Category Archives: Censorship

MOSCOW Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of the Kremlin-controlled RT television network, recently called on the government to block access to Western social media.

She wrote: Foreign platforms in Russia must be shut down.

Her choice of social network for sending that message: Twitter.

While the Kremlin fears an open internet shaped by American companies, it just cant quit it.

Russias winter of discontent, waves of nationwide protests set off by the return of the opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny, has been enabled by the countrys free and open internet. The state controls the television airwaves, but online Mr. Navalnys dramatic arrest upon arrival in Moscow, his investigation into President Vladimir V. Putins purported secret palace and his supporters calls for protest were all broadcast to an audience of many millions.

For years, the Russian government has been putting in place the technological and legal infrastructure to clamp down on freedom of speech online, leading to frequent predictions that the country could be heading toward internet censorship akin to Chinas great firewall.

But even as Mr. Putin faced the biggest protests in years last month, his government appeared unwilling and, to some degree, unable to block websites or take other drastic measures to limit the spread of digital dissent.

The hesitation has underscored the challenge Mr. Putin faces as he tries to blunt the political implications of cheap high-speed internet access reaching into the remote corners of the vast country while avoiding angering a populace that has fallen in love with Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and TikTok.

Theyre afraid, Dmitri Galushko, a Moscow telecommunications consultant, said of why the Kremlin hasnt clamped down harder. Theyve got all these weapons, but they dont know how to use them.

More broadly, the question of how to deal with the internet lays bare a dilemma for Mr. Putins Russia: whether to raise state repression to new heights and risk a public backlash or continue trying to manage public discontent by maintaining some semblance of an open society.

In China, government control went hand in hand with the internets early development. But in Russia, home to a Soviet legacy of an enormous pool of engineering talent, digital entrepreneurship bloomed freely for two decades, until Mr. Putin started trying to restrain online speech after the antigovernment protests of 2011 and 2012.

At that point, the open internet was so entrenched in business and society and its architecture so decentralized that it was too late to radically change course. But efforts to censor the web, as well as requirements that internet providers install equipment for government surveillance and control, gained pace in bill after bill passed by Parliament. At the same time, internet access continues to expand, thanks in part to government support.

Russian officials now say that they have the technology in place to allow for a sovereign RuNet a network that would continue to give Russians access to Russian websites even if the country were cut off from the World Wide Web. The official line is that this expensive infrastructure offers protection in case nefarious Western forces try to cut Russias communications links. But activists say it is actually meant to give the Kremlin the option to cut some or all of Russia off from the world.

In principle, it will be possible to restore or enable the autonomous functioning of the Russian segment of the web, Dmitri A. Medvedev, the vice chairman of Mr. Putins Security Council and a former prime minister, told reporters recently. Technologically, everything is ready for this.

Amid this years domestic unrest, Russias saber-rattling directed at Silicon Valley has reached a new intensity. Mr. Navalny has made expert use of Googles YouTube, Facebooks Instagram and Twitter to reach tens of millions of Russians with his meme-ready depictions of official corruption, down to the $850 toilet brush he claimed to have identified at a property used by Mr. Putin.

At the same time, Russia has appeared powerless trying to stop those companies from blocking pro-Kremlin accounts or forcing them to take down pro-Navalny content. (Mr. Navalnys voice is resonating on social media even with him behind bars: On Saturday, a court upheld his prison sentence of more than two years.)

Russias telecommunications regulator, Roskomnadzor, has taken to publicly berating American internet companies, sometimes multiple times a day. On Wednesday, the regulator said that the voice-chat social network Clubhouse had violated the rights of citizens to access information and to distribute it freely by suspending the account of a prominent state television host, Vladimir Solovyov. On Jan. 29, it claimed that Google was blocking YouTube videos containing the Russian national anthem, calling it flagrant and unacceptable rudeness directed at all citizens of our country.

Clubhouse apparently blocked Mr. Solovyovs account because of user complaints, while Google said some videos containing the Russian anthem had been blocked in error because of a content rights issue. Clubhouse did not respond to a request for comment.

In addition, as calls for nationwide protest proliferated after Mr. Navalnys arrest last month, Roskomnadzor said that social networks were encouraging minors to take part in illegal activity.

The Russian social network VKontakte and the Chinese-owned app TikTok partly complied with Roskomnadzors order to block access to protest-related content. But Facebook refused, stating, This content doesnt violate our community standards.

For all its criticism of American social media companies, the Kremlin has used them extensively to spread its message around the world. It was Facebook that served as a primary tool in Russias effort to sway the 2016 United States presidential election. On YouTube, the state-controlled network RT has a combined 14 million subscribers for its English, Spanish and Arabic-language channels.

Ms. Simonyan, the editor of RT, says she will continue to use American social media platforms as long as they are not banned.

To quit using these platforms while everyone else is using them is to capitulate to the adversary, she said in a statement to The New York Times. To ban them for everyone is to vanquish said adversary.

A law signed by Mr. Putin in December gives his government new powers to block or restrict access to social networks, but it has yet to use them. When regulators tried to block access to the messaging app Telegram starting in 2018, the two-year effort ended in failure after Telegram found ways around the restrictions.

Instead, officials are trying to lure Russians onto social networks like VKontakte that are closely tied to the government. Gazprom Media, a subsidiary of the state-owned natural gas giant, has promised to turn its long-moribund video platform RuTube into a competitor to YouTube. And in December it said it had bought an app modeled on TikTok called Ya Molodets Russian for Im great for sharing short smartphone videos.

Andrei Soldatov, a journalist who has co-written a book on the Kremlins efforts to control the internet, says the strategy of persuading people to use Russian platforms is a way to keep dissent from going viral at moments of crisis. As of April 1, all smartphones sold in Russia will be required to come pre-loaded with 16 Russian-made apps, including three social networks and an answer to Apples Siri voice assistant that is called Marusya.

The goal is for the typical Russian user to live in a bubble of Russian apps, Mr. Soldatov said. Potentially, it could be rather effective.

Even more effective, some activists say, is the acceleration of Mr. Putins machine of selective repression. A new law makes online libel punishable by up to five years in prison, and the editor of a popular news website served 15 days in jail for retweeting a joke that included a reference to a January pro-Navalny protest.

In a widely circulated video this month, a SWAT team in the Pacific port city of Vladivostok can be seen interrogating Gennady Shulga, a local video blogger who covered the protests. An officer in a helmet, goggles and combat fatigues presses Mr. Shulga shirtless to a tile floor next to two pet-food bowls.

The Kremlin is very much losing the information race, said Sarkis Darbinyan, an internet freedom activist. Self-censorship and fear thats what were heading toward.

Oleg Matsnev contributed reporting.

The rest is here:
China Censors the Internet. So Why Doesnt Russia? - The New York Times

China's recent announcement thatBBC World Newsis banned from broadcasting in the country is another troubling example of Beijingclosing itself off and makes clearthe extent of the Communist Party's censorship regime, author Gordon Chang says.

The authoritariangovernment'sNational Radio and Television Administration announced its restriction of theBritish broadcaster on Feb. 11,claiming the BBChad harmed Chinese "unity" with its reporting on the country's atrocities against ethnic minorities.

"China under Xi Jinping has been shutting out the rest of the world. Its basically a closing of the Chinese mind because Xi does not like foreign influences," Chang told Fox News."As China cuts itself off from the rest of the world, its not going to get the benefit of communicating with other people. Everyone benefits from talking with others, and societies that cut themselves off end up usually strangling themselves."

China was formally accused by the U.S. last monthof perpetrating a genocide against Uighurs and other Muslim ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang regionthrough a system of torture, internment, rape, and ethnic cleansing.

CHINA BANS BBC AFTER HARROWING REPORT ON ATROCITIES AGAINST UIGHURS

The BBC's Feb. 2 report on these atrocities, as well as U.K.media regulator Ofcom revokingthe license of the Communist Party-aligned China Global Television Network earlier this month, triggered China's decision to fully ban the BBC. It was already heavily censored there, although it could be viewed in hotels and some residential homes.

Chinais already facing global scrutiny over the origins of the deadly coronavirus pandemic and suppressing critical reporting about the disease at the beginning of the outbreak.It has since spread conspiracy theories through state media about COVID-19's origins.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"People around the world are going to start to think about how much censorship there is in China," Chang said. "Xi Jinping has gotten away with this for quite some time... This could very well be a tipping point where people really start to understand how strict censorship is."

The BBC said it was "disappointed that the Chinese authorities have decided to take this course of action. The BBC is the world's most trusted international news broadcaster and reports on stories from around the world fairly, impartially and without fear or favour."

See the article here:
China revealing extent of its censorship with BBC ban: Gordon Chang - Fox News

Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made. But if they are made poorly, both are bad for you.

An Iowa House member has introduced a bill that would penalize school districts if they teach history using any information from something called the 1619 Project. That curriculum was developed to re-examine slavery in the United States, and it contains some harsh realities not otherwise taught.

For example, were you taught that, The 1664 General Assembly of Maryland decreed that all Negroes within the province shall serve durante vita, hard labor for life. This enslavement would be sustained by the threat of brutal punishment. By 1729, Maryland law authorized punishments of enslaved people including to have the right hand cut off ... the head severed from the body, the body divided into four quarters, and head and quarters set up in the most public places of the county.?

This is true, but if a teacher uses this information from the project, House File 222 would cut their schools funding. The bill also applies to any similarly developed curriculum. In other words, Even if I havent seen it, its bad.

Beyond the obvious Constitutional problems with the bill, it is unenforceable. Who decides if particular information came from the 1619 Project; who decides if a curriculum is similar? This is nothing but censorship of thought.

Vice President Spiro T. Agnew said, Freedom of speech is useless without freedom of thought, and Alan Dershowitz who represented President Donald Trump in his first impeachment trial has said freedom of speech means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorize and which to prevent.

If you disagree with speech, you dont ban it; you present opposing views. The Iowa Constitution says plainly that, No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech ...

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

More than 40 groups have officially objected to the bill, and during a subcommittee hearing on Feb. 9 there were many thoughtful statements in opposition. The representative brushed those comments aside, spent 10 of the hearings 60 minutes reading a statement with his thoughts on the politics of the 1619 Project, and never engaged in a meaningful discussion of the pros and cons of the bill.

What was most telling was the fact he never mentioned one constituent, one Iowan who had raised concerns about the project.

Instead, he relied on national opponents of the project who had their views published in places such as the World Socialist website.

Its a good bet that if you were in the Sioux Center Fareway the night before a big blizzard, you could throw a stone and not hit anyone who had ever even heard of the 1619 Project before it became this legislators pet project.

He also has a bill that would make Black market sales of handguns legal. Now, if a drug dealer sells a handgun to another drug dealer who doesnt have a gun permit, thats a felony for both of them. His bill eliminates that crime.

And then theres his attempt to pass a law about how many toilets a bar has to have. Theres more, but thats enough.

Someone needs to take this representative aside and say Look, you dont have to present a bill just because you can. You dont have to be a bully just because you have a bully pulpit.

Small minds make bad laws ... and bad laws get in the way of good ones.

The legislature has only two more months to finish its work.

In the month its been in session, it has passed only a handful of bills and resolutions, including to give Coast Guard members the same rights given other military members, modify the disorderly conduct statute dealing with loud and raucous noise, allow more consumer accounts to be billed for service charges, deal with remote education, and propose a constitutional amendment dealing with firearms.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

Meanwhile, the Legislative Services Agency had to draft HF 222, opponents of the bill had to respond to the bill, and there was a one-hour hearing all wasted on an unconstitutional, unenforceable bill because someone thinks they are better qualified to decide what to teach than trained educators and the Department of Education.

We dont watch sausage being made because we trust the sausage-maker to do their job right and to give us a good and safe product. We should be able to expect the same from the Iowa Legislature.

Bob Teig was a career federal prosecutor in Cedar Rapids for 32 years before he retired in 2011.

Continued here:
Iowa's proposed '1619 Project' ban is a censorship of thought - The Gazette

In response to several letters about censorship, lying is perfectly legal under the constitutionally protected free speech amendment. If it werent, all the corporate news stations would be in trouble. As far as censorship goes, a private company can make any laws it wants for persons who choose to use their services. (except for exclusions of race and sexual orientation) I personally have chosen to avoid all online sites that censor (I censor them) because I know that free speech is heavily censored in communist countries, dictatorships and other tyrannical governments and has no place in this country. Censorship of free speech should not be based on clothing a person wears, including hats, color of skin, sexual identification and etc. No book burning, no byt burning!

Once upon a time we were a great country because of our constitutionally protected civil rights, and free speech amendment. Democracy is messy, but the human soul cries for freedom. In the present we are actually threatened with loosing our constitutional rights, and freedoms. Hate speech? Just call everything you dont want to hear hate speech. This country has done just fine for several hundred years without a definition of hate speech. I think we should leave it alone. It is a question of manners and intelligence.

As a newspaper, the Headlight Herald can put anything they want in their newspaper. If I thought they were censoring the communities ( all of us) views, I wouldnt subscribe to their newspaper.

Our present government is becoming more censoring, threatening those who do not agree with them, or their ideas, by labeling just about everything "hate speech" It is a sobering realization.

View post:
Letter: Censorship | Letters to the Editor | tillamookheadlightherald.com - Tillamook Headlight-Herald

Speak Truth to Power by John Whitehead

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. - George Orwell

This is the slippery slope that leads to the end of free speech as we once knew it. In a world increasingly automated and filtered through the lens of artificial intelligence, we are finding ourselves at the mercy of inflexible algorithms that dictate the boundaries of our liberties.

Once artificial intelligence becomes a fully integrated part of the government bureaucracy, there will be little recourse: we will be subject to the intransigent judgments of techno-rulers.

This is how it starts.

Martin Niemllers warning about the widening net that ensnares us all still applies.

In our case, however, it started with the censors who went after extremists spouting so-called hate speech, and few spoke out because they were not extremists and didnt want to be shamed for being perceived as politically incorrect.

Then the internet censors got involved and went after extremists spouting disinformation about stolen elections, the Holocaust, and Hunter Biden, and few spoke out because they were not extremists and didnt want to be shunned for appearing to disagree with the majority.

By the time the techno-censors went after extremists spouting misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines, the censors had developed a system and strategy for silencing the nonconformists. Still, few spoke out.

Eventually, we the people will be the ones in the crosshairs.

At some point or another, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes extremism, we the people might all be considered guilty of some thought crime or other.

When that time comes, there may be no one left to speak out or speak up in our defense.

Whatever we tolerate now whatever we turn a blind eye to whatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others, whether in the name of securing racial justice or defending democracy or combatting fascism, will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all.

Watch and learn.

We should all be alarmed when prominent social media voices such as Donald Trump, Alex Jones, David Icke, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are censored, silenced, and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram for voicing ideas that are deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous or conspiratorial.

The question is not whether the content of their speech was legitimate.

The concern is what happens after such prominent targets are muzzled. What happens once the corporate techno-censors turn their sights on the rest of us?

Its a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth. Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.

We are on a fast-moving trajectory.

Already, there are calls for the Biden administration to appoint a reality czar in order to tackle disinformation, domestic extremism and the nations so-called reality crisis.

Knowing what we know about the governments tendency to define its own reality and attach its own labels to behavior and speech that challenges its authority, this should be cause for alarm across the entire political spectrum.

Heres the point: you dont have to like Trump or any of the others who are being muzzled, nor do you have to agree or even sympathize with their views, but to ignore the long-term ramifications of such censorship would be dangerously nave.

As Matt Welch, writing for Reason, rightly points out, Proposed changes to government policy should always be visualized with the opposing team in charge of implementation.

In other words, whatever powers you allow the government and its corporate operatives to claim now, for the sake of the greater good or because you like or trust those in charge, will eventually be abused and used against you by tyrants of your own making.

Welcome to the age of technofascism.

Clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness, technofascism is powered by technological behemoths both corporate and governmental working in tandem to achieve a common goal.

Thus far, the tech giants have been able to sidestep the First Amendment by virtue of their non-governmental status, but its a dubious distinction at best. Certainly, Facebook and Twitter have become the modern-day equivalents of public squares, traditional free speech forums, with the internet itself serving as a public utility.

But what does that mean for free speech online: should it be protected or regulated?

When given a choice, the government always goes for the option that expands its powers at the expense of the citizenrys. Moreover, when it comes to free speech activities, regulation is just another word for censorship.

The steady, pervasive censorship creep that is being inflicted on us by corporate tech giants with the blessing of the powers-that-be threatens to bring about a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwells 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.

Orwell intended 1984 as a warning. Instead, it is being used as a dystopian instruction manual for socially engineering a populace that is compliant, conformist, and obedient to Big Brother.

Nothing good can come from techno-censorship.

As Glenn Greenwald writes for The Intercept: Censorship power, like the tech giants who now wield it, is an instrument of status quo preservation. The promise of the internet from the start was that it would be a tool of liberation, of egalitarianism, by permitting those without money and power to compete on fair terms in the information war with the most powerful governments and corporations. But just as is true of allowing the internet to be converted into a tool of coercion and mass surveillance, nothing guts that promise, that potential, like empowering corporate overlords and unaccountable monopolists to regulate and suppress what can be heard.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, these internet censors are not acting in our best interests to protect us from dangerous, disinformation campaigns. Theyre laying the groundwork to preempt any dangerous ideas that might challenge the power elites stranglehold over our lives.

Therefore, it is important to recognize the thought prison that is being built around us for what it is: a prison with only one route of escape free thinking and free speaking in the face of tyranny.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

More here:
Techno-censorship: The slippery slope from censoring disinformation to silencing truth - Overton County News

Contact:Hadar Harris, Executive DirectorStudent Press Law Center(202) 549-6316 /hharris@splc.org

Student Journalists Celebrate 3rd Annual Student Press Freedom Day on Feb. 26

Washington, D.C. In anticipation of the 3rd annualStudent Press Freedom DayonFriday, Feb. 26th, the Student Press Law Center released a white paper today detailing a continuing pattern of censorship of student journalists by school officials across the country.Student Journalists in 2020: Journalism Against the Odds notes that, despite incredible challenges students faced, they produced top-quality reporting on the most important safety, health and political issues of our day.

Examples detailed in the white paper include:

Student journalists, like professional journalists, provide an essential, constitutionally-protected service to their communities and should be recognized and fully supported for the service they provide in gathering and delivering vital information on issues of concern to the public, said Hadar Harris, executive director of the Student Press Law Center.The troubling trends we observed over the past year reinforce the need to ensure legal protections for student journalists in all 50 states.

The theme for Student Press Freedom Day 2021 isJournalism Against the Odds,in acknowledgment of the important news coverage student journalists have produced, despite being faced with incredible challenges. In addition to outright censorship, student journalists worked against odds that included prior review, lack of access to critical data, suppression of or discipline for unflattering or controversial photos or other news coverage, assault and harassment during public gatherings, budget cuts, and an abrupt shift to an all-virtual newsroom and all-online business model. Furthermore, they faced the continuing scourge of a legal system that, following the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decisionHazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, has created an exemption for student free speech rights as it relates to student journalists, allowing overzealous school administrators to assert their power to censor broadly.

As the only reporters with a front row seat to the challenge of safe schooling in 2020, student journalists like me had a unique perspective on the experience of the nearly 73 million students who were forced to move suddenly to remote learning in spring 2020 and the impact this had on our families and communities, said Neha Madhira, sophomore at the University of Texas, Austin and reporter at theDaily Texan. Beyond our COVID-19 reporting, we have helped curate an important discussion about racial justice and systemic racism on our campuses and communities, and we took physical risks to cover protests in our communities, often being targeted by law enforcement because of our role as journalists. We student journalists must be allowed to do our jobs without undue interference.

As part of Student Press Freedom Day, SPLC has curated21 examples of impactful, important student journalism, focused on reporting on the impact of COVID-19, reckoning with racial justice, overcoming censorship and more. The stories represent work by both high school and college journalists with diverse backgrounds and from geographically diverse schools. These stories represent some of the very best in student journalism.

A critical part of Student Press Freedom Day is students sharing their stories with mainstream media outlets, lawmakers, and their peers about the incredible odds they have faced in the past year to carry out their work. More than 100 student journalists took part this month in anop-ed writing boot camp with veteran CNN & New York Times Journalist Steven A. Holmesabout how to craft and place an op-ed, and nearly half of the participants are working with a professional coach to support their efforts.

In addition, with legislative sessions underway, students are advocating withNew Voices chaptersin their states and testifying before education and judiciary committees for proposedchanges to state law that will protect student press freedom. They are creating and sharing video testimonials on social media about the challenges they face as student journalists and spreading the word using the hashtag#StudentPressFreedom. They are participating in astudent-moderated town hall forumabout how to strengthen student press freedom moving forward. They are hostinggroup screenings and discussions ofRaise Your Voice, a documentary about how the student journalists at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL navigated their school mass shooting as both survivors and journalists.

Student Press Freedom Day is co-sponsored by more than 15 organizations, including the Journalism Education Association, the College Media Association, The Associated Collegiate Press, the National Scholastic Press Association, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and more.

In the past year, readership of student newspapers significantly increased in many places, underscoring the important role student media plays in the community in times of crisis and moments of historic significance, said Hadar Harris. As student press freedom faced unparalleled challenges in 2020, the movement to support it continues to grow.

About Student Press Freedom Day

The Student Press Law Center launched Student Press Freedom Day in 2019 to raise awareness of the vital work and impact of student journalists, highlight the censorship and prior review challenges student journalists face, and underscore the importance of journalism education. It is a national day of action which activates and empowers student journalists to assert their right to student press freedom.

About the Student Press Law Center

The Student Press Law Center (SPLC.org,@splc) is an independent, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit working at the intersection of law, journalism and education to support, promote and defend the rights of student journalists and their advisers at the high school and college levels. SPLC has the nations only free legal hotline for student journalists. Based in Washington, D.C., the Student Press Law Center provides information, training and legal assistance at no charge to student journalists and the educators who work with them

Related

Read the rest here:
Censorship of Student Journalists Persists Despite their Essential Role Reporting on COVID, Protests, Racial Justice and Elections, New White Paper...

Author Ryan T. Anderson said his book, "When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment," has been removed from Amazon and critics pointed out that the online retailer has a history of censoring books that dont coincide with the companys liberal political views.

"I hope youve already bought your copy, cause Amazon just removed my book "When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment" from their cyber shelves.... my other four books are still available (for now)," Anderson tweeted.

ALEX BERENSON'S CORONAVIRUS BOOKLET HITS AMAZON AFTER ELON MUSK, OTHERS CALL OUT ONLINE RETAILER FOR 'CENSORSHIP'

"When Harry Became Sally," which has previously been on Amazons bestseller list, aimed to provide "thoughtful answers to questions arising from our transgender moment" and offered a "a balanced approach to public policy on gender identity, and a sober assessment of the human costs of getting human nature wrong."

Author Ryan T. Anderson said his book, "When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment," has been removed from Amazon. (Reuters)

A search of Amazon for "When Harry Became Sally" on Monday doesnt find Andersons book, instead suggesting books with the opposite view such as "The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in Our Society," "Understanding Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture" and "Let Harry Become Sally: Responding to the Anti-Transgender Moment."

Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

"While you cant buy the book on Amazon, you can still get it (for now?) at Barnes and Noble. Given the aggressive push on trans policies coming from the Biden admin, now is a great time to read it. Buy it before you no longer can," Anderson added in a follow-up tweet.

Dispatch writer David French blasted the move as "absurd and unacceptable," while New York Times columnist Ross Douthatsuggested Amazon was "conducting an experiment in what they can get away with."

ATTEMPT TO CENSOR BOOK ON TRANSGENDER CRAZE BACKFIRED, CRITICS SAY: THIS IS THE SO-CALLED STREISAND EFFECT

Target also sparked an outcry amongcritics last year when the big box retailer announced it was pulling "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,"because oneTwitteruser deemed the book transphobic. Target reversed its decision amidbacklash.

Many others took to Twitter with their thoughts on the situation:

Last year,Alex Berensonsbooklet on coronavirus, "Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns: Part 1," became the No. 1 best seller inAmazons Kindle Storeafter the online retailer initially told Berenson it didnt meet the companys guidelines.

The former New York Times reporter quickly launched a protest on Twitter, calling the move "outrageous censorship from a company that gained hugely from lockdown" as millions wereforced to shop online. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and other prominent journalists defended Berenson, and Amazon eventually allowed the book to be sold on its platform.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Amazon told Fox News it was an "error" and the book shouldnt have been held up, but Berenson had his doubts.

"They didnt say to me that it was a mistake I do believe that Im not the only person who has run into this. They need to be clear what their position is on publishing controversial material on political issues," Berenson told Fox News at the time. "It doesnt seem to me that this was an error, but I dont know."

See original here:
Amazon accused of absurd and unacceptable censorship after book questioning transgender movement vanishes - Fox News

February 22, 2021 Panelists at a communications research conference on Thursday were divided about how to reconcile free speech rights and regulating disinformation on the internet.

The townhall at TPRC48 which stand for Telecommunications Policy Research Conference generally followed the Chatham House Rule of anonymity, featured discussions about the first amendment, platform power, content moderation, and the need to address disinformation that is dividing the nation.

Opinions on the panel were on two extremes of the spectrum, but with some agreements on the importance of policy and regulation to network platforms. The conversation played out against the backdrop of an FBI investigation into the deadly January 6 Capitol Hill riot and the platforms and people on the internet that played a role in its encouragement.

Silencing voices that disagree with opposite opinions can be a recipe for disaster, said one of conservative panelist. Those in favor of robust protections of free speech said censorship would do more harm than good.

On the other end of the spectrum are those in favor of regulation and censorship of some speech on the internet. Those on that side say controversial speech does not respect diversity and equality; in fact, they argue, it harms marginalized groups.

Critics have said that the big technology companies are using algorithms and targeted ads that are discriminating against minority communities. That includes excluding these communities from opportunities, such as through ads or searches, that may be relevant to them.

In 2019, Facebook was charged by the department of Housing and Urban Development for allowing landlords to determine in their ads who can see home sales based on factors including race, sex, and religion.

Some panelists argued that if private sector companies crack down on violence, use of aggression, and hate speech at their workplaces, then those same rules should apply to the internet.

But the panelists did agree that, at least in some cases, disinformation should be addressed.

Read more here:
Conflicting Arguments on Internet Censorship at Research Session on Free Speech and Societal Harmony - BroadbandBreakfast.com

After having gone through an extensive dispute with Twitter over content removal, GOI wants to tighten its noose around all social media platforms alike.

According to a recently surfaced copy of draft regulations, the government of India wants social media companies to swiftly agree to its requests for removing disputable content from their respective platforms and provide assistance regarding the same.

These draft regulations, dubbed Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code, come at a time when Big Tech is facing an increasing assertion from various countries to abide by rules drafted by government bodies.

A stark example of the same would be Google and Facebooks recent brush with the Australian Government which pushed for the introduction of a media legislation forcing both the tech giants to pay for new content.

At the end of an 18 months-long tussle, both Google and Facebook had to agree to strike a deal with Australian news publishers albeit with some added compromise in Australians original plan of action.

In India, Twitter deferred accepting several repeated orders from the Government of India to remove content related to the ongoing farmers protests before finally agreeing to it a situation most likely fuelled Indias long-standing zeal to tighten regulations around content which the government deems unlawful or disinformation.

According to the copy of the draft regulations, the same would be legally applicable if companies do not agree to remove a piece of content within 36 hours after receiving the GOIs directive or legal order.

It also explicitly mentions that social media platforms are to mandatorily assist in investigations or other incidents related to cybersecurity within 72 hours of receiving a request.

Furthermore, if a post happens to depict an individual partaking in a sexual act or conduct of any kind then the companies must disable or remove the content piece within a day of receiving a complaint about the same.

What more?

The draft proposal wants companies to appoint an individual who will act as a chief compliance officer, one who will coordinate with the law enforcement and a grievance redressal officer all of whom must be resident Indian citizens only.

As anticipated, industry sources believe that these new regulations might hinder the investment plans of Big Tech firms for whom the increased compliances can seem like an unnecessary pitchfork.

The draft proposal said that the rules will not only be applied to social media platforms exclusively but also to other digital platforms. Thus, hinting that the Indian digital media landscape will be highly censored and controlled by the GOI in the near future.

Currently, it is unclear if the rules will invite discussions and possible reiterations from stakeholders. Meity aka the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has not yet responded for a comment regarding the same.

Similarly, Facebook and Twitter were unreachable for a comment as well. We will keep you updated on all future developments. Until then stay tuned.

See original here:
Content Censorship: GOI To Tighten Its Noose Around Big Tech Platforms! - Dazeinfo

Ryan T. Anderson was recently named president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a respectable conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. He is a brilliant social commentator who spent several years at The Heritage Foundation. One of his books, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement, is no longer available on Amazon. Thats because it is a critical analysis of this phenomenon.

If Anderson is too controversial for Amazon, then it is only a matter of time before Pope Francis is censored.

That actually would be greatits time the cancel culture mavens had their tyrannical powers blown up in their faces.

Available on Amazon is a book, San Giovanni Paolo Magno, authored by Father Luigi Maria Epicoco and Pope Francis, that was published last year in Italian.

In it the pope condemns gender theorythe idea that men and women can switch their sexas evil. The pope made it clear that he was not referring to those who have a homosexual orientation. Rather, he was referring to an attack on difference, on Gods creativity, on man and woman.

Is Amazon going to censor this book? If so, where will it stop? If not, why not?

This was hardly the first time Pope Francis denounced gender ideology. In 2015, he called this novel idea ideological colonization, saying that it preys on children. Indeed, he said it was analogous to the Hitler Youth. In 2014, he went further, arguing that Gender ideology is demonic.

Now if these remarks by the Holy Father were to appear in a book, would Amazon carry it?

The appetite for censorship on the left is at a fever pitch.

Those responsible for this assault on free speech need to be subjected to much greater scrutiny on the part of Congress than has been true to date.

Dr. William Donohue is the president and CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. The publisher of the Catholic League journal, Catalyst, Donohue is a former Bradley Resident Scholar at the Heritage Foundation and served for two decades on the board of directors of the National Association of Scholars. He is the author of eight books, and the winner of several teaching awards and many awards from the Catholic community. Read Bill Donohues Reports More Here.

2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

See the rest here:
Will Amazon Censor the Pope? | News Talk WBAP-AM - WBAP News/Talk