature golfing with Tom Skerritt's wife and her kid? No. You haven't. Do you ever watch a Bulls game, a Chicago Bulls game, in Chicago with Tom Skerritt? No, you haven't. All right? Liberty, fast track, Skerritt - John."

15:35 / 17:28-17:46

Ted comments John's "So bad, but so good" commentary regarding Flash Gordon with the following words: "Yes, a study in contrast." John replies: "Whoa, whoa, I love this part right here." Now both of them start singing: "He's for every one of us! Stands for everyone of us! He'll save with a mighty hand every man, every woman, every child with a mighty flash!" Ted finally says: "Fuck yeah, Flash!"

17.2 sec

Alternate 18:22-18:25 / 20:32-20:36

A very similar, but still alternate take. In the Extended Version, John expresses himself more direct: "I'm a fucking classy broad."

Extended Version 0.5 sec longer

Alternate 18:40-18:45 / 20:51-21:00

In both versions, John says "I'm taking you to the best place in town." but an alternate take has been used here (recognizable by the arm position). Then he remains still for a moment in the Theatrical Version. The Extended Version on the other hand switches to another shot of him in which he adds: "I've been crapping out room for it for two days. I mean, I know exactly what I'm gonna order." Lori: "You're so disgusting." Then, John's comment "You know I love you" follows. And again, the Extended Version contains an alternate take of his comment.

Extended Version 4.2 sec longer

Alternate 18:55-19:00 / 21:10-21:16

In the Extended Version, the distance shot is a few frames longer. Then an alternate take of John turning around in bed. But he only swears in the Extended Version "Ah, fucking cocksucker motherfucker!" while he's doing so. The Extended Version then just sticks to this shot when Lori addresses him while the Theatrical Version contains footage of from a different with the very same comment of Lori's. Not until its ending, the Theatrical Version goes to the distance shot from the Extended Version.

Extended Version 1 sec longer

21:11 / 23:27-23:31

First a shot of Lori. then Rex who reaches for magnifying glass and says about the photo: "Now, if you look close, you can see the outline of my root."

3.9 sec

Alternate 21:38-21:40 / 23:58-24:13

In the Theatrical Version, Lori says "Goodbye, Rex" from a closer angle. Then she gets up.

25:32 / 28:05-28:15

More dialog. John is being tactless by mentioning the rampage at Virginia Tech University. In the same shot, he adds: "I could have wound up like that Asian kid at Virginia Tech but I didn't because of him. So I'm not that psyched to just, like, kick him out." Lori: "What? It's good to know that a talking teddy bear is the only thing that prevented you from gunning down your classmates."

Subsequently Lori's comment "But you're no longer eight." which ia also in the Theatrical Version.

10.6 sec

Alternate 27:17-27:21 / 30:00-30:09

Ted has an alternate explanation for the excrements on the appartment floor. At first, the Extended Version contains an alternate take, followed by two additional ones.

In the Theatrical Version, Ted says: "Oh, yeah. Yeah, we were playing truth or dare and Cherene's pretty ballsy." In the Extended Version, he says: "Oh, my God! You know what, that's probably what Dierdre was doing over there. Remember she was crouched over in the corner for a really long time? I thought she was just making a phone call or something."

Extended Version 4.2 sec longer

Alternate 27:23-27:28 / 30:11-30:20

After Lori repeated "There is a shit on my floor!", the version continue differently.

In the Theatrical Version, Ted says: "'Or is the floor on the shit?' is what Kierkegaard would say." In the Extended Version, he says: "Yeah, yeah. She's passed out in the bathroom now. She seemed like she was hopped up on something but, you know, mystery solved, I guess, right? She was taking a shit." Lori yells "What the fuck?" one more time.

Extended Version 4.3 sec longer

30:14 / 33:06-33:26

John reacts to the attorney's proposal: "As I said, you would need a law degree for a law school." Ted: "No, no... I'm a special case. I'm a talking teddy bear for Christ's sake. They might make an exception because they'd be all like, 'Oh, my God, this bear's so cool. He can talk and do stuff. Let's give him a job. Maybe he'll give us a few laughs around the office.' And then they're like, 'Oh, my God! He can deliver. He's actually quite a litigator.' And then they'll practically have to give me the Anderson case."

20.5 sec

39:10 / 42:22-43:04

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off

Censorship – Wikipedia

Posted: October 27, 2016 at 11:55 am

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. Censorship could be direct or indirect, in which case it is referred to as soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.

In 399 BC, Greek philosopher, Socrates, defied attempts by the Greek state to censor his philosophical teachings and was sentenced to death by drinking a poison, hemlock. Socrates' student, Plato, is said to have advocated censorship in his essay on The Republic, which opposed the existence of democracy. In contrast to Plato, Greek playwright Euripides (480406BC) defended the true liberty of freeborn men, including the right to speak freely. In 1766, Sweden became the first country to abolish censorship by law.[3]

The rationale for censorship is different for various types of information censored:

Strict censorship existed in the Eastern Bloc.[10] Throughout the bloc, the various ministries of culture held a tight rein on their writers.[11] Cultural products there reflected the propaganda needs of the state.[11] Party-approved censors exercised strict control in the early years.[12] In the Stalinist period, even the weather forecasts were changed if they had the temerity to suggest that the sun might not shine on May Day.[12] Under Nicolae Ceauescu in Romania, weather reports were doctored so that the temperatures were not seen to rise above or fall below the levels which dictated that work must stop.[12]

Independent journalism did not exist in the Soviet Union until Mikhail Gorbachev became its leader; all reporting was directed by the Communist Party or related organizations. Pravda, the predominant newspaper in the Soviet Union, had a monopoly. Foreign newspapers were available only if they were published by Communist Parties sympathetic to the Soviet Union.

Possession and use of copying machines was tightly controlled in order to hinder production and distribution of samizdat, illegal self-published books and magazines. Possession of even a single samizdat manuscript such as a book by Andrei Sinyavsky was a serious crime which might involve a visit from the KGB. Another outlet for works which did not find favor with the authorities was publishing abroad.

The People's Republic of China employs sophisticated censorship mechanisms, referred to as the Golden Shield Project, to monitor the internet. Popular search engines such as Baidu also remove politically sensitive search results.[13][14][15]

Iraq under Baathist Saddam Hussein had much the same techniques of press censorship as did Romania under Nicolae Ceauescu but with greater potential violence.[citation needed]

Cuban media is operated under the supervision of the Communist Party's Department of Revolutionary Orientation, which "develops and coordinates propaganda strategies".[16] Connection to the Internet is restricted and censored.[17]

Censorship also takes place in capitalist nations, such as Uruguay. In 1973, a military coup took power in Uruguay, and the State practiced censorship. For example, writer Eduardo Galeano was imprisoned and later was forced to flee. His book Open Veins of Latin America was banned by the right-wing military government, not only in Uruguay, but also in Chile and Argentina.[18]

In the United States, censorship occurs through books, film festivals, politics, and public schools.[19] See banned books for more information. Additionally, critics of campaign finance reform in the United States say this reform imposes widespread restrictions on political speech.[20][21]

In the Republic of Singapore, Section 33 of the Films Act originally banned the making, distribution and exhibition of "party political films", at pain of a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years. The Act further defines a "party political film" as any film or video

In 2001, the short documentary called A Vision of Persistence on opposition politician J. B. Jeyaretnam was also banned for being a "party political film". The makers of the documentary, all lecturers at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic, later submitted written apologies and withdrew the documentary from being screened at the 2001 Singapore International Film Festival in April, having been told they could be charged in court. Another short documentary called Singapore Rebel by Martyn See, which documented Singapore Democratic Party leader Dr Chee Soon Juan's acts of civil disobedience, was banned from the 2005 Singapore International Film Festival on the same grounds and See is being investigated for possible violations of the Films Act.

This law, however, is often disregarded when such political films are made supporting the ruling People's Action Party (PAP). Channel NewsAsia's five-part documentary series on Singapore's PAP ministers in 2005, for example, was not considered a party political film.

Exceptions are also made when political films are made concerning political parties of other nations. Films such as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 are thus allowed to screen regardless of the law.

Since March 2009, the Films Act has been amended to allow party political films as long as they were deemed factual and objective by a consultative committee. Some months later, this committee lifted the ban on Singapore Rebel.

In wartime, explicit censorship is carried out with the intent of preventing the release of information that might be useful to an enemy. Typically it involves keeping times or locations secret, or delaying the release of information (e.g., an operational objective) until it is of no possible use to enemy forces. The moral issues here are often seen as somewhat different, as the proponents of this form of censorship argues that release of tactical information usually presents a greater risk of casualties among one's own forces and could possibly lead to loss of the overall conflict.

During World War I letters written by British soldiers would have to go through censorship. This consisted of officers going through letters with a black marker and crossing out anything which might compromise operational secrecy before the letter was sent. The World War II catchphrase "Loose lips sink ships" was used as a common justification to exercise official wartime censorship and encourage individual restraint when sharing potentially sensitive information.

An example of "sanitization" policies comes from the USSR under Joseph Stalin, where publicly used photographs were often altered to remove people whom Stalin had condemned to execution. Though past photographs may have been remembered or kept, this deliberate and systematic alteration to all of history in the public mind is seen as one of the central themes of Stalinism and totalitarianism.

Censorship is occasionally carried out to aid authorities or to protect an individual, as with some kidnappings when attention and media coverage of the victim can sometimes be seen as unhelpful.[22][23]

Censorship by religion is a form of censorship where freedom of expression is controlled or limited using religious authority or on the basis of the teachings of the religion. This form of censorship has a long history and is practiced in many societies and by many religions. Examples include the Galileo affair, Edict of Compigne, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (list of prohibited books) and the condemnation of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Images of the Islamic figure Muhammad are also regularly censored.

The content of school textbooks is often the issue of debate, since their target audience is young people, and the term "whitewashing" is the one commonly used to refer to removal of critical or conflicting events. The reporting of military atrocities in history is extremely controversial, as in the case of The Holocaust (or Holocaust denial), Bombing of Dresden, the Nanking Massacre as found with Japanese history textbook controversies, the Armenian Genocide, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, and the Winter Soldier Investigation of the Vietnam War.

In the context of secondary school education, the way facts and history are presented greatly influences the interpretation of contemporary thought, opinion and socialization. One argument for censoring the type of information disseminated is based on the inappropriate quality of such material for the young. The use of the "inappropriate" distinction is in itself controversial, as it changed heavily. A Ballantine Books version of the book Fahrenheit 451 which is the version used by most school classes[24] contained approximately 75 separate edits, omissions, and changes from the original Bradbury manuscript.

In February 2006 a National Geographic cover was censored by the Nashravaran Journalistic Institute. The offending cover was about the subject of love and a picture of an embracing couple was hidden beneath a white sticker.[25][25]

Copy approval is the right to read and amend an article, usually an interview, before publication. Many publications refuse to give copy approval but it is increasingly becoming common practice when dealing with publicity anxious celebrities.[26] Picture approval is the right given to an individual to choose which photos will be published and which will not. Robert Redford is well known for insisting upon picture approval.[27] Writer approval is when writers are chosen based on whether they will write flattering articles or not. Hollywood publicist Pat Kingsley is known for banning certain writers who wrote undesirably about one of her clients from interviewing any of her other clients.[citation needed]

There are many ways that censors exhibit creativity, but a specific variant is of concern in which censors rewrite texts, giving these texts secret co-authors.

According to a Pew Research Center and the Columbia Journalism Review survey, "About one-quarter of the local and national journalists say they have purposely avoided newsworthy stories, while nearly as many acknowledge they have softened the tone of stories to benefit the interests of their news organizations. Fully four-in-ten (41%) admit they have engaged in either or both of these practices."[29]

Book censorship can be enacted at the national or sub-national level, and can carry legal penalties for their infraction. Books may also be challenged at a local, community level. As a result, books can be removed from schools or libraries, although these bans do not extend outside of that area.

Aside from the usual justifications of pornography and obscenity, some films are censored due to changing racial attitudes or political correctness in order to avoid ethnic stereotyping and/or ethnic offense despite its historical or artistic value. One example is the still withdrawn "Censored Eleven" series of animated cartoons, which may have been innocent then, but are "incorrect" now.

Film censorship is carried out by various countries to differing degrees. For example, only 34 foreign films a year are approved for official distribution in China's strictly controlled film market.[30]

A 1980 Israeli law forbade banned artwork composed of its four colours,[citation needed] and Palestinians were arrested for displaying such artwork or even for carrying sliced melons with the same pattern.[31][32][33]

Music censorship has been implemented by states, religions, educational systems, families, retailers and lobbying groups and in most cases they violate international conventions of human rights.[34]

Censorship of maps is often employed for military purposes. For example, the technique was used in former East Germany, especially for the areas near the border to West Germany in order to make attempts of defection more difficult. Censorship of maps is also applied by Google Maps, where certain areas are grayed out or blacked or areas are purposely left outdated with old imagery.[35]

Under subsection 48(3) and (4) of the Penang Islamic Religious Administration Enactment 2004, non-Muslims in Malaysia are penalized for using the following words, or to write or publish them, in any form, version or translation in any language or for use in any publicity material in any medium: "Allah", "Firman Allah", "Ulama", "Hadith", "Ibadah", "Kaabah", "Qadhi'", "Illahi", "Wahyu", "Mubaligh", "Syariah", "Qiblat", "Haji", "Mufti", "Rasul", "Iman", "Dakwah", "Wali", "Fatwa", "Imam", "Nabi", "Sheikh", "Khutbah", "Tabligh", "Akhirat", "Azan", "Al Quran", "As Sunnah", "Auliya'", "Karamah", "False Moon God", "Syahadah", "Baitullah", "Musolla", "Zakat Fitrah", "Hajjah", "Taqwa" and "Soleh".[36][37][38]

Publishers of the Spanish reference dictionary Real Acdemia Espaola received petitions to censor the entries "Jewishness", "Gypsiness", "black work" and "weak sex", claiming that they are either offensive or non-PC.[39]

One elementary school's obscenity filter changed every reference to the word "tit" to "breast," so when a child typed "U.S. Constitution" into the school computer, it changed it to Consbreastution.[40]

British photographer and visual artist Graham Ovenden's photos and paintings were ordered to be destroyed by a London's magistrate court in 2015 for being "indecent"[41] and their copies had been removed from the online Tate gallery.[42]

Internet censorship is control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations either at the behest of government or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship on their own or due to intimidation and fear.

The issues associated with Internet censorship are similar to those for offline censorship of more traditional media. One difference is that national borders are more permeable online: residents of a country that bans certain information can find it on websites hosted outside the country. Thus censors must work to prevent access to information even though they lack physical or legal control over the websites themselves. This in turn requires the use of technical censorship methods that are unique to the Internet, such as site blocking and content filtering.[47]

Unless the censor has total control over all Internet-connected computers, such as in North Korea or Cuba, total censorship of information is very difficult or impossible to achieve due to the underlying distributed technology of the Internet. Pseudonymity and data havens (such as Freenet) protect free speech using technologies that guarantee material cannot be removed and prevents the identification of authors. Technologically savvy users can often find ways to access blocked content. Nevertheless, blocking remains an effective means of limiting access to sensitive information for most users when censors, such as those in China, are able to devote significant resources to building and maintaining a comprehensive censorship system.[47]

Views about the feasibility and effectiveness of Internet censorship have evolved in parallel with the development of the Internet and censorship technologies:

A BBC World Service poll of 27,973 adults in 26 countries, including 14,306 Internet users,[51] was conducted between 30 November 2009 and 7 February 2010. The head of the polling organization felt, overall, that the poll showed that:

The poll found that nearly four in five (78%) Internet users felt that the Internet had brought them greater freedom, that most Internet users (53%) felt that "the internet should never be regulated by any level of government anywhere", and almost four in five Internet users and non-users around the world felt that access to the Internet was a fundamental right (50% strongly agreed, 29% somewhat agreed, 9% somewhat disagreed, 6% strongly disagreed, and 6% gave no opinion).[53]

The rising usage of social media in many nations has led to the emergence of citizens organizing protests through social media, sometimes called "Twitter Revolutions." The most notable of these social media led protests were parts Arab Spring uprisings, starting in 2010. In response to the use of social media in these protests, the Tunisian government began a hack of Tunisian citizens' Facebook accounts, and reports arose of accounts being deleted.[54]

Automated systems can be used to censor social media posts, and therefore limit what citizens can say online. This most notably occurs in China, where social media posts are automatically censored depending on content. In 2013, Harvard political science professor Gary King led a study to determine what caused social media posts to be censored and found that posts mentioning the government were not more or less likely to be deleted if they were supportive or critical of the government. Posts mentioning collective action were more likely to be deleted than those that had not mentioned collective action.[55] Currently, social media censorship appears primarily as a way to restrict Internet users' ability to organize protests. For the Chinese government, seeing citizens unhappy with local governance is beneficial as state and national leaders can replace unpopular officials. King and his researchers were able to predict when certain officials would be removed based on the number of unfavorable social media posts.[56]

Social media sites such as Facebook are known to censor posts containing things such as nudity and hate speech.[57]

Since the early 1980s, advocates of video games have emphasized their use as an expressive medium, arguing for their protection under the laws governing freedom of speech and also as an educational tool. Detractors argue that video games are harmful and therefore should be subject to legislative oversight and restrictions. Many video games have certain elements removed or edited due to regional rating standards.[58][59] For example, in the Japanese and PAL Versions of No More Heroes, blood splatter and gore is removed from the gameplay. Decapitation scenes are implied, but not shown. Scenes of missing body parts after having been cut off, are replaced with the same scene, but showing the body parts fully intact.[60]

Surveillance and censorship are different. Surveillance can be performed without censorship, but it is harder to engage in censorship without some form of surveillance.[61] And even when surveillance does not lead directly to censorship, the widespread knowledge or belief that a person, their computer, or their use of the Internet is under surveillance can lead to self-censorship.[62]

Protection of sources is no longer just a matter of journalistic ethics; it increasingly also depends on the journalist's computer skills and all journalists should equip themselves with a "digital survival kit" if they are exchanging sensitive information online or storing it on a computer or mobile phone.[63][64] And individuals associated with high-profile rights organizations, dissident, protest, or reform groups are urged to take extra precautions to protect their online identities.[65]

The former Soviet Union maintained a particularly extensive program of state-imposed censorship. The main organ for official censorship in the Soviet Union was the Chief Agency for Protection of Military and State Secrets generally known as the Glavlit, its Russian acronym. The Glavlit handled censorship matters arising from domestic writings of just about any kindeven beer and vodka labels. Glavlit censorship personnel were present in every large Soviet publishing house or newspaper; the agency employed some 70,000 censors to review information before it was disseminated by publishing houses, editorial offices, and broadcasting studios. No mass medium escaped Glavlit's control. All press agencies and radio and television stations had Glavlit representatives on their editorial staffs.[citation needed]

Sometimes, public knowledge of the existence of a specific document is subtly suppressed, a situation resembling censorship. The authorities taking such action will justify it by declaring the work to be "subversive" or "inconvenient". An example is Michel Foucault's 1978 text Sexual Morality and the Law (later republished as The Danger of Child Sexuality), originally published as La loi de la pudeur [literally, "the law of decency"]. This work defends the decriminalization of statutory rape and the abolition of age of consent laws.[citation needed]

When a publisher comes under pressure to suppress a book, but has already entered into a contract with the author, they will sometimes effectively censor the book by deliberately ordering a small print run and making minimal, if any, attempts to publicize it. This practice became known in the early 2000s as privishing (private publishing).[66]

Censorship has been criticized throughout history for being unfair and hindering progress. In a 1997 essay on Internet censorship, social commentator Michael Landier claims that censorship is counterproductive as it prevents the censored topic from being discussed. Landier expands his argument by claiming that those who impose censorship must consider what they censor to be true, as individuals believing themselves to be correct would welcome the opportunity to disprove those with opposing views.[67]

Censorship is often used to impose moral values on society, as in the censorship of material considered obscene. English novelist E. M. Forster was a staunch opponent of censoring material on the grounds that it was obscene or immoral, raising the issue of moral subjectivity and the constant changing of moral values. When the novel Lady Chatterley's Lover was put on trial in 1960, Forster wrote:[68]

Lady Chatterleys Lover is a literary work of importance...I do not think that it could be held obscene, but am in a difficulty here, for the reason that I have never been able to follow the legal definition of obscenity. The law tells me that obscenity may deprave and corrupt, but as far as I know, it offers no definition of depravity or corruption.

Censorship by country collects information on censorship, Internet censorship, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of speech, and Human Rights by country and presents it in a sortable table, together with links to articles with more information. In addition to countries, the table includes information on former countries, disputed countries, political sub-units within countries, and regional organizations.

How Media Censorship Affects the News You See

Posted: August 29, 2016 at 7:30 am

Media censorship takes many forms in the way you get your news. While news stories are often edited for length, there are many choices that are made that are designed to keep some information from becoming public. Sometimes these decisions are made to safeguard a person's privacy, others to protect media outlets from corporate or political fallout.

This is probably the least controversial form of media censorship.

When a minor commits a crime, his identity is concealed to protect him from future harm -- so he isn't turned down from getting a college education or a job. That changes if a minor is charged as an adult, like in the case of violent crime.

Most media outlets also conceal the identity of rape victims, so those people don't have to endure public humiliation. That was not the case for a brief period at NBC News, when it decided in 1991 to identify the woman accusing William Kennedy Smith (part of the powerful Kennedy clan) of raping her. NBC later reverted to the common practice of secrecy.

Every day, someone commits a heinous act of violence or sexual depravity. In newsrooms across the country, editors have to decide whether saying a victim "was assaulted" suffices in describing what happened.

In most instances, it does not. So a choice has to be made on how to describe the details of a crime in a way that helps the audience understand its atrocity without offending readers or viewers, especially children.

It's a fine line. In the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, the way he killed more than a dozen people was considered so sick that the graphic details were part of the story.

That was also true when news editors were faced with the sexual details of Pres. Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky and the accusations of sexual harassment Anita Hill made about then-U.S.

Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas. Words that no editor had ever thought of printing or a newscaster had ever considered uttering were necessary to explain the story.

Those are the exceptions. In most cases, editors will cross out information of an extremely violent or sexual nature, not to sanitize the news, but to keep from offending the audience.

The U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic operations function with a certain amount of secrecy. That confidentiality is regularly challenged by whistleblowers, anti-government groups or others who want to remove the lid on various aspects of U.S. government.

In 1971, The New York Times published what's commonly called the Pentagon Papers, secret Defense Department documents detailing the problems of American involvement in the Vietnam War in ways the media had never reported. The Nixon administration went to court in a failed attempt to keep the leaked documents from being published.

Decades later, WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange are under fire for posting more than a quarter million secret U.S.

documents, many involving national security. When The New York Times published these U.S. State Department papers, the U.S. Air Force responded by blocking the newspaper's website from its computers.

These examples show that media owners face a difficult relationship with the government. When they approve stories containing potentially embarassing information, government officials often try to censor it.

Media companies are supposed to serve the public interest. Sometimes that's at odds with the conglomerate owners who control traditional media voices.

Such was the case when The New York Times reported that executives from MSNBC owner General Electric and Fox News Channel owner News Corporation decided it wasn't in their corporate interests to allow on-air hosts Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly to trade on-air attacks. While the jabs seemed mostly personal, there was news that came out of them.

The Times reported that O'Reilly uncovered that General Electric was doing business in Iran. Although legal, G.E. later said it had stopped. A cease-fire between the hosts probably wouldn't have produced that information, which is newsworthy despite the apparent motivation for getting it.

Cable TV giant Comcast faces a unique charge of censorship. Shortly after the Federal Communications Commission approved its takeover of NBC Universal, it hired FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker who had voted for the merger.

While some denounced the move as a conflict of interest, a single tweet is what unleashed Comcast's wrath. A worker at a summer film camp for teenage girls questioned the hiring through Twitter. Comcast responded by yanking $18,000 in funding for the camp.

The company later apologized and offered to restore its contribition. Camp officials say they want to be able to speak freely without being hushed by corporations.

Critics often lambast media for having political bias. While viewpoints on the editorial pages are clear to see, the link between politics and censorship is harder to spot.

The ABC news program Nightline once devoted its broadcast to reading the names of more than 700 U.S. servicemen and women killed in Iraq. What appeared to be a solemn tribute to military sacrifice was interpreted as a politically-motivated, anti-war stunt by Sinclair Broadcast Group, which didn't allow the program to be seen on the seven ABC stations it owned.

Sinclair is the same company that a media watchdog group says called more than 100 members of Congress "censorship advocates" for raising concerns to the FCC about Sinclair's plans to air the film Stolen Honor. That production was blasted for being propaganda against then-presidential candidate John Kerry.

Sinclair responded by saying it wanted to air the documentary after the major networks refused to show it. In the end, bowing to pressure on several fronts, the company aired a revised version that only included parts of the film.

Communist countries that once stopped the free flow of information may have largely disappeared, but even in America censorship issues keep some news from reaching you. With the explosion of citizen journalism and internet platforms, the truth will now have an easier way of getting out.

View original post here:
How Media Censorship Affects the News You See

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off

Censorship In America – Censorship | Laws.com

Posted: July 18, 2016 at 3:29 pm

What is Censorship in America? Censorship in America is the act of altering, adjusting, editing, or banning of any or all media resulting from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the Federal Government of the United States. The ideology, methodology, and measures or determination regarding media subject to Censorship in America varies; in conjunction to the precepts expressed within the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, unless the nature of the media in question is in direct violation of American legislation, its Censorship in America will typically undergo judicial review. Media Censorship in America The nature of the term media is subject to substantial variation - the classification of which may be reliant on time period, applicable legislation, and the technological means enacted for its respective disbursement. The following are some examples of varying natures of media with regard to both their respective structures, as well as their subjection to prospective Censorship in America: Public Media Censorship in America A Public Media Broadcast is defined as the transmission of media on the part of a single individual or group via electronic recipients called receivers within wired circuitry responsible for delivering the picture to individual televisions and radios. A radio broadcast is transmitted over amplitude or frequency modulated airwaves, while a television broadcast is transmitted over basic cable or specified television stations. Public Broadcast A Public Broadcast is defined as a transmission of media through the usage of transceivers and/or receivers belonging to the public and regulated by the Federal Government. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the governmental branch that is responsible for the regulation of content expressed through media disseminated through the use of publically-owned airwaves; the regulations and stipulations undertaken by the FCC are responsible for the oversight of Censorship in America. Private Broadcast A Private Broadcast is a method of Broadcasting in which the media being transmitted is neither sanctioned, nor regulated by a governmental agency. A vast array means for private broadcast exist with regard to subscription-based media channels and avenues, cable television, Internet Satellite Radio, and private websites on the Internet.Guidelines for Censorship in America Violence and Censorship in America Media involving the promotion or undertaking of criminal activity, threat, malice, or the promotion of illegal and damaging ideas with the intent to cause harm; although there exists a vast amount debate with regards to the depiction of criminal activity for entertainment purposes in contrast to those media outlets that are deemed to glorify that same activity, the law enforcement agencies are responsible for the regulation and classification of such media. Activities Sexual in Nature and Censorship in America Media including pornographic images depicting minors, children, or individuals below the age of 18 is considered to be a very serious offense; this criminal activity is not only applicable to those parties responsible for the release of this nature of media, but also to those individuals in ownership of that material: Furthermore, pornographic images depicting sexual acts involving animals, violence, injury, and simulated relationships illicit and unlawful in nature are also considered to be illegal and subject to Censorship in America Comments

comments

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off

Censorship – The New York Times

Posted: June 29, 2016 at 6:17 pm

Internet Censorship in China – The New York Times

Posted: June 16, 2016 at 5:40 pm

heavy-handed censorship of the VAXXED documentary

Posted: May 14, 2016 at 6:46 pm

(NaturalNews) As the war on the truth about vaccines continues to heighten, organizers of film festivals are starting to speak out about the incredible censorship and intimidation tactics being used against them to try to silence this independent film. VAXXED: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe unveils the true story of CDC scientist and whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, who publicly confessed to taking part in organized scientific fraud at the CDC to conceal the link between vaccines and autism.

Now, in what is being described as "criminal conduct and extortion," the Chairman of TEAM WORLDFEST in Houston describes how his film festival was aggressively threatened in a criminal manner by government officials to pull the film:

[A]fter very threatening calls late yesterday (Monday) from high Houston Government officials (the first and only time they have ever called in 49 years) we had no choice but to drop the film. Heavy handed censorship, to say the least they both threatened severe action against the festival if we showed it, so it is out. Their actions would have cost us more than $100,000 in grants.

Natural News has learned that Team Worldfest may have reversed this decision and decided to show the film anyway. We are still working on confirming this (check back for updates).

Celia Farber, editor of The Truth Barrier which originally broke this story, characterizes the censorship assault on filmmakers as criminal behavior. "The situation has now apparently escalated to criminal conduct and extortion," she says in this Truth Barrier post.

This action takes place following the coordinated mainstream media censorship of the same film from Robert De Niro's Tribeca Film Festival, which pulled the film after it was condemned by pro-vaccine media journalists who had never even seen the film. VAXXED: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe is now the No. 1 most censored film of 2016 and has been dubbed, "The movie they don't want you to see."

Watch the trailer for the film at: VAXXEDthemovie.com

What's now becoming apparent in all this is that the vaccine industry will stop at nothing to silence this film and prevent the public from seeing it. Extremely powerful forces at the highest levels of global influence now dictate all mainstream media coverage on this topic while pressuring national and local government officials to engage in criminal threats against film festivals that even consider screening the film. It begs the question: What does VAXXED reveal that's so dangerous to the vaccine establishment?

As part of the coordinated censorship campaign against this film, ABC World News Tonight also censored 99% of the following interview with VAXXED producer Del Bigtree. This video has gone viral with over 200,000 views on YouTube alone. (It's almost astonishing that YouTube hasn't banned the video yet...)

About the author:Mike Adams (aka the "Health Ranger") is the founding editor of NaturalNews.com, the internet's No. 1 natural health news website, now reaching 7 million unique readers a month.

In late 2013, Adams launched the Natural News Forensic Food Lab, where he conducts atomic spectroscopy research into food contaminants using high-end ICP-MS instrumentation. With this research, Adams has made numerous food safety breakthroughs such as revealing rice protein products imported from Asia to be contaminated with toxic heavy metals like lead, cadmium and tungsten. Adams was the first food science researcher to document high levels of tungsten in superfoods. He also discovered over 11 ppm lead in imported mangosteen powder, and led an industry-wide voluntary agreement to limit heavy metals in rice protein products to low levels by July 1, 2015.

In addition to his lab work, Adams is also the (non-paid) executive director of the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (CWC), an organization that redirects 100% of its donations receipts to grant programs that teach children and women how to grow their own food or vastly improve their nutrition. Click here to see some of the CWC success stories.

With a background in science and software technology, Adams is the original founder of the email newsletter technology company known as Arial Software. Using his technical experience combined with his love for natural health, Adams developed and deployed the content management system currently driving NaturalNews.com. He also engineered the high-level statistical algorithms that power SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, a massive research resource now featuring over 10 million scientific studies.

Adams is well known for his incredibly popular consumer activism video blowing the lid on fake blueberries used throughout the food supply. He has also exposed "strange fibers" found in Chicken McNuggets, fake academic credentials of so-called health "gurus," dangerous "detox" products imported as battery acid and sold for oral consumption, fake acai berry scams, the California raw milk raids, the vaccine research fraud revealed by industry whistleblowers and many other topics.

Adams has also helped defend the rights of home gardeners and protect the medical freedom rights of parents. Adams is widely recognized to have made a remarkable global impact on issues like GMOs, vaccines, nutrition therapies, human consciousness.

In addition to his activism, Adams is an accomplished musician who has released ten popular songs covering a variety of activism topics.

Click here to read a more detailed bio on Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, at HealthRanger.com.

Permalink to this article: http://www.naturalnews.com/053585_VAXXED_documentary_criminal_extortion_heavy_handed_censorship.html

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below): Powerful forces threaten Houston film festival to pull VAXXED documentary... 'heavy handed censorship' by government officials who resort to financial extortion to shut down public screening

Reprinting this article:

Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Link:
heavy-handed censorship of the VAXXED documentary

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off

Censorship by Ownership? – Project Censored

Posted: May 13, 2016 at 6:41 am

WHAT IS MODERN CENSORSHIP?

At Project Censored, we examine the coverage of news and information important to the maintenance of a healthy and functioning democracy. We define Modern Censorship as the subtle yet constant and sophisticated manipulation of reality in our mass media outlets. On a daily basis, censorship refers to the intentional non-inclusion of a news story or piece of a news story based on anything other than a desire to tell the truth. Such manipulation can take the form of political pressure (from government officials and powerful individuals), economic pressure (from advertisers and funders), and legal pressure (the threat of lawsuits from deep-pocket individuals, corporations, and institutions).

In our view, the only valid justification for declining a news story is that in a medium limited by time and space, another news story was simply more important to the people of the community, whether local, national or international. While admittedly a subjective process, it is nonetheless, a process to be undertaken by the news people themselves (the investigative journalists and editors), NOT by the managers and CEOs of their parent company. No professional journalist or researcher should ever have to face the destruction of his or her career (or life) simply because they wanted to tell the truth. While no two people will always agree on what story is more important than another, a system where the working reporters and editors run the newsroom would at least provide a fertile environment for debate, dissent and critical thinking.

The growth of independent media and journalism in recent years shows that people throughout the world yearn to hold not only their leaders accountable, but their media sources as well. For that reason, the Project Censored research program continues, in its small way, to support and highlight those who tell the truth about the powerful (no matter the consequences) and are relentless in their quest to hold Big Media accountable for their decisions.

See the original post here:
Censorship by Ownership? - Project Censored

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off

Project Censored – The News that Didn’t Make the News and Why

Posted: May 11, 2016 at 9:41 pm

Buy it, read it, act on it. Our future depends on the knowledge this col-lection of suppressed stories allows us. San Diego Review

Activist groups like Project Censored... are helping to build the media democracy movement. We have to challenge the powers that be and rebuild media from the bottom up. Amy Goodman

[Censored] offers devastating evidence of the dumbing-down of main-stream news in America.... Required reading for broadcasters, journalists, and well-informed citizens. Los Angeles Times

Censored 2014 is a clarion call for truth telling. Not only does this volume highlight fearless speech in fateful times, it connect the dots between the key issues we face, lauds our whistleblowers and amplifies their voices, and shines light in the dark places of our government that most need exposure. Daniel Ellsberg, The Pentagon Papers

Hot news, cold truths, utterly uncensored. Greg Palast

For ages, Ive dreamed of a United States where Project Censored isnt necessary, where these crucial stories and defining issues are on the front page of the New York Times, the cover of Time, and in heavy rotation on CNN. That world still doesnt exist, but we always have Project Censoreds yearly book to pull together the most important things the corporate media ignored, missed, or botched. Russ Kick, author of You Are Being Lied To, Everything You Know Is Wrong, and the New York Times bestselling series The Graphic Canon.

Project Censored interrogates the present in the same way that Oliver Stone and I tried to interrogate the past in our Untold History of the United States. It not only shines a penetrating light on the American Empire and all its deadly, destructive, and deceitful actions, it does so at a time when the Obama administration is mounting a fierce effort to silence truth-tellers and whistleblowers. Project Censored provides the kind of fearless and honest journalism we so desperately need in these dangerous times. Peter Kuznick, professor of history, American University, and coauthor, with Oliver Stone, of The Untold History of the United States

At a time when the need for independent journalism and for media outlets unaffiliated with and untainted by the government and corporate sponsors is greater than ever, Project Censored has created a context for reporting the complete truths in all matters that matter.... It is therefore left to us to find sources for information we can trust.... It is in this task that we are fortunate to have an ally like Project Cen-sored. Dahr Jamail

Most journalists in the United States believe the press here is free. That grand illusion only helps obscure the fact that, by and large, the US corporate press does not report whats really going on, while tuning out, or laughing off, all those who try to do just that. Americansnow more than everneed those outlets that do labor to report some truth. Project Censored is not just among the bravest, smartest, and most rigorous of those outlets, but the only one thats wholly focused on those stories that the corporate press ignores, downplays, and/or distorts. This latest book is therefore a must read for anyone who cares about this country, its tottering economy, andmost important whats now left of its democracy. Mark Crispin Miller, author, professor of media ecology, New York University.

[Censored] should be affixed to the bulletin boards in every newsroom in America. And, perhaps read aloud to a few publishers and television executives. Ralph Nader

Those who read and support Project Censored are in the know. Cynthia McKinney

In another home run for Project Censored, Censored 2013 shows how the American public has been bamboozled, snookered, and dumbed down by the corporate media. It is chock-full of ah-ha moments where we understand just how weve been fleeced by banksters, stripped of our civil liberties, and blindly led down a path of never-ending war. Medea Benjamin, author of Drone Warfare, cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK.

Project Censored brings to light some of the most important stories of the year that you never saw or heard about. This is your chance to find out what got buried. Diane Ravitch, author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System.

One of the most significant media research projects in the country. I. F. Stone

Project Censored shines a spotlight on news that an informed public must have... a vital contribution to our democratic process. Rhoda H. Karpatkin, president, Consumers Union

Project Censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcasting outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism. Walter Cronkite

The staff of Project Censored presents their annual compilation of the previous years 25 stories most overlooked by the mainstream media along with essays about censorship and its consequences. The stories include an 813% rise in hate and anti-government groups since 2008, human rights violations by the US Border Patrol, and Israeli doctors injecting Ethiopian immigrants with birth control without their consent. Other stories focus on the environment, like the effects of fracking and Monsantos GMO seeds. The writers point out misinformation and outright deception in the media, including CNN relegating factual accounts to the opinion section and the whitewashing of Margaret Thatchers career following her death in 2013, unlike Hugo Chavez, who was routinely disparaged in the coverage following his death. One essay deals with the proliferation of Junk Food News, in which CNN and Fox News devoted more time to Gangnam Style than the renewal of Ugandas Kill the Gays law. Another explains common media manipulation tactics and outlines practices to becoming a more engaged, free-thinking news consumer or even citizen journalist. Rob Williams remarks on Hollywoods deep and abiding role as a popular propaganda provider via Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. An expose on working conditions in Chinese Apple factories is brutal yet essential reading. This book is evident of Project Censoreds profoundly important work in educating readers on current events and the skills needed to be a critical thinker. -Publishers Weekly said about Censored 2014 (Oct.)

Project Censored continues to be an invaluable resource in exposing and highlighting shocking stories that are routinely minimized or ignored by the corporate media. The vital nature of this work is underscored by this years NSA leaks. The world needs more brave whistle blowers and independent journalists in the service of reclaiming democracy and challenging the abuse of power. Project Censored stands out for its commitment to such work. Deepa Kumar, author of Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire and associate professor of Media Studies and Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University

Here is the original post:
Project Censored - The News that Didn't Make the News and Why

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off

Page 141«..10 20..140141142 143..150 160..»

Category Archives: Censorship

Banned Books That Shaped America | Banned Books Week

Ted (Comparison: Theatrical Version – Movie-Censorship.com

Censorship – Wikipedia

How Media Censorship Affects the News You See

Censorship In America – Censorship | Laws.com

Censorship – The New York Times

Internet Censorship in China – The New York Times

heavy-handed censorship of the VAXXED documentary

Censorship by Ownership? – Project Censored

Project Censored – The News that Didn’t Make the News and Why

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution