Category Archives: Censorship

As Taiwan gears up for the presidential and legislative election on 13 January, the Chinese government is also ramping up its efforts to interfere. From sponsored trips to China for local leaders, economic coercion, fake opinion polls, and disinformation campaigns, some analysts say the wide-ranging tactics that Beijing has unleashed will have an impact on the elections outcome.

In recent weeks, Taiwanese authorities have launched investigations into several cases of individuals attempting to sway voters by inviting local borough chiefs and village leaders on group tours to China. These trips are partially sponsored by local Chinese authorities.

During the trips, participants were allegedly encouraged by officials from Chinas propaganda department to vote for political parties and candidates favoured by Beijing. At least one man has been indicted while several others are facing ongoing investigations.

Apart from sponsored trips, Beijing also rolled out coercive economic measures to pressure Taiwan, suspending tariff relief on imports of 12 Taiwanese petrochemical products, and blaming it on the trade barriers enacted by Taiwans ruling Democratic Progressive Party.

Since 2023 is a major year of cross-strait exchange for China, Chinese authorities have devoted a lot of resources to facilitate influence campaigns against Taiwan, Puma Shen, chairperson of Taipei-based research group Doublethink Lab, told Index on Censorship. They want to make sure that Taiwanese people feel threatened but also are not too afraid of the influence campaigns from China.

The most recent example of Chinas influence campaign is an investigation into alleged lip-sync by popular Taiwanese rock band Mayday, a practice that is banned for live musicians in China. A Taiwanese security agency internal memo claims the investigation is Beijings attempt to pressure the rock band into publicly supporting the position that Taiwan is a part of China.

Shen from Doublethink Lab said Taiwanese people who have huge financial stakes in China, such as artists and businessmen, often become targets of Chinas influence campaign. Even though they are earning money in China, they are more like victims, he said.

Multi-pronged cognitive warfare

In addition to economic coercion and influencing local politicians, some experts say China has also launched multi-pronged cognitive warfare against Taiwan ahead of the election, amplifying narratives criticising the ruling party through state media outlets and initiating disinformation campaigns on social media platforms, including TikTok, YouTube and Facebook.

Over the last few months, Chinas state-run media outlets have repeated the narrative that the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is pushing Taiwan to the brink of war with its efforts to pursue Taiwan independence. The narrative resonates with criticisms against the DPP by opposition candidates in Taiwan, who have repeatedly accused DPPs presidential candidate, Lai Ching-te, of being the golden child of Taiwan independence.

There are also signs that Chinese state media and online troll groups are amplifying narratives aimed at damaging the image and credibility of the Taiwanese government, including controversial domestic issues such as the de-sinicization of Taiwans curriculum and scepticism toward the Taiwanese governments deepened relations with the USA.

According to Taiwan AI Labs, online troll groups have mirrored narratives promoted by Chinese state media, including the Peoples Daily, Haiwainet, Xinhua News Agency, Global Times, and China Central Television (CCTV). While there is no direct evidence to prove that China is behind all online troll groups, Taiwan AI Labs said their behaviours fit the criteria of autocratic countries interference in democratic elections.

Since the online troll groups promote narratives about Taiwanese domestic issues and U.S. President Joe Biden and there is a high similarity between the narratives they promote and the narratives preferred by Chinese state media, we can conclude that it fits the methods that autocratic countries use to interfere in democratic elections, Ethan Tu, the founder of Taiwan AI Labs, said.

Compared to Chinas efforts to interfere in previous Taiwan elections, it is becoming harder to determine whether disinformation targeting the upcoming Taiwanese election originates from China or not.

This time around, its very difficult to determine whether the disinformation originates from China or is created by actors within Taiwan, Chiaoning Su, an associate professor in communication, journalism, and public relations at Oakland University, told Index on Censorship.

In her view, China has built up a better understanding of public opinion in Taiwan and they realise that for efforts of election interference to work, the narratives they amplify need to match the trend in Taiwans public opinion.

The way that China is amplifying social economic issues such as the controversy of lack of eggs or the debate about reducing the amount of ancient Chinese literature in the curriculum shows that their efforts to initiate disinformation campaign are becoming more localised and harder to trace, Su said.

Shen from Doublethink Lab said one of the main goals of Chinas disinformation campaign is to denigrate democracy. They want to show the Taiwanese public that Taiwans democracy is a mess and that while the DPP claims to protect democracy and freedom, in the end, it is not democratic and free at all, he told Index on Censorship.

Since Taiwan is a democracy that values freedom of speech, Shen thinks Taiwanese authorities need to deal with the threats that come with Chinas election interference through ways that will safeguard Taiwanese peoples freedom of expression, by specifically identifying remarks which originate from sources external to Taiwan.

Otherwise, they will fall into Chinas trap, he said.

See the article here:
Chinese election interference tests Taiwans capability to defend freedom of speech - Index on Censorship

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Read the original here:
Laws banning semi-automatic weapons and library censorship to take effect in Illinois - Index-Journal

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Read the original here:
Jeff Crouere: Censorship is un-American; free speech is the answer - The Franklin Sun

Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli supporters converge at a demonstration of New York University students in November. Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images hide caption

Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli supporters converge at a demonstration of New York University students in November.

The conflict between Israel and Hamas is testing the limits of free speech across college campuses. And it's also affecting those who study the Middle East.

Who are they? They are the scholars who research and teach about the Middle East on college campuses in the U.S.

What did it find? Notably, it found that a clear majority of U.S.-based scholars (69%) didn't just feel the need to self-censor when speaking about the Middle East in general, but specifically in academic and professional settings.

Want to learn more on this conflict? Listen to Consider This on whether Biden's unconditional support of Israel is nearing its limit.

Members of Columbia University's faculty hold a protest in support of free speech on the Columbia University campus in November. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption

What are people saying? The poll was conducted by Shibley Telhami a professor of government and politics and the director of the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll and Marc Lynch a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Telhami spoke to All Things Considered host Ari Shapiro about the findings and how the academic climate has shifted.

On the motivations for scholars choosing to self-censor:

The key is that most of it was actually fear rather than sensitivity. And so that was fascinating.

There are many who self-censor because they got advice from senior colleagues or from administrators not to say anything that might be interpreted offensively by people, and it wouldn't be good for their careers, particularly assistant professors and graduate students.

So that's not exactly self-censorship because you're sensitive. It's more about worried about the consequences. We had a lot of colleagues who said they were not invited when the university held events on their very issue of expertise because they were worried that their views may not conform to what is needed on campus.

There were some who were told by administrators to watch out what they say publicly. So we were struck by the kind of atmosphere that a lot of our colleagues across U.S. campuses faced on this issue, much more than I would have expected.

On how it is playing out:

I think the universities are facing different pressures. One of the pressures, obviously, we do have real, genuine increases in antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian, anti-Israeli sentiment.

And universities have to manage all that, and make sure that all their people feel safe. A lot of it is genuine there's nothing un-genuine about it it has to be taken seriously.

But there are a lot of groups that act disproportionately on some of the issues. And undoubtedly a lot of the scholars who follow the issue feel that the public space does not conform to their own professional interpretations of Israel-Palestine. So they're concerned about criticizing Israel publicly.

On the importance of gauging the experiences of scholars:

When you explain violence, you are not embracing violence. This is something that we as social scientists all, of course, understand. We never have to repeat to ourselves.

But society around us does not get it all the time because they think you're taking side when you're explaining why things happen. But if you don't explain why things happen, you're going to repeat the same mistake over and over and over again.

Learn more:

The interview with Shibley Telhami was conducted by Ari Shapiro, produced by Karen Zamora and edited by Tinbete Ermyas.

Read the original here:
Why Middle East scholars are self-censoring in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war - NPR

A very interesting new article, by Profs. James L. Gibson (Wash. U.) and Joseph L. Sutherland (Emory). Here's the key chart, updated to include 2023 data, gathered before the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel (the 2023 data is credited to Peter Enns and Verasight):

Here's the breakdown of the 2020 data by ideology (with the usual cautions about the small size of some of the subsamples, especially on the extremes, and the fact that different people will interpret vague terms such as "free to speak your mind" differently). What struck me is the magnitude of the felt lack of freedom among the three most moderate segments, even setting aside the different reactions on the extremes:

And here's an excerpt from the introduction to the article (read the whole thing here):

[A] large segment of the American people engages in self-censorship when it comes to expressing its views. We define self-censorship as "intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from others in [the] absence of formal obstacles." In an influential study, Michael MacKuen refers to this more simply as deciding to "talk" or "clam."

In a nationally representative survey we conducted in 2020 (seeAppendix Aonline), we asked a question about self-censorship that Samuel Stouffer first put to the American people in 1954: "What about you personally? Do you or don't you feel as free to speak your mind as you used to?" While we readily acknowledge that there are a number of potential frailties with this item, its utility is that the same question has been repeated over a number of surveys between 1954 and 2020 (Appendix C addresses several potential threats to the validity of the indicator, concluding, generally, that like many, if not most, analyses of change in public opinion over time, the value of investigating how responses to the query have evolved exceeds the limitations of the question).

While some might understand these data to indicate that those with "bad" views are no longer free to express themselves, which may be a good thing, we have no means of discerning whether the speech lost is "good" or "bad" speech. Owing to the benefits of deliberations among citizens for democratic politics, most democratic theorists would regard these results as too important to ignore.

What accounts for this remarkable loss of perceived freedom in the United States? How is it that four in ten of the American people do not feel free to express themselves today? Is this loss of free speech a function of fear of being misunderstood by friends and colleagues, or are the causes more systemic, such as government surveillance of social media, telephone, and email discussions? Is the explanation associated with a culture of "political correctness" that many conservatives rail against, or is the source even more elementary, reflecting little more than growing political polarization and incivility, as well as increasing political intolerance in the country?

Our purpose in this article is to explore several hypotheses about the correlates of self-censorship at the aggregate and individual levels. Our analysis here is assuredly not comprehensive or definitive, but in light of the presumed importance of unbridled political discourse for the health of democracies, our findings raise many troubling issues for American democracy. Our most imperative objective in this article is to use these provocative results to spur additional research on why people seem to have learned that keeping their mouths shut is the best thing to do.

To be clear at the onset, our analysis makes few claims to causal certitude in the relationships it investigates. Our cross-sectional analysis is particularly vulnerable to causal doubt (although most demographic attributes are unlikely to be consequences of political attitudes, for most people). We contend that determining what goes with what, and what does not go with what, is a valuable first step in understanding how and why people engage in self-censorship.

Visit link:
"Keeping Your Mouth Shut: Spiraling Self-Censorship in the United States" - Reason

Over 1,000 British and international artists have protested the decision by the Arnolfini International Centre for Contemporary Arts in Bristol to cancel film and poetry events scheduled for December 2 and programmed by the Bristol Palestine Film Festival.

Among the signatories are musician Brian Eno, writers Raymond Antrobus, Isabel Waidner, Lola Olufemi and Huw Lemmey, performance artist Colin Self and actor Juliet Stevenson, artist and musician Robert del Naja, poet Alice Oswald, author and screenwriter Nikesh Shukla, writer and journalist Shon Faye, performance artist Travis Alabanza and Eleanor Marx biographer Rachel Holmes. Many local Bristol artists signed the letter as well.

The first planned event was a screening ofFarha (about Israeli atrocities in 1948), the debut feature film by Jordanian-Palestinian writer-director Darin Sallam, which the WSWS has reviewed, followed by a panel discussion on the film with Palestinian doctor and writer Ghada Karmi and British activist and rapper Lowkey. The second event scheduled for the same day was a spoken word event Poetry on Palestine with Raise the Bar, also featuring Lowkey.

The Arnolfini, which promotes itself as oneofEuropes leading centresfor thecontemporary arts, issued a hypocritical and deceitful statement purporting to explain its decision to exclude the Palestinian events. We recognise that this has led to a variety of views, it begins. The center then claims the reasons for making this challenging decision were based on the difficulty for arts charities hosting events that might be construed as political activity and that hosting events which combine film, performance and discussion panels meant we could not be confident that the event would not stray into political activity.

More than 20,000 human beings, more than half of them women and children, have been slaughtered by the Israeli military in Gaza in one of the worst crimes against humanity in our time. Would the Arnolfini officials have responded in the same manner to the Nazi suppression of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? Well, this is really not our cup of tea, well have to consult government guidelines on campaigning and political activity by charities.

Various commentators responded with outrage on Instagram: This is disgusting and disappointing. At a time where voices must be amplified, you are responsible for shutting them down. It is utterly shameful. An absolutely shameful decision. Palestinian voices need to be heard now more than ever!#freepalestine#savegaza. Disgraceful. We love Bristol and are regular visitors of your awesome city and you let them down hugely! Shame on your business. This is THE time to stand up and support#palestineand the arts of all.#freepalestine. History is watching.

An appeal from David North: Donate to the WSWS today

Watch the video message from WSWS International Editorial Board Chairman David North.

The artists open letter pointed to the dishonest comments about unacceptable political activity, noting that this has not been a serious concern in all the previous years that Arnolfini hosted the [Palestine] film festival. Nor has it been a problem with many other exhibitions and public programs on such subjects as decolonization and Black Lives Matter, feminism and gender liberation, refugee and asylum seekers rights. All such events have all taken place without being seen to fall outside the venues charitable purpose.

Even more tellingly, exposing the right-wing political agenda of the centres officialdom, Artists for Palestine UK observed that last year Arnolfini hosted an event that opposed Russias war crimes in Ukraine, with part of the ticket sales going to the Disasters Emergency Committee Ukraine!

The open letter expressed incredulity in response to the centres explanation for its act of blatant censorship and, in practice, support for the Israeli genocide.

The letter cited the comment by one opponent of the censorship that the purpose of art is to hold space for as many voices as possible, not to silence them. Removing events platforming Palestinian experiences IS a political move. Another said, If you only show artists work that focuses on oppression when it suits you, its called exploitation.

The letter continues, The decision by a publicly funded venue to censor Palestinian film and poetry events is a particularly concerning part of analarming patternof censorship and repression within the arts sector.

In recent weeks, dozens of UN experts and hundreds of legal scholars have warned of a genocide in the making in Gaza, the open letter argues, adding that many Palestinian cultural institutions andover 100heritage sites have been completely or partially destroyed by Israeli airstrikes. That the Arnolfini would choose to silence Palestinian voices and narratives at this exact moment is not merely a betrayal of the fundamental principles of pluralism and freedom in the arts, it is also inhumane.

The artists conclude by insisting that until the Arnolfini leadership publicly commits to consistently uphold freedom of expression, with no exception for Palestine, and genuinely engages with Bristols arts community to rectify the harm it has caused, we must, reluctantly, refuse cooperation with the arts centre and will not participate in any of its events.

A parallel, Bristol-organized open letter has collected more than 2,300 signatures. It explains that the canceled events were intended to explore the issue of increasing silencing and censorship of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian voices in the arts, featuring two artistsDarin Sallam and Lowkeywho have facedcensorshipandcalls for cancellationdue to their pro-Palestinian stance. We find it particularly ironic and disappointing that Arnolfini has chosen to withdraw from these events, indicating its unwillingness to take a stand against such censorship in arts and culture.

The Bristol letter concludes that unless the center explains its reasons for withdrawing from the two events, it will unfortunately appear that the decision to pull out of hosting these events at the current time must be due to an unwillingness on the part of Arnolfini to stand with Palestinians and against the war crimes and genocide being committed in Gaza.

Arts Helpreported December 18 on another example of the current censorship against pro-Palestinian artists. It noted that the paintings of Ayman Baalbaki, a Lebanese artist and painter, were recently withdrawn from Christies annual auction after complaints for reasons that are still unclear. The two paintings, which depict revolutionary figures, were withdrawn only days before the auction. One of the pieces is a 2012 painting that depicts a man whose face is covered in a bright red keffiyeh, and the other is a portrait of a man in a gas mask with a red band around his head bearing the word thaeroun in Arabic, which can translate as rebels.

TheNational, published in Abu Dhabi,observed that emails and text messages from Christies indicatethe two paintings were withdrawn following multiple complaints. The nature of the complaints was not disclosed.

The artist told theNationalhowthe second painting, of the man in a gas mask, was inspired by protestors during the Arab uprisings. The publication went on, When asked if he found the withdrawal problematic, Baalbaki said it is censorship of an image, of culture. He added: It reminds me of the degenerate art movement.

This of course is a reference to the Degenerate Art exhibition organized by the Nazis in Munich in 1937, intended to turn the German public against modern art, which supposedly showed such qualities as weakness of character, mental disease and racial impurity. Works by primarily German artists were shown and derided, including by figures such as Georg Grosz,Ernst Ludwig Kirchner,Paul Klee,Franz Marc,Emil Nolde andOtto Dix,along with international artists such as Pablo Picasso, Marc Chagall and Wassily Kandinsky.

The Lebanese artists reference to the Nazi campaign of repression and censorship is entirely apt under the present circumstances, in which opposition to genocide is being illegalized and slandered as antisemitism.

Join the fight for socialism

Visit link:
Artists protest ongoing censorship of Palestinian culture in the UK - WSWS

Ethereum MEV-relay bloXroute labs said it will reject blocks containing transactions from addresses listed on the Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Person List (SDN) list starting Dec. 18.

In a Dec. 18 statement on X (formerly Twitter), the firm said:

Effective immediately, all bloXroute relays will reject block bids if they contain OFAC transactions (transactions which interact with addresses appearing on the OFAC SDN list).

Since Ethereum transitioned to a Proof of Stake network, one of the significant issues community members have raised was that of OFAC-compliant blocks. Many in the community argue that these blocks would compromise Ethereums neutrality by excluding transactions from addresses on the SDN list.

Nikita Zhavoronkov, the lead developer at Blockchair, explained how bloXroutes move could eventually result in a 51% attack against the blockchain network.

According to Zhavoronkov:

With ETFs and Blackrock coming, Bitcoin and other major cryptos are adhering more and more to compliance and KYC, so we can expect more pools following rules. Once 51%+ are compliant, theres a high chance well be mere months away from the miner majority beginning to orphan blocks containing sanctioned transactions. A state of a constant 51% attack. If you, as a miner, dont follow the OFAC list, your blocks will get rejected, and youll be out of business.

Data from Mevwatch showed that OFAC-compliant blocks on the network currently sit at 32%, a steep decline from last year when around 80% of the blocks were compliant with the regulatory authorities.

bloXroute Labs emphasized its commitment to upholding Ethereums decentralized and permissionless principles while ensuring compliance within the legal frameworks of its jurisdictions.

According to the company, the blockchain networks strength lies in its decentralization and global distribution, making it resilient against singular influences, even those leveraging advanced networking technologies.

Meanwhile, bloXroute Labs shift in policy adds to the ongoing debate surrounding censorship resistance within the broader crypto ecosystem. Numerous crypto companies, including stablecoin company Tether, have significantly improved their collaborations with authorities as part of their bid to be regulatory compliant.

Read this article:
Ethereum MEV-relay bloXroute to deny OFAC-listed transactions, escalating crypto censorship debate - CryptoSlate

But many people seem unable to tell what that phrase really means. What is the new they want to establish and what is the old they want to abolish? Even the Xinhua editors responsible for English translation of the phrase and who are familiar with the thinking of the leadership dont appear to be sure.

In the English readout from the Communist Partys Politburo meeting on December 8, Xinhua translated the phrase into prioritising development before addressing problems. But the English version of the work conference statement included the translation establishing the new before abolishing the old.

From outer space to seven seas, Chinas 6 big economic priorities for 2024

Establishing the new before abolishing the old is not the only wording that has left people confused; an even more puzzling phrase was included in the work conference statement. In the paragraph focusing on strengthening the consistency of macroeconomic orientation, the statement said that efforts must be made to include non-economic policies in the assessment of macroeconomic policy consistency to ensure that the policies form synergy.

The Paper, a digital newspaper published by the Shanghai municipal government, said in an editorial on Wednesday that the phrase apparently referred to the fact the growth of the non-state sector has been hampered by regulatory and administrative actions in environmental protection, firefighting, education, labour, safety and natural resources. Many of those measures are non-economic policies, which adversely affect the sentiment of the private sector.

Urging stronger confidence has become another buzzword. How is China meant to achieve that? Evidently, more efforts should be made to strengthen economic propaganda and public opinion guidance, and promote a positive narrative about the bright prospects for the Chinese economy.

02:39

Chinas economy sees a resurgence in the third quarter, beating forecasts

Chinas economy sees a resurgence in the third quarter, beating forecasts

One Hong-Kong-based fund manager told me that when sales people from Chinese brokers come to meet him, they first flash PowerPoint presentations on the bright prospects of the Chinese economy. After the presentation, they go on to share what they really think.

Wang Xiangwei is a former editor-in-chief of the South China Morning Post. He now teaches journalism at Baptist University

View original post here:
How can Chinas economic confidence recover amid confusion and censorship? - South China Morning Post

(Newsbusters MRC) A Republican lawmaker is calling for an investigation into Google after its infamous maps service, Google Maps, incorrectly removed a pregnancy center.

In a fieryop-edfor Yellowhammer, Rep. Jerry Carl (R-AL) said he issued a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai demanding the tech giant release similar instances of inexplicable censorship. Woke corporations have been getting away with silencing conservative voices and values for a long time, and I have had enough,Carldeclared. Last week, Google Maps could not locate D.C.s Capitol Hill Crisis Pregnancy Center until The Daily Signalpointedit out to the tech giant. When MRC Free Speech America reached out to Google, the companyclaimedthat the listing was incorrectly removed and we have since reinstated it. Rep. Carl, however, is pushing to hold Google accountable.

In his op-ed, Carl emphasized Googles alleged mistake is not something to simply let slide. Although the clinic is now back on the map, I sent a letter to Mr. Pichai, the CEO of Google, to express my concerns as to why the listing was removed in the first place and if there are other similar situations that have not yet been brought to light, he wrote. Carl further noted the seriousness of the situation. Pro-life clinics should be listed on Google Maps without being removed under any circumstance, as womens health and protecting the lives of the unborn is incredibly important to millions of Americans.

The Daily Signal reported that before last Monday, users who searched for D.C.s Capitol Hill Crisis Pregnancy Center were met with results for a Maryland pro-life pregnancy center and Planned Parenthoods Carol Whitehill Moses Center. Rep. Carl was not impressed.

Having the pregnancy centers location removed from Google Maps is a threat to womens and childrens health, he wrote. Its even worse to re-direct someone to the location of a clinic performing abortions.

Rep. Carl also pointed out that this is not the first incident of Google censoring pro-life content. Google has been accused of numerous incidents of suppressing or censoring pro-life and conservative viewpoints and content in the past, and this is yet another example of Google pushing its own pro-abortion agenda and promoting the view of left-leaning organizations, Carl stated.

MRC Free Speech America has repeatedly reported on Googles consistent pro-choice bias. From LifeSite News and EWTN Global Catholic programming to censoring the nonprofit Created Equal, the Big Tech company has repeatedly suppressed pro-life content. In Sept. 2021, Google evenbannedLive Actions ads for abortion pill reversal medication which has saved thousands of childrens lives, according to Live Action founder Lila Rose.

In January, MRC Free Speech America researchers alsofoundthat Google made Planned Parenthoods website the first result in a search for the word pregnancy on the eve of the 50th annual national March for Life in Washington, D.C.. Googles AI chatbot Bard has similarlyshownpro-choice bias.

Editors Note: This article was published at Newsbusters MRC and is reprinted here with permission.

The DOJ put a pro-life grandmother in jail this Christmas for protesting the killing of preborn children. Please take 30-seconds to TELL CONGRESS: STOP THE DOJ FROM TARGETING PRO-LIFE AMERICANS.

Follow this link:
Lawmaker pens letter to Google CEO over pro-life censorship - Live Action

Robert Mapplethorpe was one of the most famous photographers in the worldand one of the most controversial. When his work came to Cincinnati in 1990, it would be at the center of a vicious fight over obscenity and the First Amendment, one that threatened the future of art in America.

This episode of One Year was written by Evan Chung, One Years senior producer. It was produced by Kelly Jones and Evan Chung, with additional production by Olivia Briley.

It was edited by Josh Levin, One Years editorial director, with Joel Meyer and Derek John, Slates executive producer of narrative podcasts. Merritt Jacob is our senior technical director.

JoinSlate Plusto get a special behind-the-scenes conversation at the end of our season about how we put together our 1990 stories. Slate Plus members also get to listen to all Slate podcasts without any ads.

Sources for This Episode

Books

Bolton, Richard. Culture Wars: Documents from the Recent Controversies in the Arts, New Press, 1992.

Carr, C. On Edge: Performance at the End of the Twentieth Century, Wesleyan University Press, 2008.

De Grazia, Edward. Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law of Obscenity and the Assault on Genius, Vintage, 1993.

Marshall, Richard. Robert Mapplethorpe, Whitney Museum of Art, 1988.

Meyer, Richard. Outlaw Representation: Censorship and Homosexuality in Twentieth-Century American Art, Oxford University Press, 2002.

Smith, Patti. Just Kids, Ecco, 2010.

Articles

Adams, Henry. Thirty Years After The Perfect Moment, CAN Journal, November 2020.

Adler, Amy. The Shifting Law of Sexual Speech: Rethinking Robert Mapplethorpe, University of Chicago Legal Forum, December 2020.

Andry, Al. Arts Case Strategy Perplexes Experts, Cincinnati Post, Oct. 3, 1990.

Andry, Al. Police Will Review Mapplethorpe, Cincinnati Post, March 23, 1990.

Anti-Mapplethorpe Strategy Began at March 7 Meeting, Cincinnati Post, March 28, 1990.

Barrie, Dennis. The Scene of the Crime, Art Journal, Autumn 1991.

Batson, Larry. Cincinnati Museum Still Under Siege From Keep-It-Clean Forces, Star Tribune, June 17, 1990.

Bermudez, Frederick. CAC Supporters to Face Charges, Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 25, 1990.

Bolton, Douglas and Sharon Moloney. Will Art Fury Hurt the City?, Cincinnati Post, March 30, 1990.

Burns, Michael. Cincinnati: Anti-Porn Capital, UPI, Oct. 19, 1986.

Dunne, Dominick. Robert Mapplethorpes Proud Finale, Vanity Fair, February 1989.

Cembalest, Robin. The Obscenity Trial: How They Voted to Acquit, ARTnews, December 1990.

City of the Year: Cincinnati, Sports Illustrated, Dec. 31, 1990.

Dennis, Debra. Art Critic Goes to Bat for Photos in Court, Cincinnati Post, Oct. 3, 1990.

Dennis, Debra. Photo Show Verdict: Not Guilty, Cincinnati Post, Oct. 6, 1990.

Dobush, Grace. 25 Years Later: Cincinnati and the Obscenity Trial Over Mapplethorpe Art, Washington Post, Oct. 24, 2015.

Faherty, John and Carol Motsinger. Pornography or Art? Cincinnati Decided, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 28, 2015.

Findsen, Owen. Controversy Brought Crowds, Cincinnati Enquirer, May 26, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Group Wants Center to Cancel Photo Show, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 21, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Museum Chief Prepares for Mapplethorpe, Cincinnati Enquirer, Feb. 13, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Perfect Moments Time Arrives, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 6, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Police to View Mapplethorpe Exhibit, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 24, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Ruling that CAC Is Not a Museum Jolts Art World, Cincinnati Enquirer, June 21, 1990.

Fox, John. Then and Now: Mapplethorpe CAC, Cincinnati CityBeat, March 30, 2000.

Gamarekian, Barbara. Mapplethorpe Backers Picket the Corcoran and Plan New Shows, New York Times, June 17, 1989.

Glueck, Grace. Publicity Is Enriching Mapplethorpe Estate, New York Times, April 6, 1990.

Grundberg, Andy. The Allure of Mapplethorpes Photographs, New York Times, July 31, 1988.

Harrison, Eric. Sides Square Off for Mapplethorpe Photo Trial, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 23, 1990.

Hartigan, Patti. The Picture of Innocence, Boston Globe, Aug. 3, 1990.

Honan, William H. Congressional Anger Threatens Arts Endowments Budget, New York Times, June 20, 1989.

Horn, Dan. Post Poll: 59% Say Let Show Go On, Cincinnati Post, April 13, 1990.

Kastor, Elizabeth. Funding Art That Offends, Washington Post, June 7, 1989.

Kaufman, Ben L. Judge Refuses to Dismiss Indictments, Cincinnati Enquirer, June 20, 1990.

Kaufman, Ben L. Judge to Police: Keep Hands Off Exhibit, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 9, 1990.

Lobb, Monty, Jr. The Side of Virtue and Dignity, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 30, 1990.

Mapplethorpe: One Year Later, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 6, 1991.

Masters, Kim. Art Gallery Not Guilty of Obscenity, Washington Post, Oct. 6, 1990.

Masters, Kim. Defense Rests in Mapplethorpe Art Trial, Washington Post, Oct. 4, 1990.

Masters, Kim. Jurors View Photos of Children, Washington Post, Oct. 3, 1990.

McLeod, Douglas M. and Jill A. MacKenzie. Print Media and Public Reaction to the Controversy Over NEA Funding for Robert Mapplethorpes The Perfect Moment Exhibit, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, June 1998.

Merrill, Elizabeth M. Zaha Hadids Center for Contemporary Art and the Perils of New Museum Architecture, Criticism, 2019.

Mezibov, Marc. The Mapplethorpe Obscenity Trial, Litigation, Summer 1992.

Moloney, Sharon. As Show Leaves, Debate Rages On, Cincinnati Post, May 26, 1990.

Moloney, Sharon. Perfect Image Clashes with Citys, Foes Say, Cincinnati Post, March 29, 1990.

Moloney, Sharon and Al Salvato. Police View Mapplethorpe, Cincinnati Post, April 2, 1990.

Moore, Kevin. Whipping Up a Storm: How Robert Mapplethorpe Shocked America, the Guardian, Nov. 17, 2015.

Moores, Lew. Photos Condone Behavior, Witness Says, Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 5, 1990.

ONeill, Cliff. The Mapplethorpe Mess, OutWeek, July 3, 1989.

Palmer, Alex. When Art Fought the Law and the Art Won, Smithsonian Magazine, Oct. 2, 2015.

Prendergast, Jane. 4,000 Pack Photo Exhibit, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 7, 1990.

Prendergast, Jane. Arts Center, Director Indicted, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 8, 1990.

Prendergast, Jane. Funding Given Up by CAC, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 26, 1990.

Siebert, Mark and Lew Moores. Lewd, But Art, Jurors Say, Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 7, 1990.

Sischy, Ingrid. White and Black, the New Yorker, Nov. 5, 1989.

Span, Paula. The Childrens Portraits: Innocence or Pornography?, Washington Post, May 3, 1990.

Stein, Jerry. High Noon for Mapplethorpe Show, Cincinnati Post, April 6, 1990.

Sturmon, Sarah and Sharon Moloney. Mapplethorpe Suit Jolts City, County, Cincinnati Post, March 29, 1990.

Uzelac, Ellen. Mapplethorpe Trial Puts Cincinnati on Art MapBut Town Talks About Baseball, Baltimore Sun, Sept. 27, 1990.

Vaccariello, Linda. A Lion in Winter, Cincinnati Magazine, February 1997.

Vester, John W., William J. Gerhardt, and Mark Snyder. Mapplethorpe in Cincinnati, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 24, 1990.

Wilkerson, Isabel. Cincinnati Art Gallery and Director to Stand Trial, New York Times, June 20, 1990.

Wilkerson, Isabel. When a Crusade Is a Career, New York Times, April 14, 1990.

Audiovisual

Damned in the U.S.A, dir. Paul Yule, 1993.

Perversion for Profit, Citizens for Decent Literature, 1963.

Robert Mapplethorpe, dir. Nigel Finch, Arena, BBC, 1988.

Footage of the visitor reactions at the Contemporary Arts Center on April 8, 1990 was filmed by Bart Everson and Michael Northam.

Read the original:
Robert Mapplethorpe and Cincinnati: The Perfect Moment and the fight over censorship and obscenity. - Slate