Category Archives: Censorship

A recent overview in Publishers Weekly about the state of free expression in the industry noted, Many longtime book people have said what makes the present unprecedented is a new impetus to censor and self-censor coming from the left. When the reporter asked a half dozen influential figures at the largest publishing houses to comment, only one would talk and only on condition of anonymity. This is the censorship that, as the phrase goes, dare not speak its name, the reporter wrote.

The caution is born of recent experience. No publisher wants another American Dirt imbroglio, in which a highly anticipated novel was accused of capitalizing on the migrant experience, no matter how well the book sells. No publisher wants the kind of staff walkout that took place in 2020 at Hachette Book Group when the journalist Ronan Farrow protested its plan to publish a memoir by his father, Woody Allen.

It is certainly true that not every book deserves to be published. But those decisions should be based on the quality of a book as judged by editors and publishers, not in response to a threatened, perceived or real political litmus test. The heart of publishing lies in taking risks, not avoiding them.

You can understand why the publishing world gets nervous. Consider what has happened to books that have gotten on the wrong side of illiberal scolds. On Goodreads, for example, vicious campaigns have circulated against authors for inadvertent offenses in novels that havent even been published yet. Sometimes the outcry doesnt take place until after a book is in stores. Last year, a bunny in a childrens picture book got soot on his face by sticking his head into an oven to clean it and the book was deemed racially insensitive by a single blogger. It was reprinted with the illustration redrawn. All this after the book received rave reviews and a New York Times/New York Public Library Best Illustrated Childrens Book Award.

In another instance, a white academic was denounced for cultural appropriation because trap feminism, the subject of her book Bad and Boujee, lay outside her own racial experience. The publisher subsequently withdrew the book. PEN America rightfully denounced the publishers decision, noting that it detracts from public discourse and feeds into a climate where authors, editors and publishers are disincentivized to take risks.

Books have always contained delicate and challenging material that rubs up against some readers sensitivities or deeply held beliefs. But which material upsets which people changes over time; many stories about interracial cooperation that were once hailed for their progressive values (To Kill a Mockingbird, The Help) are now criticized as white savior narratives. Yet these books can still be read, appreciated and debated not only despite but also because of the offending material. Even if only to better understand where we started and how far weve come.

See the article here:
Opinion | Theres More Than One Way to Ban a Book - The New York Times

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Media Research Center found that "secondhand censorship" is allowing big tech platforms to shield Americans from content that would otherwise come across on social media.

MRC founder Brent Bozell oversees the organizations Free Speech America CensorTrack database, which tracks the effects of secondhand censorship. It found that seven big tech platforms Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn and Spotify kept information from users a staggering 144,301,713 times during the first quarter of 2022 alone.

The study defined secondhand censorship as "the number of times that users on social media had information kept from them" by big tech. The group "calculated the secondhand censorship effect by adding the number of followers each account had at the time of each censorship case recorded during the quarter," according to Brian Bradley and Gabriela Pariseau of Free Speech America.

GOP LAWMAKERS LAUNCH PROBE OF TIKTOK'S SHARING OF USER DATA WITH CHINESE PARENT COMPANY

TFacebook is among the seven big tech giants accused of secondhand censorship. (AP Photo/The Des Moines Register, Charlie Litchfield)

"The secondhand censorship effect for the first quarter of 2022 includes only the censorship cases we found or were informed about. Because of this, it represents a mere fraction of the total scale of secondhand censorship taking place," Bradley and Pariseau added. "Big Techs lack of transparency means that an incalculable amount of censorship beyond what is shown in this report takes place every day."

Bozell joined "Fox News @ Night" with Shannon Bream on Wednesday to discuss the findings.

"Social media is the communications vehicle of the future whether we like it or not. The censorship of conservatives and Christians, and most especially conservative Christians, by big tech is a huge problem," Bozell said.

"It is enormous because it is affecting the public square in ways that has never happened in American history. So, how important is this? Those of us who have been looking at censorship have been looking at it from the standpoint of the producers. Weve logged, weve verified about 4,000 cases that are confirmed examples of censorship," he continued. "But we havent looked at it from the standpoint of the consumer. Whats the effect of that censorship?"

U.S. MOVINGSOME SAY TOO SLOWLYTO ADDRESS TIKTOK SECURITY RISK

The Media Research Center found that "secondhand censorship" is allowing big tech platforms to shield Americans from content that would otherwise come across on social media. (Muhammed Selim Korkutata/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

"For the first three months of this year, we looked at 172 cases, just 172 cases of confirmed, verified censorship, we then looked at how many times that information was withheld from the American people through those 172 acts, 140 million times information didnt reach the American people because of 172 acts of censorship," Bozell said.

Bream then pointed out that many liberals deny censorship is happening, pointing to a poll of Facebooks top performing posts that indicates conservatives are "doing very well" on the platform as evidence liberals could use to make their case. However, Bozell disagreed with the notion.

"In fact, the worst case came from Facebook," he said. "Facebook has over 80 these instances."

TWITTER ALLOWS SOME THREATS AGAINST CONSERVATIVE SCOTUS JUSTICES, PRO-LIFE PREGNANCY CENTERS TO FLOURISH

Media Research Center president Brent Bozell asked, "When was the last time you heard a liberal complain about being censored?"

Bozell then said made it clear that he believes this is a partisan issue.

"When was the last time you heard a liberal complain about being censored? It just doesnt happen. But conservatives across the spectrum are now being censored. Heres the important thing, that number is minuscule, it just scratches the surface," he said. "We only looked at three months we didnt look at people whove already been censored had we looked at cases of censorship before that three-month period, it would have been billons of pieces of information that have never reached the American people because of the censorship."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Brian Flood is a media reporter for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent tobrian.flood@fox.comand on Twitter: @briansflood.

Original post:
Big techs secondhand censorship shields conservatives from information at alarming rate, study shows - Fox News

More than two days since it was first imposed, a lock on the Twitter account of the Socialist Equality Party (Australia) remains in place, effectively disabling it. The protracted character of the measure, and the absence of any credible explanation from the social media company, brands its actions as political censorship.

Posts demanding the full reinstatement of the SEP account and an explanation from Twitters page have been shared hundreds of times and have reached thousands of users. Many have drawn a connection between the lock on the SEP account, and a broader campaign to silence those critical of official policies, including militarism, war and the herd immunity COVID policies.

As the WSWS reported previously, the lock was first imposed on Thursday, Australian (AEST) time no later than 10:50am.

Only a couple of minutes earlier, the SEP account had published a video.

It defended Dr David Berger, a well-known general practitioner, under sanction from Australias medical authorities for his consistent opposition to the let it rip COVID policies and advocacy of an elimination strategy aimed at ending the pandemic. The video drew attention to the parallel between the attacks on Berger and other fighters for social and democratic rights, including WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.

The video can be viewed below.

When the lock was imposed, that video was removed by Twitter and replaced with a label claiming that it had violated unspecified rules.

The initial lock was to be for 12 hours, gave no information about the supposed infractions of the page, could not be reviewed and provided no means of communication or redress. After the 12 hours had elapsed, the SEP received notification that its account remained locked.

The video supposedly had Violat[ed] our rules against posting or sharing privately produced/distributed intimate media of someone without their express consent. The lock would remain in place until and unless the video was deleted entirely.

On Friday morning, at roughly 9:30am (AEST), the SEP filed an appeal. It noted that the stated grounds for the censorship of the video were bogus. It contained no intimate content. All the images were in the public domain or had been provided to the WSWS by those depicted.

Three hours later, at 12:30pm (AEST), the SEP received confirmation that its appeal had been received. More than 24 hours since then, Twitter has not answered the appeal in any way.

The timeline raises concerning questions:

Was the initial unexplained lock of 12 hours merely to provide administrators with time to concoct a pretext for the censorship?

Why was the SEP account disabled entirely, rather than given some sort of warning? It is associated with a well-known and longstanding political organisation, has more than 2,000 followers and has operated on Twitter since 2010 without any accusations of rule infringements.

Have any human evaluators been involved in the censorship of the SEP account? If so, how could they possibly be under the misapprehension that the video contains intimate images, when it clearly does not? If they were so mistaken, why didnt they contact the SEP to clarify the issue?

If Twitters actions to this point are purely the result of algorithms and automated processes, why did it take three hours for receipt of the SEPs appeal to be acknowledged? This clearly indicates the involvement of human moderators.

If the SEP video was the subject of a false complaint in the few minutes that it was visible, why has this malicious report been taken at face value and acted upon so drastically? Anyone who has been on Twitter for some time knows that such false reports are a common occurrence. Generally they are investigated before any action is taken.

Why has the report, if one were made, seemingly been treated by Twitter as an unchallengeable and semi-official edict?

This raises the obvious question: If there was a false report in relation to the SEP video, did it come from a prominent political figure or any individual associated with government and state agencies?

In regard to the last question, it is notable that Bergers personal Twitter account has repeatedly been subjected to comments from right-wing trolls, defending the government policies of mass infection and death.

There is also an ecosystem of anti-Assange accounts, which feed off and promote the decade-long campaign of the intelligence apparatuses to destroy the courageous journalist. One of the most persistent of those accounts has repeatedly gloated about the SEP Twitter lock.

Twitters silence is all the more striking, given the substantial support that has been voiced for the full reinstatement of the SEP account.

On Thursday afternoon, SEP National Secretary Cheryl Crisp posted a Tweet reporting the lock. As of this writing, Crisps post has been retweeted, or shared, more than 240 times and liked by almost 500. It has received over 35,000 impressions, a measure of how many times the post appeared in Twitter feeds of unique individual users.

Loading Tweet ...

Many others have posted strong comments. Chris Turnbull, an independent journalist, retweeted Crisps post, with the comment: The attack on Dr Berger continues: now extended to those who defend him: Twitter suspending groups who are not in violation of their own rules.

Loading Tweet ...

Another user wrote: It is unconscionable but unsurprising to find Twitter solidarizing itself with the state in suppressing a major physician-journalist like Dr David Berger from telling the truth about the pandemic.

Loading Tweet ...

A longstanding supporter of Assange wrote: . @TwitterSupport unlock the @SEP_Australia acct - reinstate it fully! @Twitter users need reliable accts! SEP reports on & defends workers around the world! For yrs they have defended #JulianAssange bringing light to a blacked-out story. 7 articles on #AssangeCase in July alone!

Loading Tweet ...

One user cut to the heart of the issue, posting: Irony? Someone tweets about the free speech of *others* on *various* topics. Twitter responds by removing their tweet and locking their account?! The tweet was maliciously reported as [containing intimate] content @TwitterSupport

Loading Tweet ...

The SEP will continue to demand the complete reinstatement of its account and a full explanation of how and why the censorship was imposed. This is critical to defeating a precedent for further attacks on anti-war, left-wing and socialist posts on the platform.

We urge all other Twitter users committed to democratic rights to aid this campaign. Tweet your opposition to the lock, direct it to @TwitterSupport and include the hashtag #OpposeSEPTwitterLock.

Join the SEP campaign against anti-democratic electoral laws!

The working class must have a political voice, which the Australian ruling class is seeking to stifle with this legislation.

Original post:
Growing opposition to Twitter censorship of Socialist Equality Party (Australia) - WSWS

A look at the latest in censorship attempts around the country spotlights actions in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Missouri.

District Attorney Ben David of New Hanover and Pender Counties (NC) found no criminality in having nine books in libraries at the countys middle and high schools. The titles, which were challenged by parents and investigated by members of the New Hanover County (NHC) Sheriffs Office, will remain available in the libraries, according to WHQR Public Media.

NHC Sheriffs Office officers met with David in May, providing him with the list of offensive books, which schools made the titles available, and which passages they deemed offensive. They asked David to investigate if the books violated any criminal laws. David found that the law protected the schools and teachers for making these books available, adding that the obscenity test is high in order to protect First Amendment rights, according to the story.

The books were: All Boys Arent Blue by George M. Johnson, Out of Darkness by Ashley Hope Prez, The Glass Arrow by Kristen Simmons, Forged by Fire by Sharon M. Draper, Melissa (formerly George) by Alex Gino, Stamped byIbram X. Kendi and Jason Reynolds, A Good Kind of Trouble by Lisa Moore Rame, The 57 Bus by Dashka Slater, and Queer, There and Everywhere by Sarah Prager.

The Miami-Dade (FL) School Board voted 5-4 to remove two textbooks on sex educationComprehensive Health Skills for Middle School and Comprehensive Health Skills for High Schoolfrom middle and high school curricula, according to Local10.

The board previously voted 5-4 in favor of keeping the books when objections were raised. A subsequent hearing was held to evaluate them. Age-appropriateness and references to sensitive subjects such as abortion, emergency contraception, gender identity, and sexual orientation were cited as reasons to remove them.

A local chapter of Moms for Liberty in Fauquier County (VA) formally requested the removal of 50 books from public school libraries during a school board meeting, according to FauquierNow. A member of the group is quoted as claiming that access to these books causes long-term sex-related behavioral problems. Parents from the community spoke up in opposition to removing the books, including the recently retired supervisor of Library and Media Services for Fauquier County Public Schools, who noted that there is a formal reconsideration process that should be followed.

While a specific list of books to be censored was not given, FauquierNow compiled a list after reviewing parent comments and found that titles include A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah Maas,Dress Codes for Small Towns by Courtney Stevens, and Ace of Spades by Faridah bk-ymd.

Independence School District (MO) Board of Education voted 6-1 to remove the book Cats vs. Robots Volume 1: This is War by Margaret Stohl from elementary school libraries because of nonbinary character and references to gender identity, according to KCUR and the Kansas City Star.

One member of the nine-person committee convened to review the book cited concerns that the title and cover do not indicate that gender identity is mentioned in the book, as well as examples of young characters being skeptical of and mistrusting adults, which he said was not appropriate and deeply concerning. Parents and students came to a school board meeting to object to the removal and explain the importance of having books with LGBTQIA+ characters.

Libraries are always evolving. Stay ahead. Log In.

Read the original:
Some Wins, Some Losses in Fight to Keep Books on the Shelves | Censorship Roundup - School Library Journal

As is the case with most solutions in search of a problem,Ohio House Bill 327currently winding its way through the legislative process is an attempt to control the teaching of what its authors considers "divisive" subjects.

If approved, the Promoting Education, Not Indoctrination Act (which initselfis propaganda)would "Prohibit teaching, advocating, or promoting divisive concepts."

The billoffers such examples as:

Teachers are already juggling with knives. Who has time to court this kind of trouble?

The proposed law would permit:

How does one conveyobjectivityregarding such clear moralwrongs as slavery,Native American genocide,or why mostwomen couldn't vote until 1920?

Who gets to selectthe textbooks and materials which would offer theseimpartial lessons?

More Charita Goshay: Book banning is an old, dangerous trick

In March, bill cosponsor state Rep. Sarah Fowler Arthur, R-Ashtabula, offeredWEWS(Channel 5) an example of how teaching about the Holocaust could offer both sides of the storyby including, say, a perspective from a German soldier.

Eleven million innocent civilians,including 6 million Jews,1 million children, people with physical andintellectualdisabilities, gays,and outspoken Christians, were systematically murdered by the Nazis in concentration camps spread across Europe.

There are lines in history which are clear. There is no counterargumentforwhy the Nazis and the Axis powers did what they did none.

Now, no serious scholarwould be opposed to an examination of the Third Reich'smasterful misuse of racism,lies and propaganda;how Adolf Hitler was able to seduce an entire nation into abandoning its ownhumanity,replacingit with a depravitythe likes of which the modern world had never seen.

But there is no, "Yeah, but ..."

The billalso would allow parents, students and colleagues to report schools and personnel suspected of violating the standards, which could result in a loss of fundingor individual punishment, such as a teacher losing his or her license.

Schools and teachers are already underconstant scrutiny. What ifa complaint is baseless? It has all the elements of Fascism 101.

It strips away opportunities for critical thinking and writing. Without such skills, education simply becomes regurgitation.

It undercuts the local control people claim they want.Either we trust local school boards, or we do not.

It goes without saying that school libraries wouldbe subject to even more scrutiny and censorship.

It's clear that some in Columbus are taking their cues from other state legislatures who have already waded into thewater; among themTexas and Florida.

A strongnation canbearthe truthabout itself. America's storyis unique, one of freedom, ingenuityand limitless promise. It's also a tale ofinjustice,materialismand hubris.

As it stands, Americansavoid history like it wasthe Ebola virus. We don'tneedskewedinformation, which will only deepen thedeficit.

Wemusthave more faith in our children,whohave a right to learn the full story of who we are, where we've been, and where we may be headed.

Charita M. Goshay is a Canton Repository staff writer and member of the editorial board. Reach herat 330-580-8313 or charita.goshay@cantonrep.com. On Twitter: @cgoshayREP

Link:
Ohio's divisive subjects bill is rooted in denial and avoidance - Canton Repository

South Carolina lawmakers have proposed a bill called the Equal Protection at ConceptionNo ExceptionsAct that would prevent websites from publishing abortion-related information.

The state made abortion illegal after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June. This new bill(Opens in a new window) also seeks to prohibit "hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing access to an internet website, or providing an internet service purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion."

The bill also prohibits "providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an abortion" as well as providing info about abortion doula services or referring visitors to abortion providers.

The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has demonstrated how abortion rights are intertwined with privacy rightswhich President Joe Biden acknowledged with the Executive Order Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Servicesacross the US. Ars Technica notes(Opens in a new window) that this bill (and others like it) show that states' efforts to limit access to information about obtaining or performing abortions could also threaten the First Amendment right to free speech.

On a practical level, even if the bill is passed, it's unlikely to prevent someone from accessing information related to abortion. Location-based restrictions are relatively easy to bypass. The problem is accessing that information without leaving evidence that could later be used by prosecutors. It seems more likely that the Equal Protection at ConceptionNo ExceptionsAct will be punitive rather than preventative.

Sign up for What's New Now to get our top stories delivered to your inbox every morning.

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletters at any time.

Originally posted here:
South Carolina Bill Would Censor Abortion Information Online - PCMag

The house where I was raised had an open shelf rule. This meant my brother and I were allowed to read anything, no matter how inappropriate or beyond our years. We never had to ask.

I spent hours of my childhood perusing the volumes on my fathers bookcases at will, trial and error. Histories, thrillers, science fiction, books on politics and culture all of it was available to me.

I keep thinking about this as more and more school districts participate in what is shaping up to look like an open war against reading. According to Banned in the USA, a report issued by the writers organization PEN America in April, nearly 1,600 individual books were banned in 26 states between July 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022.

Among the titles challenged or removed are Ta-Nehisi Coates Between the World and Me, Elizabeth Acevedos The Poet X, Roxane Gays Hunger: A Memoir of (My) Body and Robin Benways Far From the Tree. All are works of abiding literary merit that address issues of identity and race and family in other words, exactly the kinds of books students should be reading now.

Although the challenging of books and curriculum is hardly new in the United States, what were facing now is somewhat different. Of the current bans, PEN notes, 41% (644 individual bans) are tied to directives from state officials or elected lawmakers to investigate or remove books in schools. It is not parents or even school boards driving many of these challenges. It is the power of the state.

That represents, says PEN, an unprecedented shift.

I take it for granted that books are good for us. Countless studies have reinforced what many recognize from experience: Literature encourages compassion. As Jane Smiley wrote a decade ago in the New York Times: Reading fiction is and always was practice in empathy learning to see the world through often quite alien perspectives, learning to understand how other peoples points of view reflect their experiences.

At the same time, theres more to reading than learning to be a better person. Books are not vegetables, after all. We dont read them for the same reasons we take vitamins, or eat healthy meals. Part of the joy of reading its essential fiber, if you will is the way it can disturb us, disrupting our preconceptions and easy pieties. Part of what books do is to show us who we are or might become.

I know this from my open-shelf experiences. Often, the more inappropriate or beyond me a book was, the more intensely I was drawn to it. I count myself lucky that I was surrounded by adults willing to let me find my own level not just at home but also at school. In third grade, the school librarian, who already knew me as a precocious reader, didnt stop me from taking out War and Peace, which I kept for a week before I returned it, unread.

It was not only the reading, in other words, that was important but also the permission to do it widely, indiscriminately. That freedom left me feeling respected, affirmed. And it led me, by my early teens, to inappropriate writers that in the end couldnt have been more appropriate: among them, Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller, Sam Greenlee and Philip Roth.

Vonnegut taught me the universe was absurd; Heller, that authority deserved to be ridiculed. Greenlee, in his novel The Spook Who Sat By the Door, revealed the hypocrisy of race in America. And Roth well, perhaps the best way to explain it is to say that, in Portnoys Complaint, he portrayed male adolescence, which I was then experiencing, in the most visceral and outrageous terms.

Writers like these represented a gateway to other authors and narratives. Vonnegut led me to Samuel Beckett, Greenlee to James Baldwin and Amiri Baraka. From Heller, I moved on to Terry Southern and William Burroughs. And Portnoy prepared me for the magnificent Fear of Flying by Erica Jong.

Reading such books as I found them helped me to reckon with the complexities and contradictions of the adult world. More important, by thinking alongside their authors, I began to think for myself.

This, of course, is what the book banners object to, that readers might be influenced by ideas that legislators, parents, the neighbors down the block dont like.

PEN sees the issue through the lens of the 1st Amendment, which is valid, especially given the actions of so many lawmakers and the effects on so many constituencies. But I dont want to overlook that other lens of curiosity, self-knowledge, possibility, inquiry. Literature gives us language by which to know ourselves.

But in order to do that, it has to be available. It has to remain on the shelves. Where would we be without inappropriate reading? Ask any reader and theyll tell you: We would be lost.

David L. Ulin is a contributing writer to Opinion.

Continue reading here:
Op-Ed: Why inappropriate books are the best kind - Los Angeles Times

Kenneth Williams July 17, 2022 11:27 am

Saints Row is coming back in 2022, but censorship could mean the disappearance of some of the franchises most famous features.

When Grand Theft Auto reimagined itself as a gritty and more realistic simulation in GTA IV, rival urban sandbox Saints Row took the opportunity to become the wacky and wild alternative. Starting from the third game onwards, the series incorporated more adult humor and ridiculous scenarios into the mix. While the 2022 Saints Row reboot will keep most of the franchises whimsical touches intact, some elements could be on the chopping block for foreign releases.

Saints Row wasnt alone in featuring adult humor and situations. But Saints Rows unique take was focused more on shock factor. The Third quickly gained online notoriety after the reveal of a giant adult toy being used as a melee weapon. In fact, the weapon is so iconic that its return in the reboot has already been confirmed.

But the dildo bat wont necessarily be present in every release of the game. In 2022, more countries that ever have censorship laws that could affect the new Saints Row. In fact, the game may not even be released in some regions due to its potentially obscene content. Heres a brief history of how previous games have been censored and what it means for the reboot.

While adult humor and a certain purple weapon are confirmed for inclusion, Saints Row 2022 will most likely have censorship in some countries, and it wont have all of the same adult themes as did previous iterations of the series.

The game will still release in most countries. Adult content from Saints Row The Third was censored or replaced in Germany, Japan, and some other countries that oppose sexual humor in video games. The Third was even outright banned in the United Arab Emirates. The constant presence of drugs and alcohol may have contributed as well, in some instances.

For countries where Saints Row was released with censorship, the Japanese version used a different model for adult toy weapons. It also prevented the player from fully undressing. The German version took a more philosophical approach, removing money drops and the ability to be used as a human shield from civilians.

For gamers in countries that limit media, Saints Row should still release with notable changes. As for the main release, it will still have much of the adult humor with more modern sensibilities. The game will probably not feature many jokes about race or gender, and it looks as though some elements of sexuality have been reduced. Beating people to death with a giant dildo is still on the table, though.

Related Articles

Kenneth Williams July 5, 2022 7:27 am

Kenneth Williams June 24, 2022 6:01 pm

Christian Vejvad July 1, 2021 2:42 pm

Lee Jones February 4, 2022 3:47 pm

Fariha Bhatti June 3, 2022 9:23 am

Nick Johnson April 26, 2020 3:19 pm

Excerpt from:
Will Saints Row 2022 have censorship? Here's what we know - Win.gg

A comedians fortunes could change overnight with a spot on NBCs The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.

Even better? If Carson summoned the comic over to his iconic couch.

Late-night TV no longer transforms a comedians career in the same way. Now, its snagging a Netflix comedy special or streaming deal, with a few stars landing talk shows to call their own.

Andrew Schulz suggests that era may be waning, too, at least for stand-ups who wont play by the woke rules.

Schulz, the freewheeling comic known for hilarious YouTube videos and podcasts like Flagrant, is part of the new comedy revolution. Its not exactly by choice, but he suspects its the best path forward for stand-ups who loathe censorship.

Call it DIY Show Business.

RELATED: How Big Tech Is Crushing Conservative Comedy (UPDATED)

Schulz opened up to Megyn Kelly about his new comedy special, Infamous, and why he decided to share the special independently. He originally teamed with an unnamed streaming outlet but the platform demanded he remove select jokes.

He refused, deciding to buy back the special and produce it independently. So far, so good, according to TMZ, but it remains to be seen if hell get a return on his sizable investment.

Im not gonna edit my jokes anymore because I built my career without the streamers and I was able to build this career doing the jokes the exact way I wanted to I amassed this following and was able to tour around the world, he told Kelly.

I never felt like I needed the streamer the people validate me more than anything, he added.

His solo venture isnt the first attempt at avoiding comedy gatekeepers. Other stars like Nick Di Paolo, Jim Breuer, Louis C.K. and Steve Mudflap McGrew have tried that DIY approach.

The big test? Can comedians without that streamer cash and cachet?

If we prove you can make more money, or as much money doing it on your own than doing it with a streamer, then theres no point to go with a streamer and get notes, Schulz said. How do you make comedy the most pure?

Kelly agreed, noting how her career blossomed after NBC unceremoniously fired her on dubious charges. She went rogue, creating a powerful podcast and teaming with SiriusXM while retaining full control of the content.

I can work around the system where Im beholden to no one and my product will rise or fail entirely on its own merit, Kelly said of Schulzs approach, one that mirrors her own.

The future is ownership, not censorship, Schulz said. The companies that get that are starting to succeed. The creators who get that are succeeding.

RELATED: Tyler Fischer Scored By Blazing His Own Path

Earlier in the chat, Schulz broke down why the culture is suddenly so sensitive to edgy jokes. During the 1980s and 90s comedians like Howard Stern, Sam Kinison and Andrew Dice Clay challenged the status quo with gags that many found offensive.

They faced little punishment for telling them, though. Thats no longer the case, and Schulz thinks he knows why.

[Jokes] arent true, but the feelings are true. We have these feelings that are messed up thats whats relatable about jokes, he said. Even the old Borscht Belt comics, the Take my wife, please [material]. You dont really want someone to take your wife, but sometimes you have this feeling where, yeah, if somebody took herand thats funny to you.

How can this paradox exist within me? Thats humor.

Schulz credits Jon Stewart of The Daily Show fame for the shift.

He set an expectation for comedy to be true. And a whole bunch of kids grew up watching it, going, oh, thats what comedy is supposed to be, its supposed to be true, to speak truth to power.'

He also explained why the new wave of progressive humor often is reduced to clapter, not laughs.

Victimless comedy doesnt even exist, thats why its so hard to be funny and woke because nobodys a victim, then what are we gonna make fun of? he said.

Original post:
Andrew Schulz: 'The Future is Ownership, Not Censorship' - Hollywood in Toto

Hong Kongs sedition offences should not be used to impose political censorship, a defence counsel has told a local court at the trial of five speech therapists who allegedly incited hatred against the authorities by printing storybooks about sheep and wolves.

District Judge Kwok Wai-kin on Wednesday heard closing arguments by lawyers defending Lorie Lai, Melody Yeung, Sidney Ng, Samuel Chan and Fong Tsz-ho, whopleaded not guiltyto conspiring to print, publish, distribute and display three books between June 2020 and July 2021 with seditious intention. The group were executive committee members of theGeneral Union of Hong Kong Speech Therapists at the time.

The defence argued that the childrens publications alleged to be indoctrinating readers with separatism and inciting anti-China sentiment had no seditious intention. Theywere only printed to recount what happened in Hong Kong, including the2019 extradition bill protests, the detention of 12 Hong Kong fugitives by mainland Chinese authorities and a strike staged by local medics at the start of the Covid-19 outbreak.

Representing Yeung, the unions external vice-chief, Senior Counsel Robert Pang said the books provided a narrative from one particular point of view, and there could be many other points of view. Barrister Anson Wong, on the other hand, said the prosecution used an erroneous approach to interpret the books from a radical perspective. He said the messages conveyed were in fact open-ended.

The whole prosecution case on the alleged seditious nature of the relevant publications is built on its assumptions of what an extremely radical or cynical reader as opposed to an ordinary reasonable one would perceive from [the books],said Wong, who represented the unions secretary Sidney Ng.

Similar arguments were made by barrister Peter Wong on behalf of Lorie Lai, the unions chairwoman. The lawyer said people with different backgrounds might form different subjective interpretations, and it was impossible to draw a blanket conclusion that all readers would form the same interpretation.

Wong also argued thatthe criticism of government made in the storybooks allowed people to vent their grievances. He said that, in society, people could hold and express dissenting views without attracting draconian criminal liabilities, and sedition offences should not be inappropriately used to impose political censorship.

[Those opinions] may be both unpopular and unreasonable. But such expressions should not be labelled or stigmatised as criminal with exorbitant legal consequences simply because they involve dissent and political opposition to the government and authority,he said.

The publications were thought to be a useful and effective tool to explain the political turmoil in Hong Kong to young children, Peter Wong quoted defendants Lai and Yeung as telling online radio station D100 in March last year. The pair said the books could help young readers develop critical thinking, he added.

The sedition offences covered in the colonial-era Crimes Ordinance could land thefive defendantsup totwo years in prison if convicted.It is different from the Beijing-enacted national security law that came into force on June 30, 2020, which targets secession, subversion, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist activities.

Lead prosecutor Laura Ng earlier compared sedition to treason, citing a UK case more than a century old to say that it was a crime against society. She also said it could incite people to an insurrection, a rebellion or even a civil war.

Defence counsels told the court on Wednesday that the recently resurrected sedition law had wide parameters and lacked clarity, which created the potential for abuse or misuse to prosecute dissenting voices. Similar legislation was abolished or reformed in numerous jurisdictions, they said.

Counsel Anson Wong said that the ambit of seditious intention was extremely wide and could cover political criticism. Without an incitement of violence or insurrection against the authorities, the suppression of speech would amount to imposing interference more than is necessary on freedom of expression, he said.

To say the least, such provisions could have a chilling effect on speech and writing,Wong said quoting the New Zealand Law Commission.

Judge Kwok challenged Pangs submissionthat people had the right to tell different narratives. He grilled the lawyer on whether the content of the storybooks was opinion or a representation of facts, and whetherspeech therapists had to distinguish one from another.

After examining numerous examples including the prevalence of security cameras in mainland China, Pang argued that, if people were not allowed to present an alternative narrative, the truth may be hidden.

The case was adjourned to July 30 for the court to hear remaining submissions from Samuel Chan and Fong Tsz-hos lawyers.

Support HKFP |Code of Ethics |Error/typo? |Contact Us | Newsletter |Transparency & Annual Report

See the article here:
Hong Kong's sedition offences should not be used to impose 'political censorship,' lawyer argues at speech therapists trial - Hong Kong Free Press