Category Archives: Censorship

Sailor Moon started as a serialized manga anthology that ran from 1991-1997, written and illustrated by Naoko Takeuchi (TokiMeca!). Due to its immense popularity, it was adapted into an anime series in 1992 that ran until 1997. Sailor Moon did not premiere in North America until 1995 however, the North American licensing and dub came with many unexpected changes.

One of the biggest and most evident changes was the Americanization of names. From the main characters to the villains, all their names were changed: Sailor Moons name changed from Usagi to Serena, Mercurys from Ami to Amy, Marss from Rei to Raye, Jupiters from Makoto to Lita, Venuss from Minako to Mina, Neptunes from Michiru to Michelle, Uranuss from Haruka to Amara and, lastly, Tuxedo Masks from Mamoru Chiba to Darien Shields. Apart from renaming characters, the American broadcasters also attempted to Americanize the show on a larger scale by removing many of the references to Japanese culture, both in the dub and in the animation itself. Kanji writing was edited out of the background of many frames, and shots of roads would even be flipped to match right-hand American traffic. Seemingly, the American version attempted to erase the seriess ties to Japan as a whole.

Other censored material wasexpected, such as nudity and violence. This aspect was very consistent. During the Sailor Scout transformation sequences, you can see silhouettes of their nude bodies. Those scenes would be reanimated to remove the definition on breasts, as well as make them smaller. This would also be done for the many bathtub scenes in the show. The water level would be raised or made more opaque to avoid showing the girls bodies. In terms of censoring violence, blood would oftentimes be edited out by changing the color from red to green. The dub would avoid using the word death, and the scenes portraying direct violence would simply be cut from the episode. These changes were more understandable, especially since Sailor Moon was being advertised as a kids show on channels like Cartoon Network, which at the time were airing shows such as Powerpuff Girls and Dexters Laboratory.

One of the most mentioned features when discussing the Western censorship of Sailor Moon is the erasure of the shows queer characters. This was first done in the very first season with the characters Zoisite and Kunzite, who are a part of a group called Shitennou, or The Four Heavenly Kings, who all serve under Queen Beryl, a would-be conqueror of the Moon Kingdom. The original series heavily implied they had aromantic relationship. In the American version, Zoisite is changed from a male character to a female character most likely in an effort to avoid backlash from parents for showing a gay relationship in a childrens show. This once again happened in season four with a character named Fish Eye. Fish Eye was a part of a group called the Amazon Trio. The three were originally all animals, but they were turned into humans by their leader in exchange for capturing a Pegasus that was hiding in peoples dreams. The original manga and anime features Fish Eye as a male character who dresses in a feminine way and pursues many men during their run in the show (it is unclear whether Fish Eye identifies as a woman). This was censored by giving Fish Eye a female voice actress and removing all references to Fish Eye being male.

Another significant example of censorship was the depiction of the relationship between two Sailor Scouts. In both the anime and manga, it is very clear that Sailor Neptune and Sailor Uranus, Michiru and Haruka, are in a romantic relationship. This relationship was censored in many other countries in different ways in the U.S., their relationship was changed from being girlfriends to cousins. Yes, it is just as uncomfortable as it sounds. Other countries kept their status as a romantic couple but made Sailor Uranus a male character. This was also done with the Sailor Starlights. Many Western fans do not know about them because the season they premiered during was never dubbed. Fans theorize that this happened because the Sailor Starlights, Taiki Kou, Seiya Kou and Yaten Kou, present as male in their civilian form, but in their transformations become female. In reality, though, it was mainly due to licensing issues.

All of these things were changed, but why are they so important? To put it plainly, it is a disservice to both the fans of the series and the original work itself; censoring nudity or blooddoesnt affect much, but removal of entire scenes and drastic changes to character dynamics affect so much more than just the aesthetic: it takes away from the narrative and makes the show confusing at times. By limiting the story, it becomes a disservice to the original animators and Naoko Takeuchi. Its also a disservice to a lot of Western fans of the series who were never able to get the full experience of the story. I personally never even realized the extent of censorship in the show until much later, when meme videos of the old dub started becoming popular on YouTube, showing the absurd lengths the American dub would go to censor violence and relationships. It was almost comical at times.

However, all is not lost: VIZ Media came out with a brand-new dub airing between 2014 and 2016. This new version kept the original Japanese names of the characters. Additionally, this time none of the content previously deemed to be inappropriate was cut. This includes the violence, blood and queer characters. Finally, those who cant read subtitles or simply prefer dubs can watch Sailor Moon withoutfear they are missing out on anything from the series.

Daily Arts Writer K. Rodriguez-Garcia can be reached at karodrig@umich.edu.

Link:
A short history of 'Sailor Moon' and censorship in America. - The Michigan Daily

By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Jan 25, 2022

Massive convoys of trucks are converging on the nations capital. About 50,000 truckers are involved. In one place the convoy stretches more than 40 milesand thats before the separate convoys, coming from different corners of the nation, meet for their final approach. Tens of thousands of people are lining the highways to show their support; women are bringing hot meals out to the truckers when they stop to rest.

Doesnt that sound like a news story to you? Its happening right now in Canada. But you probably havent read it in your local newspaper; you certainly havent seen it covered on the major-network reports.

If the truckers were protesting gender discrimination, or even the rising cost of diesel fuel, this protestwhich produces some very dramatic visual imageswould lead the nightly TV newscasts. But the Freedom Convoy is protesting Covid-lockdown restrictions, and the major media have very obviously resolved to spike stories about any such protests. And so Silence.

Oh, I was able, with a bit of extra digging, to find a reasonably accurate Reuters story about the convoy. And CBC allowed that hundreds of truckers were protesting. But if you want any details at all, you need to look to non-traditional news providers, such as our friends at LifeSite News.

The mainstream media are not providing the news here; quite on the contrary they are deliberately suppressing the spread of public information. This is not a new phenomenon, of course; I have frequently commented on the curious blindness that afflicts reporters in Washington, DC every January, so that they do not notice the March for Life. But that willful blindness is now spreading, so that journalists ignore any developments of which their editors do not approve. Moreover, the self-appointed censors of social-media platforms do their best to shield readers from any facts that leak through the ever-tighter net.

And the major media are not alone in their campaign to restrict the flow of information. The same problem is very much in evidence in the field of educationespecially higher education. (See Jordan Petersons explanation of why he finds it morally untenable to remain on the faculty of a major university.

We can complainwe often have complainedabout liberal bias, in the media and in academe. But those complaints, too, are filtered out of mainstream conversations; they reach only those who are already inclined to agree, those who are open to alternate views. The fundamental problem, as Peterson explains, is that alternate views are actively suppressed, with increasing vigor and without apology.

Critics of the mainstream media outlets sometimes refer to them as the legacy media. The term is apt, I think. Like the fortunate offspring of wealthy families, these outlets have inherited powerful positions, built on the work of prior generations. Those prior generations amassed their influence by providing the public with information. The current leaders of the legacy media have abandoned that effort. Rather than giving people accurate information, and trusting responsible adults to form their own opinions, the mainstream media are now determined to shape opinions directly, telling people what they must think, suppressing contrary evidence and dissenting opinion. Today the most interesting news coverage is provided by upstart services, struggling to find an audience.

Complaints about media bias have very little impact. They, too, are filtered out of mainstream conversations, so that they reach only those people who already agree.

First, refuse to support the institutions that suppress the free flow of information. Insofar as possible, do not give them subscriptions, or tuition, or even attention.

Next, explore the alternatives. Not all of the new online sources of information are reliable; some discernment is necessary. Compare different accounts, and notice which outlets provide coverage that holds up to scrutiny. But do not be frightened away from new outlets simply because they are scorned by the legacy media.

Third and most important, inform your friends. And not only your Facebook friends, who may or may not actually be your real-life acquaintances. Share the news directly. Face-to-face conversations are always best, but email works well, too. Keep in mind that the internet was designed precisely to allow remote communications among people with shared interests. If the social-media giants thwart your efforts to share information, find other routes.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and his heroic allies showed how underground communicationssamizdatcould build a movement powerful enough to topple a political monolith. As the Soviet empire collapsed, the bid to control the spread of information will collapse, too. Facts, as John Adams said, are stubborn things. The truth will out.

Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Originally posted here:
Censorship and samizdat on the internet - Catholic Culture

Devin Nunes, the CEO of Trumps TRUTH network, a former California politician who once sued an imaginary cow over a Twitter beef, recently declared that the upcoming conservative conversation chamber would be the most family-friendly of all social media sites.

In order to accomplish this, Nunes says the companys hired the same artificial intelligence moderation firm as OnlyFans.

Yes MAGA fans, Trumps TRUTH will be censored using the same technology as every other social media site.

Oh the irony: Hive, the AI firm in question, serves numerous high-profile clients including Reddit, Parler, and the aforementioned OnlyFans. And, according to its own website, its very good at censoring posts that break its clients terms of service.

Per a report from Fox Business:

Hive co-founder and CEO Kevin Guo told Fox Business that his companys AI model will be used for TRUTH Social to offer content moderation for posts to ensure sexually-explicit content, and posts that include violence, bullying, hate speech, and spam never make it to the platform.

Playing devils advocate: Banning sexually-explicit content and posts that include violence we understand. But who gets to decide what is and isnt bullying, hate-speech, or spam?

Choosing Devin Nunes to both run the company as CEO and rule over its content with an iron fist as censorship czar seems like a bold choice. The entire premise of TRUTH, is built around free speech and the free exchange of ideas unfettered by censorship.

Nunes is well-known in conservative circles as being a die-hard Trump ally. But hes perhaps best known for being the guy who spent years trying to sue an imaginary cow and a parody of his mom on Twitter.

In a $250 million lawsuit, the California conservative claimed the parody accounts had defamed him.

Per a report from the Washington Post:

Heres a sampling of the tweets he alleges are defamatory, using language directly from the lawsuit Fox obtained:

Devin Nunes cow has made, published and republished hundreds of false and defamatory statements of and concerning Nunes, including the following: Nunes is a treasonous cowpoke.

Devins boots are full of manure. Hes udder-ly worthless and its pasture time to move him to prison.

In her endless barrage of tweets, Devin Nunes Mom maliciously attacked every aspect of Nunes character, honesty, integrity, ethics and fitness to perform his duties as a United States Congressman.

@DevinNunesMom falsely stated that Nunes was unfit to run the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

@DevinNunesMom falsely stated that Nunes was voted Most Likely to Commit Treason in high school.

@DevinNunesMom falsely claimed that Nunes would probably see an indictment before 2020.

He seems fun: Between the AI-powered censorship (which is demonstrably more prone to bias and negative outcomes than human moderators) and Nunes apparent belief that mocking him should carry a $250 million penalty, its going to be hilarious watching TRUTHs content moderation strategy play out.

Unfortunately for right wingers who believe Free Speech somehow means a private company is forced to host their rhetoric, the dream of uncensored social media remains unrealized and it doesnt appear as though Trumps latest grift effort will change that.

One need look no further than its closest cousin, GETTR, which was founded by ardent Trump sycophant Jason Miller.

GETTR became the belle of the conservative ball when podcaster and horse dewormer advocate Joe Rogan declared it his backup plan in case Twitter banned him.

But that love affair lasted less than a month before Rogan got hip to the fact that GETTR was funded with Chinese money and adding Twitter user counts to fudge follower numbers.

In a recent interview for The Tim Dillon Show, Rogan called the practices fuckery and stated that he didnt know how to get off the platform.

On the bright side for MAGA fans, GETTR still has Marjorie Taylor Greene. And, in all fairness, Trumps TRUTH network also used a Chinese firm to organize its funding.

Lol dont worry MAGA die-hards, Twitter will still be there when you inevitably decide to come back.

Read the original:
Trump's censorship czar for TRUTH social media once sued a cow over Twitter beef - The Next Web

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Here is the original post:
Letter: Follow the difficult path to avoid censorship; Keep organ program; Expand Medicaid - Greenville Daily Reflector

click to enlarge

Photo via NSF

Senate Education Chairman Joe Gruters is sponsoring a bill that would increase scrutiny of school library books and instructional materials.

The proposal (SB 1300), sponsored by Senate Education Chairman Joe Gruters, R-Sarasota, was approved by the Republican-controlled Education Committee in a 6-3 vote along party lines. The bill would change the review process for books and other learning materials, adding requirements and making it more open to the public.

For instance, school boards would be required to publish on the website of each school the procedures for developing media-center collections.

Elementary schools would be required to publish on their websites in a searchable format all books and materials that are kept in the schools media centers or that are part of class reading lists.

I think thats where most of the complaints were receiving are from, Gruters said of the part of the bill specific to elementary schools.

The legislation aims to give the public increased input on how library and classroom books are chosen by spelling out that all instructional materials, with the exception of teacher editions, are subject to public inspection including the right to copy or photograph materials.

Committees that advise school boards on the ranking, eliminating or selecting of books and other materials would be required to include parents and community members

School boards also would have to adopt procedures that provide for the regular removal or discontinuance of library books based on criteria including alignment to state academic standards and out-of-date content.

The purpose of the bill is to create transparency in the process. Its not to censor anything. Its about giving people the opportunity to understand exactly what is being offered to their students, in terms of instructional materials, Gruters said.

But Sen. Lori Berman, D-Delray Beach, cautioned against opening the door to what she described as censorship.

This is the slippery slope of censorship. We are starting down the path of censorship. Its an authoritarian action, Berman said.

Several people who testified in favor of the bill advocated for the removal of books that they said contained sexually explicit content or material that was not age-appropriate.

But Sen. Tina Polsky, D-Boca Raton, said public schools should be places where children learn about the world around them.

If you want them insulated so much that they shouldnt learn about the outside world, then you should home-school them. Or you can send them to a religious private school with voucher money, Polsky said, directing her comment at people who spoke in favor of the measure.

School boards and parental involvement in education have become hot-button political issues for Republicans in Florida and other states. The issue, for example, played a key role in Republican Glenn Youngkins recent election as governor of Virginia.

The Senate bill resembles a House measure (HB 1467) that needs to clear one more committee before it could be considered by the full House.

The House bill, however, would nix salaries for school board members. The Senate bill would make school board members pay equal to the salaries of state lawmakers.

Lawmakers make $29,697 per year. School board salaries range this year from $26,965 in Liberty County to $47,189 in Broward, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, Orange, and Palm Beach counties, according to a House staff analysis.

Theres 18 counties (that) have salaries below where we are today, Gruters said of lawmakers pay, adding that others pay school board members more than legislators.

The House has zero (pay for school board members) as their starting point. I believe that people should be compensated and that well continue on this discussion. And I think that certainly what we get paid is probably fair enough for what school board members should be paid, Gruters said.

Berman criticized the provision of the bill, saying its politically motivated against school board members. Polsky, who pointed out that board members in her home county of Palm Beach would take a pay cut under the plan, pressed Gruters on why the bill would get in the way of local decisions.

While I appreciate that its better than zero, I dont understand the reasoning for that either, Polsky said. So, again, why are we getting involved in a school districts decision on what to pay their school board?

I will say that the formula is in fact in statute. So we do have the authority to do it, Gruters responded.

Visit link:
'Slippery slope of censorship': Despite critics, Florida GOP moves forward with school books proposal - Creative Loafing Tampa

A recent Australian defamation verdict [PDF] awarded US$40,000 in damages for an Google search result. Google warns this precedent could lead to censorship of the web.

In 2016 George Defteros, a lawyer from Victoria, Australia, asked Google to remove an article from its search results. The article from 2004 reported murder charges against Mr. Defteros that were later dropped. He later sued Google for defamation after the search giant refused to omit the article from its engine.

In 2020, supreme court justice Melinda Richards ruled that the article implied Mr. Defteros crossed a line from professional lawyer to a confidant and friend of criminals. This is due to the lawyer representing various gangsters in court.

Googles lawyers argue that a search engine is not a publisher because a hyperlink is not, in and of itself, the communication of that to which it links. The companys submission adds:

The inevitable consequence of leaving the court of appeals decision undisturbed is that Google will be required to act as censor by excluding any webpage about which complaint is made from its search results, even when, as here, the webpage may be a matter of legitimate interest to the substantial portion of people who search for it and is published by a reputable news source.

This isnt the first time Google has been on the receiving end of such lawsuits. The right to be forgotten, also known as right to erasure, is an EU rule that gives citizens the power to demand data about them be deleted. In the case of search engines, requesting that links to web pages that may contain sensitive personal information about them.

Google eventually won a case against the French privacy watchdogCommission nationale de linformatique et des liberts (CNIL). In 2015, CNIL ordered Google to remove search results containingdamaging or false information about a person. The agency wanted the results to be removed for Google search around the world. Googles victory meant it didnt have to apply the rule globally, instead only in the EU.

In this case, Google may be right. The Australian defamation verdict would likely result in more such cases and probably more of the global rule versus local rule for the removal of search results.

Read more from the original source:
Australian Defamation Verdict Causes Google to Cry Censorship - The Mac Observer

At the weekend, a court ordered the imprisonment of reporter Sedef Kabas, guilty of using a proverb "offensive" towards the president. In one year 79 journalists lost their jobs for their critical opinions. Another 56 were victims of violence and targeted attacks, dozens of programmes were suspended.

Istanbul (AsiaNews) - A Turkish court thisweekend ordered the remand in custody pending trial of the journalist Sedef Kabas, accused of insulting President Recep Tayyip Erdogan using a famous proverb.

On 22 January, at two o'clock in the morning, officers detained the famous reporter, locking her up in a cell at police headquarters in Istanbul. The next day she appeared before the judges, who ordered her arrest using an article of law that has put tens of thousands of people in prison before her in recent years.

During a TV broadcast on a station close to the oppositions (and in a subsequent tweet), the journalist used a Circassian proverb that reads: "The ox does not become a king because it enters the palace, ratherthe palace becomes a stable", making a comparison with President Erdogan's years in power. According to the court, Sedef Kabas expressed a 'vulgar insult' against the president and the institutional office he holds.

The case is just the latest in a long line of arrests, repressions, prison sentences and fines against critical voices in Turkey, further confirming Turkey's 153rd place out of a total of 180 countries in the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index. In addition, the Independent Communication Network (Bia) released its 2021 annual report yesterday, according to which 35 journalists were sentenced by judges last year to a total of 92 years, six months and 24 days in jail.

In the last 12 months, at least 41 Turkish journalists have been imprisoned, bringing the total figure for the last five years to 270. Not only jail, but there is also the threat of dismissal for those who do not align themselves with official propaganda: in 2021 79 journalists lost their jobs, for a total of 807 in the period 2017-2021. There is also the axe of censorship, with at least 975 articles blocked in the last year and 5,975 in the last five years.

In addition to imprisonment, there are personal attacks and targeted violence against the press: in 2021, 56 journalists were victims of violence (141 in five years). One example is the death of Hazm zsu, who worked in a radio station in Bursa, who was killed in front of his home by a person who "did not appreciate" his judgments and comments.

Finally, there are the fines imposed on broadcasters and press organisations "not aligned" with government policy and official proclamations. The Supreme Council for Radio and TV (Rtuk) imposed 158 administrative fines and suspended 48 programmes, with total fines of 31,630,000 Turkish liras (more than two million euro).

The Turkish judiciary, at the instigation of the government, represses with particular force any voice critical or "defamatory" of Erdogan. Since 2014, the year of his ascension to the presidency, at least 70 journalists have been tried and sentenced to prison and fines for "insulting the president" under Article 299 of the Penal Code. The European Council has repeatedly asked - in vain - Ankara to cancel or at least amend the rule, which continues to be applied with extreme rigour and continuity.

Here is the original post:
TURKEY Arrests, fines, censorship: freedom of the press in Erdogan's Turkey - AsiaNews

Florida GOP lawmakers are working to expand provisions in the states Civil Rights Act to protect individuals from being subjected to certain instructional materials regarding race or sex in Floridas classrooms and workplaces, potentially leading to civil actions or administrative proceedings.

At issue is an ongoing effort from the DeSantis administration to dictate how race and other topics are discussed in schools, as well as an increasing effort to limit the freedom of private businesses to make decisions for their companies.

Rep. Bryan Avila, a Republican who represents part of Miami-Dade County and the sponsor of HB 7, says that the legislation is an affirmation that people will not be judged by characteristics such as race or sex.

This bill makes it clear, that in Florida, people will be judged as individuals by their words, their characters, and their actions, Avila said at a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee meeting. The bill passed 14 to 7 (with one vote missing), and with Democrats in opposition.

This bill cripples the ability for teachers to teach effectively, said Rep. Dianne Hart, who represents part of Hillsborough County, said at the Wednesday meeting.

Every teacher Ive ever encountered, does their job from not only an academic standpoint, but from a personal one, Hart said. It is their personal experiences that they use to make the curriculum come alive for their students. Even more so for the Black and Brown students on the topic of race and discrimination.

HB 7 expands the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, according to the bill analysis, which secures for all individuals within the state freedom from discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

The bill affects areas of education and employment, saying that individuals should not be subjected to training or materials that espouse principles such as:

/Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.

/A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

/A persons moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.

/A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.

/A person should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.

These principles would also apply to students and school employees under the Florida Educational Equity Act, should the bill become law. There is aSenate version of the billalso moving through the 2022 legislative session.

Those are principles that I think each and everyone of us whether youre a Democrat, whether youre a Republican, whether youre an Independent I think everyone would agree that when you look at those principles, no one would disagree with any one of those principles, Avila said at the Wednesday committee meeting.

Ben Diamond, a Democrat who represents part of Pinellas County, is opposed to the bill.

What were prepared to do is to say that if a business is engaged in the perfectly lawful exercise of diversity training, and someone in the business feels a sense of guilt or sense of anguish or has some emotional reaction to that, they can sue. How is this helping our businesses in our state? Diamond said.

Much of the debate and public testimony centered around the bills effect on schools and whether it would curtail frank discussions about United States history and race.

Aliva said that the bill does not ban the teaching of historical facts about slavery, about sexism, about racial oppression, racial segregation, or racial discrimination.

But many of the Democratic lawmakers disagreed.

At issue is an ongoing effort to dictate how race and other topics are discussed in classrooms.

In June, the Florida State Board of Education approved anew rule that prohibits critical race theoryin classrooms, claiming that the theory distorts historical events and is inconsistent with the state boards approved standards. The new rule also banned materials from The New York Times 1619 project, which focuses the establishment of the United States from perspective of Black people.

Rep. Hart brought up this attack on Critical Race Theory in debate on HB 7 Wednesday.

Critical Race Theory is not even taught in K-12 schools. Its, of course, used in law schools to increase understanding of the implication of laws. So the question becomes: What is this really about?

Ida Eskamani, representing the group Florida Rising and Florida Immigrant Coalition, said during public testimony:

This legislation is a part of a dangerous and shameful nationwide agenda to censor discussions of race and gender equality in the classrooms and the workplace.

These bills dont just set back progress this nation has made in addressing racism and sexism, they also rob young people of a fact-based education and blatantly suppresses speech about race, gender, and our collective history, she continued.

She is the sister of Democrat Rep. Anna Eskamani of Orlando. She noted that a school district in Central Florida recently canceled a professors lecture on civil rights because these policies are creating a climate of fear among historians.

According to the Orlando Sentinel from earlier this week: A Flagler College history professor planned to spend an hour Saturday teaching Osceola County teachers about the civil rights movement, his area of expertise.

But days before the workshop, the school district canceled the event because administrators wanted to vet the materials to make sure they did not run afoul ofFloridas new rule banning critical race theory, or CRT, in schools.

But supporters of these initiatives to limit how race is discussed in classrooms and in the workplace claim that certain teaching and materials espouse that a persons race or sex determine a persons character.

House Speaker Chris Sprowls, a Republican who represents part of Pinellas County, said in a written statement Wednesday:

These movements have tried to hijack the important conversation about race and use it as a pretext to attack institutions ranging from capitalism to the very idea of objective truth in the hard sciences.

Sprowls continued: They want to use the sins of the past to shut down dissent in the present. HB 7 ensures Floridas workplaces and schools are places where we can have healthy dialogues about race or diversity without losing sight that we are all, first and foremost, unique individuals.

Danielle J. Brown, Florida Phoenix

More here:
Are Lawmakers Seeking to Censor Discussions of Race and Gender in Classrooms and the Workplace? - FlaglerLive.com

WASHINGTON, January 28, 2022 A lack of cultural understanding by Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms is a prevailing reason for inaccurate content moderation in Iran, Middle East experts said.

Moreover, and they said, Irans proposed international internet replacement, the National Information Network, is dangerously close to coming into effect.

Speaking at a Thursday event of the Atlantic Council designed to draw attention to the current status of social media in Iran, a human rights expert said that Big Techs chronic misunderstanding of the Persian language leads to censorship of content that is either entertainment-based or posted by Iranian activists.

Panelists at the event also highlighted a new report Iranians on #SocialMedia, as the inspiration for the discussion.

Facebook needs someone who actually understands what is going on on the ground, claimed Simin Kargar, a human rights and technology research fellow at Digital Forensic Research Lab. Because the company dont employ or contract with such people, said Kargar, the platform and its sister Instagram are inappropriately censoring posts in the country.

Because of the platforms negligence in understanding and adapting to local concerns, the Iranian people are not benefiting from the internet.

And because Iran also heavily monitoring and censoring the internet within its borders, the Iranian people end up being hindered by the double-whammy of Iranian and Facebook censorship, Kargar said.

Mahsa Alimardani, a researcher with the human rights organization Article19, agreed that misconceptions due to language are a dangerous foe.She made this comment whenasked what America can do to help and whether American sanctions have played play a part in the rise in content moderation.

All panelists at the event said that while American sanctions against Iran impact the internet in the country, they are not responsible for what is currently happening in Iran.

However, Alimardani also blamed Meta, the new corporate name for the company that runs Facebook and Instagram, for improper and excessive content moderation.

She said Facebook currently flag anything related to the Iranian guard after the Trump Administration created a list of dangerous people that should be restricted on social media. She disagreed that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be listed as a foreign terrorist organization.

The National Information Network, the new censored internet that Iran is currently working to implement, had been planned to launch in March. Alimardani said she believes that the release will be postponed because of disagreements about who within the government will control content moderation, and the impact the firewall could have on Iranian tech companies.

Alimardani highlighted the unique nature of the Iranian law that created the national internet. Instead of being voted on by the Iranian Parliament, the legislative body deferred action on the creation of a permanent national internet only until after an experimental period with the firewall, she said.

Yet the government has been pushing its own online streaming and video platforms. These platforms are part of the governments attempt to incentivize an Iranian national internet.

Essentially, said Kargar, the government is promising more bandwidth at a lower cost through the National Information Network. The new network is also appealing to Iranian consumers because the NIN will primarily be in the countrys major dialect.

Holly Dagres, a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Councils Middle East Programs and the author of the Iranians on #SocialMedia, also spoke on the NIN. She said it would take Iran back to the Middle Ages, and also limit communication with other Iranians and with the outside world.

View original post here:
Facebook is Failing Iranians, and Iran's Leaders Are About to Launch a Censored Internet - BroadbandBreakfast.com

It is worth looking beyond a headline event from last week: Christian websites reported the US Baptist pastor John MacArthur had a sermon thrown off YouTube.

There is no such thing as transgender, Macarthur said in his Sunday sermon. You are either XX or XY, thats it. God made man male and female. That is determined genetically, that is physiology, that is science, that is reality, he said.

On the one hand, the reality of that lie and deception is so damaging, so destructive, so isolating, so corrupting that it needs to be confronted, but on the other hand, that confrontation cant exaggerate what already exists, which is a sense of feeling isolated in relationships.

The US-based conservative journalist Todd Starnes reported YouTubes response after he had uploaded a clip of the MacArthur sermon.Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our hate speech policy, YouTube wrote to me. Weve removed the following content from YouTube: There is no such thing as transgender. You are either XX or XY. Thats it. Pastor John MacArthur.

But a check of YouTube reveals that last Sundays sermon Such Were Some of You is on YouTube and linked to MacArthurs churchs Grace To You (GTY) site.

It is possible some words have been removed, the transcript is not yet available, but there is no hint it was censored on the GTY site.

It may be that only the Starnes clip has been removed. But the sermon itself is a very strong affirmation of a conservative Bible exegesis on homosexuality.

The concern is that Canadas Bill C-4 is broadly worded and could, in effect, ban biblical teachings on sexual ethics. Christian Broadcasting Network

But outside of the YouTube controversy, MacArthur was making news. Some 5,000 pastors preached alongside him on human sexuality on January 16.Their motivation? Protesting against the passing of C-4 Canadas new law banning sexual orientation gender conversion efforts. The concern is that Canadas Bill C-4 is broadly worded and could, in effect, ban biblical teachings on sexual ethics, and might even limit personal communications on the subject, the Christian broadcasting network reported.

Australian readers will see strong parallels with Victorias Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 that is due to come into effect next month.

The Canadian Bill passed after two failed attempts with the unanimous consent of the Canadian House of Commons. Bill C-4 defines conversion therapy as a practice, treatment or service designed to change a persons sexual orientation or gender identity for example, repressing or reducing non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or repressing a persons non-cisgender gender identity.

But the Gospel Coalition Canada did not go along with MacArthurs approach. Gospel Coalition Canadas Paul Carter responded to the MacArthur mass preaching initiative: I have tremendous respect for Pastor John and rejoice in the fact that there are a number of initiatives intending to peacefully protest the potential abuse and misapplication of Bill C-4. However, while many pastors will no doubt participate in this particular initiative, others will have concerns due to the fact that the statement associated with this initiative concedes illegality.

Instead, Carter took part in reading a statement in church written for the Canadian Religious freedom summit, which included this key passage. The laws stated purpose is to outlaw conversion therapy. We strongly oppose the coercive and unscientific therapeutic practices the Bill was introduced to address. We appreciate and affirm the desire of parliamentarians to protect the vulnerable.

However, we are deeply concerned that the effective reach of the legislation could be extended far beyond its stated purpose. Because its definition of conversion therapy is vague, many are concerned that it could capture parents, pastors and counsellors who teach a biblical understanding of sexuality in a variety of situations. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees our freedoms of religion, conscience, thought, belief, expression and association. It is our prayer that the law will be applied and clarified as needed in such a way as to honour these Charter protections.

C-4 will be tested against Canadas Charter of Rights and Freedoms Charter, which declares freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression and freedom of media communication as fundamental freedoms.

All initial assurances are that it does not intend to criminalize religious expression. Paul Carter

Carters prediction is that it will be difficult to see how a charge against a pastor for preaching on Genesis 1:27 or Galatians 5:22-23 could withstand a Charter challenge.

He adds: It is not clear that preaching on biblical passages espousing a biblical ethic of sexuality is now illegal. That matter has yet to be adjudicated in the courts. Bill C-4 nowhere uses that language and all initial assurances are that it does not intend to criminalize religious expression in any of the contexts suggested in the letter [from MacArthur and his allies].

The statement suggested by the Canadian Religious Freedom Summit specifically makes use of language drawn from the Charter and also makes it clear that there is no desire whatsoever, on behalf of the participants and signatories, to endorse or engage in coercive or abusive practices. The MacArthur statement expresses no such sentiment.

Carter declares that he and other pastors are hopeful that the church will not be drawn into an adversarial posture toward the LGBTIQA community while I am praying for the wise application or emendation of Bill C-4 such that abusive or coercive practices are forbidden while speaking the truth in love continues to be permitted.

He recognises it is possible that the day will come when preaching what the Bible says about human sexuality is banned and adds: If it comes when it comes I will count it an honour to suffer on behalf of Christ.

The militancy of the mass preachers protest was noted by Good Book Company author and Baptist pastor Andrew Roycroft:

The Canadian bill came into effect in early January. Its final effect may be decided by the courts, which will have the task of balancing religious expression versus the LGBTIQ2S (the Canadian initials which include the Two Spirit group) communitys desire to avoid efforts to change them.

Why not send this to a friend?

Share

See original here:
John MacArthur, YouTube censorship and 'conversion therapy' ban - Eternity News