Category Archives: Censorship

Friday, Feb 2, 2024

The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom, regarding a friend-of-the-court brief ADF attorneys filed Thursday on behalf of The Douglass Leadership Institute, The Radiance Foundation, and Speak for Life at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in the case Melton v. City of Forrest City, in which a firefighter in good standing with the city had his employment terminated after he posted a pro-life image on social media:

All Americans should be free to express viewpoints and ideas without fear of government intervention. When the government decides which topics are appropriate for debate, we all lose. As we explain in our brief, the First Amendments absolute bar on viewpoint discrimination protects the full-bodied discussions necessary for representative democracy to function. If the government monopolizes the marketplace of ideas, organizations like The Douglass Leadership Institute, The Radiance Foundation, and Speak for Life, which stand for life, especially Black communities that are disproportionately affected by abortion, cannot speak without fear of government reprisal. We urge the 8th Circuit to reverse the lower court decision and allow free speech to flourish for all.

The ADF Center for Academic Freedom is dedicated to protecting First Amendment and related freedoms for students and faculty so that everyone can freely participate in the marketplace of ideas without fear of government censorship.

# # #

See the original post here:
ADF to 8th Circuit: Govt can't censor pro-life views - ADF Media

If KOSAs supporters are trying to distance the bill from harm to queer and trans youth, having NCOSE leadership be part of a panel at the Heritage Foundation following Wednesdays Senate Judiciary hearing was an odd choice. In a way, NCOSE fits right in at Heritage: Its senior legal team is drawn from the ranks of Alliance Defending Freedom veterans, a Christian-right legal organization that often partners with Heritage, such as on Project 2025, its plan to (among other things) roll back LGBTQ rights on day one of a presumed Trump presidency. Tech companies arent just protecting the perpetrators of sexual harm, Hawkins said on the panel. They are the perpetrators themselves. Unsuprisingly, given the venue, when speaking about the specifics of such harm, Hawkins failed to mention harm to LGBTQ teens.

But the real tell was this: These tech platforms, Hawkins said, have taken our power and our rights away as parents. Others at the event, like Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, spoke of the hearing as an inflection point, owing to the whole parental rights movement. Repeatedly, speakers emphasized the idea of KOSA and similar legislation as protecting our childrens innocence. Those are the watchwords of the Christian rights investment in legislating the internet: parents rights and childrens innocence.

Republicans have cannily used online safety as code for keeping anything vaguely queer away from kids. Theyve got Democrats on board, some eagerly. Twitter/X is now joining Snap and Microsoft in supporting KOSA. That means these platforms are happy to ally with anti-LGBTQ groups now to pass the bill, or at least avoid another troublesome hearing. We already know that X is fine with letting white supremacists on their platform again, readying for a return to Trump, perhaps. Given this, their willingness to ally with the Christian-right establishment on a backdoor censorship bill shouldnt be such a surprise.

See the original post:
The GOP Has a Plan for Online Safety. It Involves Censoring LGBTQ Content. - The New Republic

Journalism, in its purest form, is the pursuit of truth, no matter how harsh or controversial. However, in some parts of the world like Russia, the pursuit of this truth can be fraught with danger. The environment for journalists in Russia has become increasingly treacherous, with those engaged in real journalism facing the risk of harm and even death. The level of danger and censorship faced by journalists who attempt to uncover and report on controversial or sensitive topics in Russia is alarmingly high.

Journalists often find themselves on the front lines of protests and civil unrest, in order to capture the reality of the situation. This was the case in Moscow when journalists were briefly detained while reporting on a protest by soldiers wives. This incident not only reflects the danger faced by journalists in Russia, but also highlights the risks associated with investigative journalism in the region.

Since Russias invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, almost all independent media have been banned, blocked and/or declared foreign agents or undesirable organisations. President Vladimir Putin has isolated himself and the official discourse is based on historical grievances and conspiracy theories. Journalists are not safe from the threat of serious charges under vaguely worded draconian laws. The economic crisis has forced many media outlets to close and has impoverished the few remaining independent journalists.

While the internet connection rate in Russia is high, most Russians get their news from government-controlled television and social media. This control over the flow of information puts independent journalists at risk of heavy sentences, torture, fines, and detentions under various pretexts.

In another incident, Russian police detained about two dozen people, many of them journalists, at an event led by wives demanding that husbands mobilized to fight in Ukraine be brought back to Russia. This incident further highlights the oppressive conditions under which journalists in Russia must operate.

As Russia continues its massive unprovoked attack on Ukraine, many Russian media outlets have been hacked, with anti-war messages being placed on their websites. These instances of cyber-activism underscore the dire state of media freedom in Russia and the measures being taken by activists to make their voices heard.

Russian state-run television has been noted to amplify the views of those who may be perceived as sympathetic to their cause. Recently, they hyped up news of former Fox News host Tucker Carlson visiting Moscow, with speculation suggesting that he might be there to interview President Putin. However, this also brings into question the level of access and freedom foreign journalists have in Russia, with many reporting restrictions and controls.

In conclusion, the environment for journalists in Russia is a dangerous one, marked by high levels of government control, censorship, and physical danger. The pursuit of truth becomes a perilous journey in such conditions, and it is a testament to the courage and resilience of journalists that the world continues to receive reports from the region.

Originally posted here:
The Dangerous Pursuit of Journalism in Russia: A Harrowing Reality - Medriva

News outlets worldwide have been heeding demands to remove articles about an Indian tech company called Appin and its co-founder, Rajat Khare. Major U.S. outlets are among those that have been successfully pressured to take down their reporting not just in India, but here as well.

The ordeal raises serious concerns about the global reach of local judges thousands of miles away. It also raises questions about the adequacy of existing legal safeguards to deal with international censorship campaigns arising from countries like India, with governments that dont respect human rights, let alone press freedom. Even when the government is not directly involved in a censorship campaign, its reputation precedes it, and it would be impossible for news publishers not to take note.

Multiple news outlets take down stories globally

Everyone from Reuters to the U.K.s The Sunday Times and outlets in Luxembourg and Switzerland has censored their reporting about Khare and Appin after either lawsuits or takedown letters, according to a report in the Daily Beast. The legal actions often come from an entity calling itself the Association of Appin Training Centers or its alleged executives.

Reuters, for example, ran a detailed investigation last November about how Appin functioned as a hack-for-hire powerhouse. Khare and Appin vehemently deny the allegations. Reuters published the article despite an injunction, entered in 2022, prohibiting it from reporting anything defamatory about the association. Presumably, Reuters believed the article wasnt defamatory, so the injunction wouldnt apply.

But within weeks, an Indian court deemed the article indicative of defamation despite failing to identify any fallacies in the report and ordered it removed from the internet. Reuters complied, taking down the article not just in India but around the world. Even the Internet Archives Wayback Machine removed the Reuters story. Fortunately, DDoSecrets has stepped up to host the Reuters story and other censored reporting. (Sidenote: It is raising funds so it can continue doing its important work.)

The order doesnt expressly limit the required takedown to India, which may suggest the Indian court intended it to be removed globally. But Indian courts dont have global jurisdiction. And a U.S. court would be particularly unlikely to enforce the order, given the nearly insurmountable constitutional presumption against prohibitions on publication, or prior restraints. Theres even a law in the U.S., the SPEECH Act, against honoring defamation judgments from countries that dont protect free speech.

So why did Reuters remove the story in the U.S. and everywhere else, replacing it with an editors note that it stands by its reporting and plans to appeal (a slow process anywhere, but especially in India)? And why have so many others complied with takedown demands?

Some publications, like The New Yorker, have kept their stories up despite reported threats from Khares lawyers (which reportedly included the firm Clare Locke, known for representing Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation suit against Fox News), but at least 18 other outlets also either removed articles about Appin outright or erased mentions of Khare.

It cant just be ignorance of the law. Khare is far from the first rich guy to try to silence critics. Reuters and other censored outlets have plenty of First Amendment lawyers and must know U.S. law is on their side. They also know that Clare Locke succeeded in the Dominion case largely because it had some very helpful evidence to work with, not because it possesses some secret legal magic wand that makes the First Amendment disappear.

Demands for removal leverage risk of deplatforming by tech companies

A closer look at the associations tactics may provide answers. For one, the order in the Reuters case not only requires the story to be taken down by Reuters but to be deindexed by Google. The association is making sure to let its other targets know about that, including in a recent takedown letter to Ron Deibert of the Citizen Lab (judging from Deiberts X post about the letter, hes unlikely to take down his article). Others have received similar letters.

Perhaps the message is that resistance is futile: Theres no point in paying lawyers to fight takedown demands if, at the end of the day, Google can make the articles invisible anyway.

But another line from the letter to Deibert stood out even more: It claims the article is contemptuous not only to the Plaintiffs concerned however it is absolutely derogatory to the entire Indian Nation. The article says nothing about India in its entirety.

Further nationalistic language appears in correspondence to Meta, attached to court documents filed in the Reuters case. Those letters, from the association's Indian counsel, baselessly accuse the journalists behind the Reuters story (Christopher Bing, Zeba Siddiqui, and Raphael Satter) of a serious unusual espionage operation and a well-planned modus operandi to malign Ruling Indian Government, demanding Meta therefore block their WhatsApp accounts.

According to court documents, the association also sent demands to block the journalists accounts on LinkedIn and Naukri, an Indian platform they allegedly used to contact potential sources. Fortunately, neither LinkedIn nor Meta appears to have complied to date, but the threat of deindexing or deplatforming is a powerful cudgel. Tools like WhatsApp are essential for journalists these days.

Veiled threats have an impact regardless of credibility

The allusions to the nation of India and its current rulers in legal correspondence about disputes between private companies also may serve another purpose.

The administration of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is infamous for its crackdowns on speech and the press, especially online. India, for example, managed to tame Twitter with its hostage law, requiring social media companies to keep representatives in the country for authorities to arrest if their employers misbehave. That law may not bind news outlets, but it doesnt have to. They need to have personnel in India if they want to cover news there.

Lawyers in the suit against Reuters have already asked for the three reporters to be jailed. Theyre not based in India, but might authorities arrest someone else in their place? News outlets may not want to find out the hard way, especially if theyre under the impression that theyve offended the Ruling Indian Government.

Were unaware of any indication that the Modi administration takes criticism of Appin or Khare personally or would even care at all. The claim that the Reuters article maligns the current government is perplexing given that the reporting focuses on events predating Modis 2014 inauguration. As for Khare, hes now an Antiguan national living in Switzerland.

Nonetheless, perhaps the associations intent in invoking the Ruling Indian Government is to issue a not-so-subtle reminder, to anyone considering flouting its demands, of who they may be messing with. And it seems to be working. Bluff or not, news outlets may be afraid to call it.

American legal protections cant stop foreign censorship tactics

While the U.S. may not always be the global leader in press freedom it thinks it is, its legal protections against foreign censorship orders are relatively strong. But that may not matter if others follow Appins playbook.

U.S. outlets know the First Amendment cant protect them from stories being suppressed, or reporters deplatformed, by tech companies at the behest of foreign courts. It also provides no solace against veiled threats, however noncredible they may be, to sic authoritarian regimes on journalists.

The aforementioned SPEECH Act was intended largely to stop U.S. courts from enforcing judgments entered under the U.K.s plaintiff-friendly libel laws. Thats helpful when U.S. outlets are primarily worried about legal risk back home. But in cases arising from countries ruled by governments like Modis, there may be larger concerns than that.

And if the U.S. is going to continue its partnerships with such countries, then policymakers here need to think seriously about how to address those concerns.

The Biden administration has maintained that it wont lecture India about its domestic human rights problems (although recent reporting says alleged Indian assassination plots have complicated the U.S.-India relationship). But censorship emanating from Indian courts is not a domestic issue when its stopping U.S. citizens from reading important news about a U.S. strategic partner. Whether or not Indias government had any direct involvement with this latest campaign to silence the press, it may have created the climate that enabled it.

If the U.S. insists on partnering with censorial regimes, then policymakers need to start thinking seriously about the consequences for free speech back home, and the administration needs to do more to stand up for American values than empty talk. Otherwise who is going to tell us about the next hack-for-hire operation or assassination plot, for that matter?

See original here:
Global censorship campaign raises alarms - Freedom of the Press Foundation

It is a rough time to be a teacher. Having parents who are interested in their childrens curriculum was the dream once upon a time. Thats become nightmarish as helicopter parents go out of their way to redefine any and everything as too controversial to belong to a learning environment you cant even take kids to see high art anymore. In Texas, there were several highly esteemed authors Shakespeare and Toni Morrison among them that you couldnt teach for fear that it would offend the parents moral sensibilities. Thankfully, Texas teachers have hope of a little more autonomy in their classrooms. From Jurist:

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled on Wednesday that Texas legislation aimed at restricting or banning sexually explicit books in public school libraries likely violates the Constitution, affirming a lower courts injunction against it. Representatives from the plaintiffs side welcomed the judgment with a sense of triumph and relief: The courts decision also shields Texas businesses from the imposition of impossibly onerous conditions, protects the basic constitutional rights of the plaintiffs, and lets Texas parents make decisions for their own children without government interference or control. This is a good day for bookstores, readers, and free expression.

It is a good day for students, too. Laws that prevent kids from being able to learn are literally stultifying, and its a shame that the main motivator is petty politics. The motivation for these book bans seem more concerned with parents egos than childrens well being. Just take a look at some of the books Texan parents want banned. A Michelle Obama autobiography got shot down because it painted Trump as a bully. 1) So? 2) Hows that second defamation case going for ya? A book called A Good Kind Of Trouble about a 12-year-old joining a protest was attacked for causing a white child to feel confusion or distress. Excuse me, were we not all forced to read Lord of the Flies growing up? Because the thought that my classmates and I would all go feral if the teachers left us to our own devices was far more harrowing than people using the First Amendment.

Best of luck to the teachers in Florida. Even if the books are available to your students, it wont be easy getting them to read them when you have to compete against TikTok.

US Appeals Court Upholds Injunction Against Texas Law Censoring Sexually Explicit School Books [Jurist]

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord in the Facebook groupLaw School Memes for Edgy T14s. He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim,a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email atcwilliams@abovethelaw.comand by tweet at@WritesForRent.

See original here:
Texas Library Censorship Attempt Struck Down By 5th Circuit - Above the Law

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Im Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We turn now to Marione Ingram. Shes an 88-year-old German American Holocaust survivor whos been protesting for months outside the White House calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. She was scheduled to speak this month at eight different schools in her native Hamburg, Germany. She was planning to address students receiving awards recognizing their commitment to social justice activism. Then, in December, she was told by an event organizer that her appearances were canceled. The trip was eventually postponed until May.

AMY GOODMAN: Marione Ingram is author of The Hands of War: A Tale of Endurance and Hope from a Survivor of the Holocaust and also the book The Hands of Peace: A Holocaust Survivors Fight for Civil Rights in the American South. Shes joining us from Washington, D.C.

Marione, Im sorry you had to leave the studio because there was an alarm in the building and everyone had to evacuate, but youre back now. And you have heard the previous guests, two Palestinian American esteemed artists, talking about having been canceled, like you, Samia Halaby by Indiana University, and Emily Jacir was about to give a talk in Berlin. Talk about the reason you were given for going back to Hamburg, Germany, where youve gone a number of times to speak to young people, but the reason why your talks were canceled this month.

MARIONE INGRAM: Good morning, Amy. Yes, a bit of excitement, so I missed I heard Samias explanation of her cancellation Im really sorry about that and missed the other, because we were evacuated.

The reasons for my cancellation have been extremely vague, given a climate in Germany right now of a lot of antisemitic events, apparently. And the only concrete explanation I got from someone was that I, as a Holocaust survivor, would be used by the AfD, which is the Alternative for Deutschland, the Alternative for Germany, which is a neo-Nazi and a primarily antisemitic group. But I was told that they would use my picture and my protest sign in a propaganda I cant even figure out what kind of propaganda that would be used for, since they are basically Nazis and would be a destruction of

AMY GOODMAN: The sign youre talking about is, standing outside the White House, Survivor says peace not war?

MARIONE INGRAM: Yes, yes. But on the flip side, it says Stop genocide in Gaza. And that has upset the powers that be, politicians who decide what can be said and what cannot be said.

I have been speaking to students for years, and I was also told by several teachers that right now my presence, talking to students, is of the utmost importance, because the schools in Hamburg are so diverse and there are many students who come from countries where there is war, oppression, poverty, and students in really terrible positions of trying to manage what is going on, conflict with each other. And I was told that my presence is so important because I have a rapport with students, and they were looking forward to expressing their thoughts, because they know that in talking to me and with me that they can say everything that is on their minds without being criticized or ostracized.

I find it extremely I understand Germanys sensitivity because of their gruesome history. But Germany has also been the only country, maybe other than Rwanda, that has acknowledged its horrific history, and it has taught this history as a never again thing. We must face our history so we can learn from it. So it is surprising to me that Germany has chosen to silence me.

But I think the worst part of it is that they are silencing young people who are experiencing especially in Germany, they are close to the war in Ukraine. They are troubled by what is going on by the war in the Mideast and the horrific slaughter of innocent people. It should be an absolute standstill of all governments when you are told that over 10,000 children are being murdered. There is no excuse for that.

And then to turn around America and Germanys support of Israels politics is extremely disturbing and, to me, frightening, because any time any government decides to silence the voices of people who oppose government policies, whatever they may be, this reminds me so much of my childhood. My childhood was spent in the first 10 years much the same way as the children of Gaza. I know exactly what they are going through. I know exactly what they are thinking. And this, apparently, has upset the Ministry of Culture, because I have compared the onset

AMY GOODMAN: We have less than a minute to go.

MARIONE INGRAM: The silencing of the last survivor of all three major events in Hamburg the firestorm, the worst bombing in the European war, and the Holocaust, where I lost almost all of my family and the silencing of voices like all of our voices when they are most needed is indicative of something more frightening, because I believe when governments decide to silence voices in opposition to the stance that they are taking, then we have to really question very deeply why are they doing it and for what reason.

AMY GOODMAN: Marione Ingram, were going to have to leave it there, but we thank you so much for being with us, 88-year-old Jewish German Holocaust survivor, has been protesting, calling for Biden to support a Gaza ceasefire.

Read more:
Censorship over Palestine: Holocaust Survivor Decries Repression After Talks in Germany Are Canceled - Democracy Now!

Amid the continuing layoffs and plummeting public trust, traditional mainstream media have tended to favor censorship far more than they used to. As John Lloyd, co-founder of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, put it recently at Quillette,

The US media enjoys the worlds strongest protections of speech and publication, so it might have been counted on to oppose this movement in the name of those freedoms. But instances of journalists being fired or forced to resign for writing or saying the wrong thing have been growing, and these cases tend to follow a similar pattern. First, a writer or editor publishes a piece that is deemed offensive to one or more groups of marginalised individuals. Second, activists, influencers, celebrities, and not infrequently the writers/editors own colleagues informally collaborate in a sustained social-media mobbing of the publication in question and any staffers unwise enough to defend the article at issue. Third, following a period of agonised indecision, the writer/editor is pushed out and the publication releases a craven apology detailing the hurt caused and the lessons learned. Upshot? The mob is greatly empowered and the spectrum of permissible opinion shrinks.

For what its worth, even as late as the turn of the millennium, media people tended to be reflexively against censorship. Thats partly because most treasured the hope of discovering an embarrassing or unspeakable truth. Bluntly, that made a journalists career. But today, major media no longer exist to inform the public so much as to convey to the public the values that the mediums key personnel believe they should have. So censorship feels much more comfortable now.

One factor that probably helps media personnel feel that way is the sense of belonging to an academic elite. Far more journalists today have degrees:

Masters degrees in journalism now dominate the hiring at newspapers. Newspapers prefer degrees from prestigious schools, which always made me smirk because if you have a degree from Harvard, why are you working for peanuts at the Charleston Gazettein West Virginia?

Some are trying to fight back though

Filmmaker and former network news producer Ted Balaker points out, that The New York Times stood its ground when confronted by GLAAD, and execs at HBO (now Max) ever-so-cautiously announced a partnership with the formerly untouchable J.K. Rowling.

If Cancel culture finally expires some day, its obituary should recognize these profiles in courage (or profit seekingunder normal conditions, it wouldnt take courage to partner with the worlds most successful author).

But fighting back will mean acknowledging that the publication exists for the readers, not for Cancel Culture and yes, that will take courage.

James Bennet, one of the journalists fired in the same New York Times purge that claimed Bari Weiss, offered a key observation late last month at The Economist: Courage is what media dont have any more.

The Timess problem has metastasised from liberal bias to illiberal bias, from an inclination to favour one side of the national debate to an impulse to shut debate down altogether. All the empathy and humility in the world will not mean much against the pressures of intolerance and tribalism without an invaluable quality that [his former boss publisher, A.G.] Sulzberger did not emphasise: courage.

The reality is that journalism schools do not even value debate any more; they deride it as bothsidesism.

Government-funded news media?

Employment firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas reports that broadcast, print and digital outlets all together experienced 2,681 journalism job cuts in 2023, up 48% from 1,808 in 2022 and 77% from 1,511 in 2021. Media analysts now warn of news deserts to come, as a result. But that, of course, is nonsense. People are largely curating their own news now, as they often must.

However, the Canadian solution the government funds the legacy media is starting to be spoken of in the United States in veiled terms:

All available evidence suggests that the commercial future for journalism is especially dire, Victor Pickard, a professor of media policy and political economy at the University of Pennsylvanias Annenberg School for Communication, told The Wrap. We cannot simply let the market drive local journalism into the ground. I expect to see more legislative efforts, especially at state government levels, aimed at shoring up and even expanding local journalism.

For that, read: The government subsidizes the legacy media to stay in business and they act thereafter as public relations outlets for the governments that fund them. Expect to see such proposals floated more often in the United States in the next few years.

The rest is here:
As Legacy Media Continues in Decline, It Espouses Censorship More - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Commentator Dan Bongino says that censorship and left-wing riots will increase as former President Donald Trump gains momentum on the campaign trail.

Bongino issued the warning on his Rumble broadcast this week and referenced two articles that he claimed serve as a guidebook to stopping Trump from reassuming the presidency.

The first article is a piece in Time published in February 2021 titled The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election. The article details the alleged efforts of left-wing activists to pressure platforms to enforce their rules, both by removing content or accounts that spread disinformation and by more aggressively policing it in the first place. Another section refers to a national mobilization network that purportedly prepared to hit the streets if Trump remained president after inauguration day in 2021.

The other article Bongino mentioned in his broadcast was a January 2017 piece in Foreign Policy titled 3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020.

The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders, wrote Rosa Brooks, the author of the article.

Bongino claimed his Facebook account has been throttled recently, and he suggested social media companies may further suppress or inhibit certain voices.

As Trump closes in on the nomination, you are going to see two things ramp up: censorship under the guise of, hey, were just trying to get free and fair elections and prevent misinformation, so we need to censor people. And youre going to see an increase in calls for riots and coups, Bongino said.

This is going to get worse, Bongino added. Censorship number one. Number two, get ready for their calls for riots and calls for coups.

As previously reported byThe Dallas Express, Trump won the Iowa caucus by a wide margin after maintaining his front-runner status among those vying for the Republican nomination.

Support our non-profit journalism

Read more:
Trump Nomination: Pundit Expects Censorship, Calls for Riots - The Dallas Express

Kelly is a former librarian and a long-time blogger at STACKED. She's the editor/author of (DON'T) CALL ME CRAZY: 33 VOICES START THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH and the editor/author of HERE WE ARE: FEMINISM FOR THE REAL WORLD. Her next book, BODY TALK, will publish in Fall 2020. Follow her on Instagram @heykellyjensen.

View All posts by Kelly Jensen

This is the first in a series of posts that will offer insights and calls to action based on the results of three recent surveys conducted by Book Riot and the EveryLibrary Institute. The surveys explored parental perceptions of public libraries, parental perceptions of librarians, and parental perceptions of school libraries.

We know the results of these surveys are a study in tension. Where parents agreed with big picture ideas across all three surveys, 94% said they feel their child is safe at the library it was some of the more granular topics where we saw conflicting responses. It is important to talk about those, including the fact that there are parents who believe library workers should be prosecuted for the materials they offer in the collection and that many believe there needs to be more barriers to material access in place for their children. But rather than focus on those as threats, perhaps theyre better framed as opportunities. These areas of contention are places where librarians, who are overwhelmingly perceived as trustworthy and worthy of respect, can harness those perceptions to combat mis-, dis-, and malinformation about what they do.

Lets take heart here. The vast majority of parents believe the following things about libraries and library workers:

More:

When it comes to the materials available in the library:

On the topic of parental rights:

Taking heart with this data is important. In a time when library workers are beleaguered by rhetoric from the far-right and are the most likely to be handling book banning issues, it is important to remember the vast majority of parents trust and respect librarians. Where tensions or conflicting ideas emerge is where there is opportunity to educate and challenge mis- and disinformation about the roles and responsibilities of librarians and libraries.

Note that you might need to adapt or modify these ideas based on the laws and policies in your own jurisdiction.

Many library workers already do this, but it bears emphasis. If most parents do not know how librarians select materials for the collection (81% of parents in the school library survey and 53% in the public libraries survey), then offer them an answer. Create a one-sheet or short video explaining the process, including the sort of review sources used in making decisions and why those review sources are used. If youre in a school, explain that materials in the collection both serve the curriculum and meet the recreational needs of student readers. This means meeting the needs of all students in a building, from the youngest to the most senior. Demystify the process and put this information in readily accessible places. Your website is great, and if you are in a school where you can get printed materials into a take-home folder, use that to your advantage. Talk with your boards, too it is possible that board members do not know how the process of selecting library materials works, either, especially if they are new to their role. Offer to give a short presentation at one of the meetings; this will be especially useful for the historical record, as it will be included in meeting minutes and any video repository if recorded.

This also helps inform patrons about why librarians are the most qualified to make collection selections. While librarians ranked as most qualified to choose materials both in public and in school libraries (rating a 3.6 on a 5-point scale, with 5 being most qualified), a small percentage also believed that librarians should be prosecuted for the materials available (25% in public libraries and 16% in school libraries) even if they do not know how those materials are selected.

Parents might still say they do not know how librarians select materials for the collection, but youve done your work. Putting this information out there is transparency and further bolsters your perception as trustworthy. You arent, nor have you ever, tried to hide what youre doing because there is nothing TO hide.

Chances are that you already do, but where and how can you make your presence more visible? This goes more for the school librarians than the public, but it is valuable for both. Only 41% of parents state they have met their school librarian. Where and how can you reach another 41%?

This feels like library 101, but if theres anything that several years of book banning have shown, its that parents do not know there is a list of every book available in the library a frequent call from uninformed parental rights activists (the survey findings are that 67% of parents believe this should exist). Its the library catalog. While you might spend time teaching students how to use it, do you have a handy guide on your website for parents? What might be basic knowledge to you, though, is not to those who are being led by false narratives. Put a guide to using the catalog in an easy-to-find place, and if nothing else, youll have given yourself a point or two for transparency.

The ideal time to update your collection development and management policies was when challenges to books began to rise. The second best time is now, especially given that book banners are taking advantage of bad policies to get hundreds of titles removed at a time. Make these policies robust, explaining the kinds of materials you collect; if you have the opportunity, include information as to why you collect diverse materials, too. The data might not change the minds of those who are committed to a white, cishet christofascist agenda, but it might be eye-opening to others. For example, when you note in your policy that your collection is inclusive of a range of gender and sexual identities, include the statistic that one-quarter of US teens openly identify as LGBTQ+, per the CDC. More, PEW Research notes that only slightly more than half of todays teenagers are non-Hispanic white. One in four of todays teens in the US are Hispanic, 14% are Black, 6% are Asian, and 5% are bi- or multi-racial. Nearly 1/4 of Generation Z are the children of immigrants, and 66% live in households with married parents. This information should not be necessary to state your librarys commitment to inclusion, but it offers information to further support the decisions made by staff.

Use the language being used right now in your collection policies: note that parents always have the right to determine what their children access. If you have opt-out policies for your library, include or link to those; if you dont, emphasize that parents are responsible for having these conversations with their children. They say so themselves! Mention in your policies that you do not remove the right of all children to access materials based on the beliefs of a few. Instead, it is up to parents to set those limits for their own children.

Data show that 43% of parents report knowing their library has a collection development policy, and the same percentage report knowing how to locate it. A slightly higher percentage, 56%, know how to file a complaint about a book they believe to be inappropriate. Once you have updated your policy and created a robust form for book challenges, make it easy to find. You might not like having your challenge policy readily available, but the more you make it findable, not only are you more transparent, but you build trust, too, through being open so that patrons can voice their feelings about the collection. This right to petition goes hand-in-hand with the right to read, and libraries, as upholders of the First Amendment rights of all, should not shy away from it.

Book banners are loud, well-funded, and connected to those perceived to have a lot of power. That is real, and at times, it is unrelenting.

But its also true that those voices are the minority. You have the majority behind you and your work.

With the holidays and school breaks, this list is shorter than usual.

More here:
Data Overwhelmingly Supports Libraries and Library Workers: Book Censorship News, January 5, 2024 - Book Riot

According to innumerable media reports, kids these days dont properly understand or value free speech. The spate of illiberal currents and identitarian blowups in recent years can be blamed on the arrival of Gen Z on college campuses and, later, the workplace.

Except that they cant. Members of Gen Z may indeed hold importantly different perspectives on risk, conflict and identity compared with previous cohorts. However, these differences are not the cause of the Great Awokening and the struggles over status and power that have accompanied it. For that, we have to look to adults these days.

For example, the radical shifts in media discourse, focusing intensely on identity-based discrimination and prejudice, began after 2011 when the oldest members of Gen Z (born in 1997) were only 14. Obviously, they werent working as journalists or in editorial roles deciding what gets published. Nor were they the primary audience that media companies and advertisers were trying to reach.

Protests also increased in 2011, exemplified by the rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement. However, more than 65 per cent of Occupy protesters were 30 years or older at the time (theyd be over 40 today). Subsequent studies looking at the post-2015 #Resistance marches (the Womens March, the March for Science, the March for Racial Justice) put the average age of demonstrators at 38-49.

Likewise, teenagers and tweens couldnt possibly have been responsible for the dramatic shifts in academic culture, administration and research since 2011. People generally dont even begin publishing in academic journals until at least their mid-twenties, and more senior scholars in their forties and fifties typically determine what gets through.

The ideas associated with the Great Awokening have been circulating for decades, developed largely by mid-career professionals, imposed on institutional policies and educational curricula by bureaucrats and implemented by teachers from K-12 through college, pushed on Gen Z during some of their most formative years (largely to their detriment, research suggests, to the extent that young people internalised these messages at all).

Recent rules micromanaging student interactions or encouraging students to report their peers and professors for any perceived offence were likewise developed and imposed by adults, mostly before Gen Z set foot on college campuses and well before they began to comprise a majority of undergrads (around 2017).

Nor was Gen Z responsible for most decisions over the past decade to terminate employees with little to no due process based on social media outrage and unsubstantiated accusations or for defying prevailing orthodoxies or committing unintentional social faux pas. Although young people often participated in these outrage campaigns, senior management ultimately made the decisions to let people go. And financial considerations are typically far more central to such decisions than concerns about what young people think or say.

Similar realities hold for trends in censorship and self-censorship in science. Yes, as colleagues and I illustrate in a new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), censorship seems to have grown worse in recent years. However, its often driven by scientists rather than students.

Sometimes academics self-censor to protect themselves not just because theyre concerned about preserving their jobs, but also out of a desire to be liked and included within their disciplines and institutions, or because they dont wish to create problems for their advisees (at the hands of intolerant professors and other gatekeepers).

Other times, scholars attempt to suppress their own or others findings because they view them as incorrect, misleading or potentially dangerous. Sometimes scientists try to squash public discussion of contentious issues for fear that it undermines public trust or scientific authority or provides ammunition for perceived bad actors. As mid-career professionals grew more focused on social justice after 2011, they probably also grew more likely to censor and self-censor in pursuit of these prosocial ends.

This reality has been obscured, in part, because professors often use students as foot soldiers in their censorious campaigns for instance, by trying to cultivate complaints against colleagues they hope to purge, or by firing up students to demonstrate in the service of their pet causes.

According to data by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), roughly 45 per cent of attempts to punish US scholars for their teaching, research or speech are driven by students often egged on by professors or others. While this is a lot, its also the case that most (55 per cent) of the time faculty face disciplinary action, the campaigns are led by colleagues, administrators or outside actors. Other forms of censorship (such as politically biased publication and institutional review board decisions) are driven almost exclusively by academics, not students.

Again, it might be true that Gen Z has idiosyncratic beliefs about free speech, but thats not why knowledge economy institutions are so messed up. They were on a negative trajectory already and seem to be turning a corner now, even as Gen Z are enrolling in ever-growing numbers.

The kids are alright. Its the adults you have to worry about.

Musa al-Gharbi is a sociologist and assistant professor in the School of Communication and Journalism at Stony Brook University and a research fellow at Heterodox Academy.

Go here to see the original:
Blame adults these days for censorship - Times Higher Education