Category Archives: Censorship

Newspapers and magazines and any kind of media in printed form have always, and I mean always, reserved the right to publish or not publish whatever they feel like publishing or not publishing for whatever reasoneven just because. I come from printed stuff. This belief is baked into me. When newspapers and magazines and any kind of media in printed form decide not to publish something, it's not nor ever will be censorship. It's reserving the right to publish or not publish whatever for whatever.

This right to publish or not publish whatever they want for whatever reason is rooted in the history, tradition and constitutional guarantee of the rights to free speech, free thought, free expression and free inquiry. People who do not own the local newspaper have the equal right to raise hell when the paper doesn't publish their letters to the editor, when the newspaper won't run their press releases, but the local newspaper is not silencing them or canceling themand it is not censoring them. Everyone in America has the right to free speech. No one in America has the right to be published.

Newspapers and magazines and any kind of media in printed form used to be the exclusive venues for the expression of public opinion. Obviously, that's still partly the case, but Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms have expanded the square infinitesimally. Instead of writing for the New Haven Register, and hoping to have a modicum of influence on the political thinking of my neighbors, I now write this newsletter, hoping to have a modicum of influence on the political thinking of my fellow Americans. The principles of free speech, however, are the same. If Substack, the platform I'm using, stopped working with me, for whatever reason, there might be serious consequences, but among those would not be credible allegations of censorship. Substack has the right to publish or not publish whatever for whatever.

I'm making a big deal about this for a good reason. We are in a moment in our history where politics is slowly taking our culture further, a few steps further, in a liberal direction. The election of an out-and-out fascist in 2016 unleashed a torrent of political energy, especially with respect to women (#MeToo) and Black people and people of color (George Floyd, Black Lives Matter, DACA, the border wall and Muslim ban). The unseating of a sitting president by an anti-racist and anti-fascist coalition is, to me, the greatest illustration of this forward movement. One of the consequences of this torrent of history-changing political energy has been that "white peoplewhite men, in particularface a little more scrutiny today than in the past," wrote Thomas Zimmer, a historian and visiting professor at Georgetown University, recently:

In other words, the more liberal we get, the more likely people benefiting from the status quo are going to bitch and moan about censorship. As we debate "cancel culture" and other terms made up by those who benefit from the status quo, the meaning of censorship has expanded so aggressively and in so many directions it has come to mean anything that's not unfettered, unchallenged, highly lubricated and friction-free speech. Censorship is now so uncritically defined that it means anyone disagreeing with me is censoring me. Again, Professor Zimmer: "You can see why white men with big public platforms from across the political spectrum see 'persecution' where I see progress: If you believe you are entitled to say and do whatever you want without legal or cultural sanction, 'leftist' activism is a threat."

There's that word, "entitled." We have confused entitled speech for free speech. They are not and never have been the same. But as we move through this moment in history, in which we reexamine how we elected a fascist and, furthermore, the social and political conditions from which he arose, we are blurring them. In the process of protecting the privileges of those who have benefited from the status quo, we are, ironically, protecting the conditions that made us weak enough to elect a fascist.

Facebook, Twitter, or any social media platform banning anyone for any reason is not censorship. It is not silencing. It is not cancelling. It is that platform exercising its own right to host, or "publish," whatever it wants for whatever reason. It is an exercise of that platform's right to free speech, free expression, etc. We live in a time in which there are unprecedented ways to express oneself. You don't need Facebook to be a free citizen. Write a blog! Write a letter to the editor! Speechify from a soapbox in a public park! We are acting like we're entitled to a Facebook account. When it bans someone for whatever reason, it's big bad censorship. No, it's not. Instead, it's complaining about not getting what you want when you want it. It's acting more like a consumer than a citizen, more like a spoiled child than responsible grownup. People who see themselves as victims are people ready to put a dictator in the White House.

When Twitter bans a former president, that's not censorship. When Facebook bans a former president temporarily, that's not censorship. When someone criticizes someone else, calling them a racist, that's not censorship. When organized groups build social pressure to force public or private institutions to live up to their stated ideals, that's not censorship. When someone says, "Hey, you can't say that!" that's not censorship. When a crowd shouts down a speaker, that's not censorship. When a Black person or person of color tells a white person to take a seat, that's not censorship. When a town enacts noise ordinances or when it outlaws the breach of peace, that's not censorship. When a state outlaws the distribution of child pornography, that's not censorship. When the government asks social media platforms to stop hosting misinformation about the health, safety and efficacy of the covid vaccines, that's not censorship. All of these are acts of free speech or counter-speech. All of them are legitimate politics.

It's effective politics, from the point of view of people who benefit from the status quo, to get as many people as possible to think it's censorship. That way, people don't have to think about whether it's a good idea to let a massive social media platform keep hosting misinformation about the health, safety and efficacy of the covid vaccines in a pandemic that's likely to kill a million Americans before it's all over. That way, people don't have to think about the role of white supremacy in the shaping of the republic. They don't have to think. They can instead dismiss it, as if it were illegitimate. And while they are doing that, people who benefit from the status quo, especially white men, can enact laws that actually do infringe on the right to free speech. Many states, but especially southern states, are now outlawing teaching the history of slavery. This, my friend, is what censorship is: when a government forbids learning and knowledge, because ignorance and poverty are better for people who benefit from the status quo.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Go here to see the original:
Are we really in a crisis of 'censorship'? - AlterNet

Popular Twitch streamer and wildlife conservationist Maya Higa revealed to viewers that she literally cannot use her surname in Twitch stream titles, as it is deemed to be potentially inappropriate.

Twitch has come under fire for its censorship of words many times before.

While certain words are appropriately moderated, the likes of Nick Nmplol Polom have slammed Twitch in the past for censoring words like obese, which he argued should be allowed as a genuine medical term.

Questions were also raised at the height of the hot tub meta, as Twitch appeared to censor the term hot tubfrom the official channels own chat, prompting backlash from viewers.

And its not just censorship of words in chat, too. Minecraft sensation GeorgeNotFound had his channel ThisIsGeorgeNotFound banned, apparently for containing words that intimidates, degrades, abuses or bullies others.

But on her July 24 Twitch stream, Maya revealed perhaps the most bizarre example of censorship yet, as she said that her boyfriend Mizkif wasnt able to use her actual surname in a stream title as it was too similar to a racial slur.

Mizkif had to name her as Maya Robert in his title instead, prompting widespread confusion among viewers as chat was spammed with question marks.

She explained: He tried to write Maya Higa, and they wouldnt let him write it because they said it was potentially inappropriate. It reads too much like the N-word. They wont let you put it in a title.

However. Mayas surname is only banned from being in titles, meaning viewers are still able to type Higa into chat, further blurring the boundaries on censorship of supposed slurs.

Twitch has not publicly responded to the situation, but either way, it remains one of the strangest pieces of censorship on the platform.

Read more:
Streamer Maya Higa literally cant use her own surname on Twitch - Dexerto

The largest decentralized exchange [DEX] Uniswaps software development studio had earlier revealed restricting access to some tokens, including synthetic stocks and derivatives from the platform interface.

Over the past couple of weeks, several cryptocurrency firms such as Binance have removed their tokenized stock products. But Uniswaps move is different than most centralized exchanges since it is only restricting access through its own interface.

Uniswap Labs did not clearly mention the actual reason behind the restriction but in the official blog post, the studio had said that the tokens in question represented a very small portion of the overall volume on the Uniswap Protocol. However, it is important to note that there are several ways in which censorship can be bypassed. In fact, the users can still access these tokens through other portals on the DeFi platform that supports them. Parafi Capitals Nick Chong also revealed that there are a ton of alternative interfaces.

Chong observed that the restricted assets accounted for a total of $5.9 million worth of volume over the past seven days which is around 0.076% of the decentralized exchanges 7-day volume. He called it a rounding error. Chong also emphasized the need for bookmarking decentralized interfaces and mirror applications and asserted,

The world needs decentralized interfaces. Wouldnt it have been bad if all non-power user DeFi traders woke up one day and the Uniswap Labs interface was gone w/ no alternatives? This is a wake-up call! Bookmark the decentralized interfaces.

The latest move has opened a can of worms about the never-ending decentralization and the impact of regulatory oversight on decentralized finance [DeFi]. Interestingly, the development comes days after the United States regulatory watchdog announced that that they would increasingly monitor these types of products. Needless to say, the platform has been at the receiving end of severe backlash from the community.

Joey Krug, the co-CIO of Pantera Capital and co-founder of Augur said that even though he loves Uniswap, he said that the decision sets a bad example. Krug reiterated General Douglas MacArthurs famous quote and claimed that this would not be the first case of defi censorship.

History teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement begets new and bloodier wars. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace.

See more here:
Uniswap's Users Can Still Bypass Censorship Of The Main UI, Trade Restricted Assets - TronWeekly

The Biden administration is teaming up with Big Tech to censor what they deem to be misinformation on COVID-19. What constitutes misinformation, and why do our tech and government overlords get to decide what is true and what isnt?

Vince and Jason debate the topic on todays episode. Stay tuned to hear the one thing Vince and Jason agree on when it comes to government overreach. (HINT: It has to do with the Patriot Act!) (RELATED: Take This Crap Off Their Platforms: Amy Klobuchar Says Social Media Companies Should Be Liable For Misinformation)

Vince & Jason Save The Nation is a political debate show that grapples with Americas most pressing questions. The show features intelligent, brutally honest conversations between Vince Coglianese and Jason Nichols, two nationally renowned political commentators who come from opposite sides of the political divide but share a profound love of country. Enlisting the support of their fascinating and talented guests, Vince and Jason tackle the existential issues confronting America and set out on their quest to Save the Nation.

Subscribe to Save The Nation on Apple Podcasts:https://rb.gy/mletxb

Subscribe to Save The Nation on Spotify:https://rb.gy/jd7gdx

Here is the original post:
Should Bidens WH Police Social Media, Or Is This A Fascistic Censorship Regime? | Vince & Jason Save The Nation - Daily Caller

MIAMI (CBSMiami) With the Cuban governments ability to limit access to internet communications during the current anti-government demonstrations, US Government officials and Cuban American activists have suggested the US provide unfettered internet.

In a way, the US Government is already in the game with the help of a Canadian-based software company.

Canadian-based Psiphon provides people with uncensored access to the internet.

Psiphon bypasses government restrictions by letting people sign on to a server that gives them secure access to web pages anywhere.

Critical in the developing Cuban street protests, as in all movements, especially those in nations in the grips of repressive regimes, where internet services are censored or cut off entirely.

Psiphon engineers say they can keep the Cuban demonstrators hooked up.

We reconnect you to the internet. A secure tunnel that cant be interfered with, said Michael Hull, President and founder of Psiphon.

Cubans in recent years have accessed, embraced the internet.

They make use of communication apps like WhatsApp and Facebook, but when the anti-government protests spread across the island the regime shut down those services.

The protestors ability to communicate and send videos went dark.

A simple free app helped cut through the censorship.

Our service is designed to be able to support that type of activity. Upholding social media or sending through instant message app. We make it so that continues to work, said Hull.

US politicians have suggested internet satellite services such as Elon Musks star-link might skirt the Cuban internet crackdown, but the service is not practical, since it requires a dish, which would be easily spotted by the Cuban government.

An app, on the other hand, in the hands of a Cuban protester would be a much different story.

Psiphon claims, There are a million and a half people in Cuba using Psiphon, getting on the internet.

The cry is for the US Government to bring uncensored internet to Cuba.

A healthy portion of Psiphons funding, according to the company, comes from the US Governments open technology fund.

It is a determined effort by the u.S. Congress that internet freedom, in general, is available, said Hull.

Keeping the movement alive on both sides of the straits of Florida depends heavily on communication and mobilization. Psiphons app has been used to push through video of the Cuban demonstrations.

We are there to solve a real-world problem and then happily step away, Hull said.

It is a cat and mouse game. The Cubans continually modify their censorship technology and Psiphon reenforces their secure tunnel.

Read the original post:
Cubans On The Island Circumvent Internet Censorship With Psiphon App - CBS Miami

Chinese censors have approved Denis Villeneuves sci-fi spectacular Dune for release in the worlds largest film market. The film has officially announced that it will hit local screens this year, although it has not yet set a release date.

In late June, Warner Bros. shifted the films U.S. release date back from Oct. 1 to Oct. 22 amidst a larger scheduling reshuffle by the company. In China, the film is distributed by Wanda subsidiary Legendary Pictures.

A big consideration for the timing change may have been that the planned Oct. 1 release would have coincided with Chinas Oct. 1 National Day holiday and the subsequent weeks-long protectionist period during which there is an unofficial blackout on foreign titles to boost sales for local propaganda films. Other types of blockbusters, local and imported alike, should be returning to theaters around the Oct. 22 date.

The later date also bolsters its Chinese box office prospects. Should Dune have released Oct. 1 on HBO Max before a Chinese theatrical release, its China sales would likely have been significantly impacted by piracy, particularly since HBO Max is unavailable in the mainland.

The film has made casting choices that will appeal to a Chinese viewership, selecting Taiwan-born actor Chang Chen to play Dr. Wellington Yueh, a role previously taken up in past film adaptations by white actors Dean Stockwell (1984s Dune) and Robert Russell (Frank Herberts Dune miniseries). Chang is known for his roles in Wong Kar-wais Happy Together and 2046, Ang Lees Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hou Hsiao-hsiens Three Times and The Assassin.

Passing censorship more than three months before its North America debut will hopefully help smooth the way for Dune to secure a day-and-date release for China alongside domestic, although that is not always the case. Marvels Black Widow, for instance, passed censorship back in March, but has yet to announce a China release date despite opening July 9 stateside.

The news of the greenlight for the China Dune outing was met with an outpouring of excitement from Chinese viewers, many of whom are already dubbing it one of the major movie events of the year.

Villeneuves past films have had strong, though not smashing success, at the Chinese box office. China was the top overseas territory for both Arrival and Blade Runner 2049, which grossed $15.9 million and $11.7 million in the country, respectively.

Continue reading here:
Dune Passes Chinese Censorship, to the Relief of Fans - Variety

The censorship and forced removal of an art installation in Essex, following complaints and threats by Conservative councillors, marks an ominous escalation of attacks on democratic rights and artistic expression in Britain.

'An English Garden, by Gabriella Hirst, was a rose garden installation at Shoeburyness, near Southend on the Essex coast, reflecting on the violent legacies and historical traumas of atomic armament as they playout in domestic settings. It was attacked by Conservative councillors as a direct far left wing attack on our History, our People and our Democratically Elected Government.

Britains first nuclear weapon was assembled close to the site in 1952, and then shipped to indigenous territory in Australia for testing. Australian-born Hirst wanted to invite reflection on the devastating impact of 12 British nuclear tests on indigenous lands between 1952 and 1963. Aboriginal communities at Maralinga, Emu Field and Monte Bello Islands were exposed to the tests and displaced by them.

Hirst wrote that the garden reflects Britains historical and ongoing identity as a colonial nuclear state. She described Britains imperialist programme as gardening the world, in its cultivation of claimed territory for the needs of the empire. Her project was prepared over several years.

In 1953, to mark public interest in nuclear technology and the Cold War, German rose-breeder Reimar Kordes created a rose variety of Rosa floribunda, Atom Bomb. After early success, the variety fell from popularityunlike, as Hirst and curator Warren Harper note, nuclear weapons and their accompanying political rhetoric.

In 2020 the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook recorded a worldwide inventory of 13,400 nuclear weapons, 3,720 of them deployed with operational forces. Hirst and Harper noted the Johnson governments lifting in March this year of caps to its stockpile of Trident nuclear warheads by 40 percent, writing that We are still one minute to midnight.

Hirst and Harper set out to bring the Atom Bomb rose, now arguably nearing extinction, back into circulation as a way of drawing attention to this history and its present political manifestation. They sourced a cultivar and set about propagating new generations of the variety. They produced an instruction guide, How To Make A Bomb , to encourage what they describe as civilian horticultural agency that will provide space for reflection and diffusion of atomic-era anxiety, soothing the mania of living in the age of constantly undulating nuclear stand-off.

Southend-based artist charity The Old Waterworks (TOW) have been hosting the How To Make A Bomb project for nearly three years, providing a base for the propagation and allowing Hirst the opportunity to conduct further research.

TOW have produced an artists book of the project, which was due to be incorporated into the Estuary 2021 exhibition. Under a commission from TOW and Metal, a project for the artistic transformation of buildings of historic significance into cultural community hubs, Hirst installed An English Garden in Gunners Park, Shoeburyness, for which Metal had secured the appropriate site licence. The exhibition was due to last until the end of August.

The rose garden centred on a display of Atom Bomb roses, fringed to the south east by Cliffs of Dover irises, a variety also cultivated in 1952. On the garden benches around the flower bed were brass plaques pointing up the history of British nuclear armament locally and internationally and drawing out symbolic associations in horticulture. Photos of the work can be seen at the artists website.

On June 21, a group of local Conservative ward councillors began a systematic campaign of complaints about one of the plaques, calling its content offensive and unpalatable. The plaque accuses Britain of making a choice to direct considerable resources towards industries of violence instead of those of care and repeats Hirsts description of its ongoing identity as a colonial nuclear state. The councillors issued a 48-hour ultimatum to remove the plaque. Otherwise, they said, the Council would intervene to censor it and launch a national media campaign of vilification.

They intensified pressure on TOW, Metal and Hirst, demanding the alteration of the plaques text under supervision. TOW said this undoubtedly would have changed the content and meaning of the artwork, shifting the works intentions and putting words into the artists mouth. If this did not happen by 6pm, June 23, the councillors threatened to take action against the work. Little of this correspondence has been published in full, but Metal described the threat as one of bringing national attention highlighting what was their fundamental misreading of the work.

At the head of the councillors involved in this assault on democratic and artistic expression is James Moyies, director of the Vote Leave campaign for the east of England, and formerly a UKIP councillor. He was expelled from UKIP for simultaneously supporting the Conservatives, confirming the unanimity across the far right of the ruling class.

TOW said they were unaware of any other negative responses to An English Garden prior to the councillors intervention. They said that Moyiess comments grossly misinterpret the artwork and provide inadequate and vague justifications with no satisfactory evidence.

Moyies has claimed the work was inappropriate in a council-owned site, although the licensed and authorised installation seems to have been on privately leased land. The attack on the installation was not conducted by the council, but on behalf of Southends Conservative Group of Councillors. This raises questions about the scale of threat and intimidation that led Metal to withdraw the work on 23 June.

TOW said there had been no positive engagement from the councillors, who threatened to play out the dialogue across the media, bypassing all attempts of reasonable discussion. Metal said they took their decision to remove the installation to protect the wellbeing and mental health of our small team of staff and volunteers in Southend from possible adverse effects that might arise from any action taken against the work based on a distortion of the actual meaning of the work and our intentions for including it within the programme for Estuary 2021.

Metals capitulation to this blatant act of censorship enabled Moyies to say, with repulsive smugness, the situation was amicably resolved.

Hirst, who opposed the removal, wrote on Facebook, Seemingly said government and its global scale nuclear arsenal was not considered robust enough to endure the airing of historical facts and critique via a rose garden art installation.

TOW spoke with dismay at the victory granted to Moyies and his cultural thugs. Art is meant to spark debate, provoke thought and encourage new ways of seeing the world, it should not be shut down because what it proposes does not align with the views of individuals, particularly when based on extensive research and historical facts.

History, they wrote, is not simply a celebratory fanfare and it is everyones right to be able to explore the nuances of this shared history and how it has ongoing impacts today.

The Southend incident is only the latest in a rising wave of censorship and suppression of artworks. At the same time as the Southend events were being reported, footage emerged of a police raid at East London arts complex Antepavilion. The target was a rooftop installation by the Project Bunny Rabbit collective, All Along the Watchtower, targeted because it resembles a bamboo and cable structure used by climate action group Extinction Rebellion at protests.

Artist Damian Meade posted CCTV footage on Instagram showing the vast and aggressive June 25 raid, conducted under Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The Metropolitan Police said they were taking proactive action against potential Extinction Rebellion activity. Meade commented that the police raided Antepavilion with the intention of removing [All Along the Watchtower] (but failed).

Five people were arrested, all later released. They included building owner Russell Gray, arrested for dangerous driving when he arrived on his motorbike to find out what was going on. The police, he said, thought resemblance to a structure used by Extinction Rebellion in some demonstrations, somewhere was enough.

The turn outwards to historical and political realities by artists like Gabriella Hirst and Project Bunny Rabbit is a healthy and encouraging development. Its urgency is only underscored by the use of ever-greater weapons of censorship and repression against any form of critical expression or thought.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Read more:
Censorship of Southend UK art installation points to rising suppression of art and critical thought - WSWS

Texas teachers and students denounced a more strict anti-critical race theory bill as censorship and anti-civics education at a Senate committee hearing.

The bill will likely reach the full Senate for a vote soon after gaining committee approval Thursday afternoon.

The special session proposal builds off of a bill Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law last month that seeks to ban critical race theory from the classroom. Abbott insisted more could be done to abolish the theory from being taught to Texas public school students.

But educators insist critical race theory an academic framework that probes the way policies and laws uphold systemic racism in areas like education or housing is not part of curriculum. They worry the new law and any efforts to make teaching more restrictive will have a chilling effect on conversations about race and current events in the classroom. Representatives from major teacher groups complained that they were not consulted in the crafting of the proposal.

Gabriella Gonzalez, a student teacher in Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD, told lawmakers that she did not know how to teach about the diversity of Texas student population with the bill in place and that it didnt offer sufficient directions to new teachers like herself.

I deserve to know my place in Texas history and so does every fourth and seventh grader looking at [their curriculum] in the state, Gonzalez said. I should feel no fear when teaching the experience to Hispanic populations during social studies or any content area.

A group of roughly 50 opponents who included teachers, students and education advocates crowded the balcony of the Texas Senate on Thursday to oppose the legislation, even though it has little chance of passing anytime soon. House Democrats broke quorum earlier this week, effectively halting their chamber from taking any action to advance the bill.

Every student should learn about our countrys history, good and bad, said Ana Ramn, the deputy director of advocacy with the Intercultural Development Research Association. This [bill] is attacking our opportunity to help people and students understand systemic racism in our state.

Neither the new law nor the proposal authored by Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, mentions the theory explicitly.

Instead, the law Abbott signed last month prohibits schools from compelling social studies teachers to discuss a particular current event or widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs and mandates that teachers discussing such topics not give deference to any one perspective.

Hughes version goes a step further, extending the prohibition to teachers in all subject areas and eliminating a number of required teachings including the history of Native Americans, the Chicano movement and womens suffrage.

It also strikes a required curriculum on the history of white supremacy and the ways in which it is morally wrong. Each of the eliminated lessons were added into the law by House Democrats at the end of the last regular session.

The Mineola Republican explained Thursday that his legislation slashes many of the required teachings because it is the State Board of Educations role to determine what is taught.

We are not saying those things cant be taught, Hughes said. This bill is about ... broad concepts.

State Board of Education Chairman Keven Ellis, R-Lufkin, noted at the committee meeting that much of the required teachings listed within the law signed by Abbott were already included in Texas required curriculum. Ellis oversees the board charged with interpreting the legislation into curriculum standards that all schools will have to follow.

The strikethroughs are not being taken as a signal to the state board to limit those topics, Ellis said.

Hughes bill also establishes a civics training program that would prepare educators to guide discussion of current events and teach media literacy, including instruction on verifying information and sources. The proposal also forbids schools from awarding course credit or making part of a course work for organizations that lobby for legislation at the federal, state or local levels.

Responding to concerns about enforcement, Hughes said he was open to exploring mechanisms and suggested that schools could use existing systems to track who is following the guidelines in the legislation and who is not.

Some proponents suggested penalties for breaking the tenets of the bill. The group of about a dozen commenters who voiced support for the legislation Thursday were mostly parents alleging their schools were teaching the academic theory.

One mother claimed that her son, who recently graduated from a high school near Houston, did not know how to write a sentence or what a semicolon was because schools have been focusing on the wrong things, including critical race theory.

You were hired to teach facts and skills [and] equip students for a successful life, not to hate their parents, the police or their country, said Ruth York, a representative of the Tea Party Patriots, addressing teachers.

Texas is one of several states that have been drawn into the turbulent cultural debate over whether critical race theory is being taught in K-12 classrooms. The mere insinuation that the concept is present in curriculum has drawn dozens to school board meetings and legislative hearings. It even became a focal point of several trustee races in Texas.

The definition of the theory is often in contention. Sen. Bob Hall, R-Rockwall, described the theory as teaching our kids to hate and activist training while a critic of the bill said it was not teaching kids that white people are bad, but that white supremacy is bad.

Hughes bill passed out of committee with only Republicans voting to forward it to the Senate floor. The bills author said it would likely come up for consideration by the full chamber fairly quickly with some potential amendments, including one that would clarify that eliminating required teachings wont prevent instructors from teaching the full curriculum.

The DMN Education Lab deepens the coverage and conversation about urgent education issues critical to the future of North Texas.

The DMN Education Lab is a community-funded journalism initiative, with support from The Beck Group, Bobby and Lottye Lyle, Communities Foundation of Texas, The Dallas Foundation, Dallas Regional Chamber, Deedie Rose, The Meadows Foundation, Solutions Journalism Network, Southern Methodist University and Todd A. Williams Family Foundation. The Dallas Morning News retains full editorial control of the Education Labs journalism.

Continued here:
Anti-critical race theory bill heads to Senate after teachers assail it as censorship - The Dallas Morning News

The debate over censorship of the internet by big tech companies seems to be intensifying. This is a real problem, but there is a danger that some potential cures may be worse than the disease.

The big tech media giants have increasingly been making editorial decisions relating to major political controversies. Given the near monopolistic reach of companies like Twitter and Facebook, critics, particularly on the right, have a legitimate concern that there is a concerted effort to suppress political speech.

There are numerous examples of this, and not just the current ban of former President Trump, who won 74 million votes in the last election, from both Facebook and Twitter. You dont have to believe Mr. Trumps claims that the last election was stolen, or endorse his actions on January 6, to think that it is inappropriate to exclude such an important political figure for extended periods. But it goes well beyond Mr. Trumps exclusion. The tech companies seem increasingly disinclined to permit political posts that runs counter to the prevailing liberal narrative. For example, just before the election a decision was made to squelch a credible report in the New York Post concerning Hunter Bidens laptop and its possible connection to candidate Joe Biden.

And with respect to the Covid virus, almost any speech outside the mainstream has been excluded, or at least subject to contentious fact checks or cautionary messages. For a while even stories suggesting a connection between the virus and the Chinese laboratory in Wuhan were considered disinformation. To be clear, I got the vaccine months ago, and I think most people should get shots. But excluding much of the skepticism about the vaccines, its efficacy and its potential side effects seems a little excessive.

While it isnt a good thing that a few billionaires have an outsized impact on what is permissible speech, it is less than obvious what can be done as a remedy.

One potential solution would be to require that large internet providers treat all speech equally, as is required of the government, which (unlike private companies) is subject to the First Amendment. Alternatively, you could treat the big providers as though they are a public utility which, like the telephone companies of old, were largely required to accept speech from all comers.

While the argument has been made that the big tech sites operate the functional equivalent of the town square, and thus is similar the government, in fact the tech companies have different rights, powers and responsibilities than governmental authorities. In addition, you probably wouldnt want all speech rules applicable to the government also to apply to the tech companies. For example, most people are comfortable with at least some forms of censorship by the tech companies. Facebook, for example, seems well within its rights to prohibit pornographic images which might not be legally obscene. And even if it might be legally protected speech, few of us are concerned that that, say, Twitter, does not allow rants by neo-Nazis or the Klan on its site. Similar arguments would be applicable to the public utility theory since censorship would be largely prohibited.

It has also been suggested that large utilities lose their protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which under most circumstances shields internet company for liability for defamatory posts of third parties. The problem here is that, unlike newspapers and most television shows, it is impossible, or at least very impractical, to prescreen user content.

There is also the idea of an antitrust initiative against the big players, with unknown economic ramifications.

I guess in my perfect world, there would be an understanding by the tech company that suppressing a large chunk of political speech is not in their long term best interest and that they would do well to take a less heavy hand rather than be subjected to the heavy hand of legislation or regulation. Well see if they come to realize that.

See the rest here:
Big Tech, Censorship and the Internet - Garden City News

Fox Nation host Tammy Bruce told "The Faulkner Focus" on Friday that American corporations working with the government on potential censorship is "classic fascism." Bruce reacted to White House press secretary Jen Psaki announcing that the administration is working on flagging Facebook on "misinformation" about COVID-19 vaccines.

CRITICS SLAM THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER PSAKI REVEALS IT'S CONSULTING WITH FACEBOOK TO 'FLAG MISINFORMATION'

TAMMY BRUCE: This is more than just the First Amendment. I have to say, to have corporate America work with the government, that is the core of fascism. That is the only way that fascism can work is when you've got a corporate bolster and they're in the pool with you in order to make that kind of control functional.

So this moves us into quite an authoritarian framework where it's also messaged very casually. If you notice, like this is totally normal. It's not only not normal, it not only is a violation of the First Amendment, clearly, but it sets a very different approach when it comes to what the founders had in mind, which was a representative republic. Democracy, right? This is very classically fascism.

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW BELOW:

The rest is here:
Tammy Bruce: 'Classic fascism' for government to work with corporations to censor 'misinformation' - Fox News