Category Archives: Censorship

Censorship is a controversial and debatable issue in the film industry, with no solution in sight. Censorship in simple terms is the suppression of certain parts of a film that has the potential of being politically unacceptable, offensive, or a societal threat. Different countries have different laws for films when it comes to portraying themselves. However, in the presence of disobedience, the censorship board honors the importance of censorship by removing or suppressing that content which might be harmful to children or vulnerable people.

One research paper on censorship stated a controversial concept that said that the government uses the process of censorship to hide information and only show people what the government wants to show. The government agrees that expressing some sides of a particular country can be difficult for a lot of its citizens and claims that this is exactly why censorship is necessary.

However, using censorship generally tends to create a problem with the freedom of speech that should be protected by law. Keeping this in mind, it is hard to choose a side on the debate of whether censorship is good or bad. Since it largely relates to the rights of a person, it is one of the reasons why today as students, we are expected to work on censorship topics for research papers from a young age.

Films are made in different genres, including comedy, societal, mystery, dark humor, and many more. A lot of these movies have scenes that may either be unfit to young children or to vulnerable groups. Sometimes, parts of these films may also leak out information that is highly sensitive.

However, considering this, not all films are censored in the same way. The types of censorship certificates as per the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) which is the regulatory authority in India, are:

There are many guidelines that any censorship board needs to follow in order to legally censor the film or parts of a film. Some of the possible topics of concern include anti- social and violent activities, scenes that glorify offense, vulgarity, oppressing and shaming women, and scenes that depict racial discrimination including towards religious groups. There has been a fine line between the expression and abuse of the right to freedom of speech.

Films have a profound way of impacting the lives of people. One can research more information on the rights of freedom of speech and many other aspects of censorship through some paper topics and censorship essay ideas. As responsible viewers, it is necessary for us to properly dive into understanding the ways by which censorship methods are applied.

Despite saying this, the question remains, Is censorship really necessary? There are people who have written on many censorship essay topics discussing on whether or not it must be applied. There are times when the censor board has been able to make the right decision of banning certain things from the viewers to protect them. This fairly supports the concern of why censorship is necessary. However, there is a lack of attention to alternatives from the board.

Banning and censoring scenes is not the only option that can be applied to protect their citizens. There are early measures that can be taken during the making of the film. The film industry is a big business industry with a lot of private interests of the directors, actors, producers, and many more. This is where the importance of censorship can get a little shaky.

Although the boards responsibility is to take care of the public interest, it is equally important to protect the interests of the crew that works to bring forth such films. There is a lot of investment that goes behind making a film worth watching, and many lives depend on the results of that film.

Banning or censoring a part of the film or in the worst-case scenario the entire film can have big negative effects on the economic aspect of everyone involved. However, if the board does ban a film there are still ways to lift it by seeking an appeal from the High courts. But this option is time-consuming and a loss of additional money.

In this way, despite the fact that censorship is an important way to protect the people and vulnerable citizens, it is equally necessary to understand that this should be a final and ultimate response to such inconvenience.

There are other mitigating measures that the board and the government can take before imposing intense bans on the films. Adopting alternative policies before imposing harsh censorship will not just ensure a proper balance between freedom of speech and censorship but will also give authority and proper justice to the industry that is involved in making films.

Read this article:
The main types of censorship in films: Are they even necessary? - Film Daily

There is nothing racist about rugby fans singing Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.

Woke censorship has now come for rugby. The Rugby Football Union (RFU) is reviewing the use of the song Swing Low, Sweet Chariot by fans in an apparent concession to the Black Lives Matter movement.

Many fans, the RFU says, are unaware of the origins of the song, which was written by former slave Wallace Willis in the post-Civil War United States. Some believe the lyrics make reference to the Underground Railroad, a system of escape routes for slaves to flee captivity into the free states of the north.

It is true that the song has become a major part of black culture. The song has been sung at many black funerals and at civil-rights marches, and has been honoured by the US congress.

What a bizarre world we live in when banning a song steeped in black culture is deemed to be an act of anti-racism. Indeed, as Trevor Phillips points out, the last attempt to ban the song was in Nazi Germany in 1939. The censorship of Swing Low, Sweet Chariot is the kind of move the anti-black segregationists of yesteryear would have called for.

The RFUs review smacks of woke elitist disgust at the unwashed masses of rugby fans. This is another attempt by middle-class intellectuals to sterilise sport for the ordinary people that love it, all under the guise of fighting prejudice.

Anyone who thought the current campaign of woke censorship would be limited to the statues of slave traders must have been incredibly naive. Nothing is safe from the ever-growing woke blob.

Picture by: Getty.

Help spiked prick the Covid consensus

So here we are 12 weeks into Britains three-week lockdown. We hope you are all staying sane out there, and that spiked has been of some assistance in that. We have ramped up our output of late, to provide a challenge to the Covid consensus. But we couldnt have done that without your support. spiked unlike so many things these days is completely free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you enjoy our work, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even 5 per month can be a huge help. You can donate here.Thank you! And stay well.

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Excerpt from:
Is this the maddest target of woke censorship yet? - Spiked

As debate around what should and should not be allowed on social media platforms ramps up ahead of the 2020 US Presidential Election, a new report has provided some insight into how Americans, in general, feel about free speech online, and who, ultimately, should be in charge of policing such.

The report, conducted by Gallupand The Knight Foundation, incorporates responses from over 3,000 survey participants - though it is worth noting that the surveys were conducted inDecember 2019, before the latest back and forth between US President Donald Trump and social platforms over Section 230 protections.

That may actually prove more indicative, as it would reduce the heightened emotional response around the same. Here's what the responses indicate, based on various key elements.

First off, most Americans support free-speech on social platforms, even if they don't agree with those viewpoints.

As per the report:

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) favor allowing people to express their views on social media, including views that are offensive, over restricting what people can say on social media based on societal norms or standards of what is fair or appropriate (35%)."

So most believe that people should be free to say what they want. Though even within that, there are limits.

Almost all respondents indicated that child pornography should never be allowed on social media, while 85% said that misleading health information also should be prohibited.

So while the majority believe in freedom of speech as a principle, in practice, most also understand the dangers and harms of such, and agree that there needs to be parameters around what's allowed.

But who decides on that? Who do people believe should be making the call on what's acceptable and what crosses the line?

This is the key question at the core of the current Section 230 debate - and on 230 specifically, respondents were split.

As you can see here,54% of respondents say that Section 230 laws have done more harm than good, because they have not made social platforms accountable for illegal content on their sites and apps.

Though as recently noted by legal expert Jeff Kossef, there is still a level of confusion as to how Section 230 laws operate, and what they do and do not cover in terms of social platform liability:

"There is a huge misconception that Section 230 protections disappear if a platform moderates content.Congress passed 230 to prevent platforms from increasing their liability due to editing user content. Yet this misconception has persisted for years, and has shaped some websites' hands-off moderation practices. If they start to "edit" user content, they fear, they will lose Section 230 protections. Again, this is absolutely false."

That noted, the principle that most people are responding to in this survey is whether social platforms should or should not be protected by law in regards to the content they host, even if it's posted by users. A slim majority, as indicated, think that platforms are too protected, which lessens the impetus on them to properly police dangerous content.

But it's quite a conflict, isn't it? As noted in the top response, the majority of people believe that social media users should be free to say what they like, yet the vast majority also agree that some content is off-limits, even within that consideration.

The responses underline the ongoing challenge faced by social platforms, which has lead to some adding warning labels and other measures, while others take a more hands-off approach.

Which is the right one? Based on these responses, the public don't seem to be able to come to any clear consensus.

But they do know that they don't trust the platforms themselves to make rulings:

So where does that leave us?

Interestingly, the researchers also asked respondents how they feel about Facebook's new approach, which will see the implementation of an independent Content Oversight Board to rule on difficult content decisions. The Content Oversight Board will include experts from a range of fields and backgrounds, ensuring that various perspectives are taken into account.

And while respondents, initially, didn't seem overly convinced by this approach, after learning more about how the board is intended to function, the majority were in support.

As you can see here, the initial response, without learning about how the system will work, was negative, but having been given more information, that changed significantly.

"More than 8 in 10 Americans say they think a content oversight board is a good idea (54%) or very good idea (27%), while 12% say it is a bad idea, and 7% say its a very bad idea.

Maybe, then, that is the key, and Facebook is leading the way with its Content Oversight Board approach - which, unfortunately,won't be in a position to implement any significant change ahead of the 2020 Election.

But it could be the way forward. Amid confusion around Section 230, and attempts to reform such laws, maybe the key is to take the decision-making out of the hands of the platforms themselves, and ensure that trusted, independent groups are consulted on any policy changes.

We won't know how this works, of course, until Facebook's Content Oversight board begins, but of all the various scenarios represented in this dataset, it's the only one that seems to have any real support.

You can read the full "Free Expression, Harmful Speech and Censorship in a Digital World" report here.

Read more here:
New Report Looks at How People Feel About Online Censorship, and Who Should be Making the Calls on Such - Social Media Today

By U.S. Sen. Tom CottonR-Arkansashttps://www.cotton.senate.gov/

A Jacobin mob of left-wing thought police has risen up across our country.

No statue, no movie, no cartoon is immune. Nor any op-ed.

The New York Times, after publishing my op-ed about the Insurrection Act, capitulated to a woke mob of its employees.

But its not just the Times. I reveal here for the first time that the Twitter thought police also targeted me for expressing an opinion shared at that time by a majority of Americans.

Heres the behind-the-scenes story.

On June 1, Americans awoke to news of rioting and looting in our streets. In Washington alone, rioters burned an historic church, looted many businesses and defaced memorials to Abraham Lincoln and the veterans of World War II.

First on television, then on Twitter, I noted that the National Guard and active-duty troops could be called out to support local police if necessary, as happened during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters and looters, I wrote.

This was apparently too much for the professional umbrage-takers on Twitter. In high dudgeon, they exclaimed that no quarter once meant that a military force would take no prisoners, but instead shoot them.

Never mind that the phrase today is a common metaphor for a tough or merely unkind approach to a situation. For instance, former Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg and The New York Times have used the phrase in this way.

Or that politics often employs the language of combat as metaphors: campaigns, battleground states, target races, air war and ground war, and so forth. And, of course, the exaggerated foolishness that I was literally calling for the arrest and summary execution of American citizens.

But a sense of proportion is not Twitters long suit. Within a few hours, a low-level employee in Twitters Washington office contacted some of my aides at random, claiming that my tweet violated the companys policies. She also issued an ultimatum: delete the tweet or Twitter would permanently lock my account. She gave me only 30 minutes to comply.

My aide tried to reason with the employee. We offered to post a new tweet clarifying my meaning which I did anyway but the employee refused, insisting I had to delete the original tweet because some snowflakes had retweeted it.

We asked why my tweet wouldnt simply be flagged, as Twitter recently did to a tweet by the president. She contended that Twitter only did so for heads of state, not elected legislators, though its policy plainly states otherwise. The only option, she reiterated, was deleting the tweet or losing my account.

Finally, we provided them some dictionary definitions of no quarter. She said that she would take that back to our teams.

It was clear, I should add, that this low-level employee was acting as a front for more senior officials at Twitter, whom one might expect would contact directly a sitting senator to discuss such a serious matter. It was equally clear that she avoided putting as much in writing as possible.

Accountability is not Twitters long suit, either.

I called Twitters bluff, and 30 minutes came and went. I retained control of my account. Finally, almost two hours after the initial contact, the employee called to say Twitter would take no action against my account, but she was not authorized to say more.

Twitters arbitrary approach to political speech was only highlighted later that day, when the company flagged a tweet by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., for violating its policies. My aide subsequently asked why Gaetzs tweet was flagged since hes also a legislator, not a head of state. She clarified that their policy covers all elected officials, but only if the account has 100,000 followers.

Not only had we received a false account of the companys own policy, but my account had grown to over 100,000 followers that day, reflecting how arbitrary the policy is to begin with.

Twitter began as an open platform committed to the free exchange of ideas; over time, it increasingly has taken upon itself the role of politically correct censor of thought-crime by elected officials and ordinary citizens alike. Not surprisingly, the censorship falls overwhelmingly on conservatives.

Though Twitter purports to police only threats of violence, the company wont even cooperate with law enforcement investigating death threats against me and other legislators. And the orthodoxy starts at the top: CEO Jack Dorsey reportedly unfollowed the Twitter account of The New York Times Opinion section after it published my op-ed.

The censorship, the hypocrisy and the arbitrary action are reasons why Twitter and other social-media platforms face so much scrutiny today. Many legislators want to limit or eliminate their liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The companies also face potential antitrust actions by the Department of Justice and state attorneys general.

These social-media companies have improved the lives of Americans in many ways. But they should not be surprised public opinion is turning against them when they act as censors and moral scolds to millions of Americans. Nor should they expect to find many people rushing to their defense. In fact, to coin a phrase, those of us in their crosshairs might say: No quarter for Big Tech censorship.

Sen. Tom Cotton is a United States senator from Arkansas. His committees include the Banking Committee, where he chairs the Economic Policy Subcommittee, the Intelligence Committee, and the Armed Services Committee, where he chairs the Air Land Power Subcommittee. He graduated from Dardanelle High School, Harvard and Harvard Law School. After a clerkship with the U.S. Court of Appeals and private law practice, Sen. Cotton left the law because of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He served nearly five years on active duty in the United States Army as aninfantry officer. He served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne and in Afghanistan with a Provincial Reconstruction Team.

Original post:
U.S. senator: Twitter tried to censor me and lost - The Highland County Press

Move over, Lil Huddy. TikToks got a new crush Xi Jinping, leader of the Chinese Communist Party.

Gen Z users are flexing their satirical skills with pro-China videos, hoping to turn TikToks China ties into more views and fewer restrictions.

The video app has been accused of censoring content the Chinese government dislikes, so users decided to embrace TikToks ever-ambiguous algorithm.

Make content Beijing would approve of, the thinking goes, and you get views galore instead of censorship.

These virtual love letters feature the Chinese flag, the countrys national anthem, and hashtags like #ilovechina and #noticemexinjinping.

Others are buttering up China to reverse shadow bans or the removal of their videos. One user posted a clip with all the pro-China trappings, captioning it #ilovechina (ok but fr tho can I get comment privileges back).

Despite all the buzz, there is no conclusive evidence that the lovefest actually pays off. A spokesperson for the company was quick to disavow the theory, calling it ridiculous.

Link:
TikTok creators new dance move: flipping China censorship on its head - The Hustle

President Xi Jinping's power grab in 2013 turned a lot of heads and paved the way for what could only be described as a slow yet steady slip towards authoritarianism. Since his re-election in 2018, when he successfully got the National People's Congress (NPC) and the Communist Party of China (CPC)to abolish term limits for the presidency, there has been no looking back for the Chinese premier.

Xi Jinping, only days after the CPC opened the doorway for him to continue his rule indefinitely, laid down some of the strongest censorship tools the country has ever see, perhaps even the world. It was so meticulous that China quickly started banning words in every language that could be possible expressions of dissent.

While his reign has been led government organisations to curate an extensive list of words popular on microblogging site Weibo (Twitter equivalent in China) and other print and digital media platforms, it is imperative to note that his regime has raked up some truly bizarre words that refer to Xi Jinping.

Read | From 'President for life' to 'Xi Dada': How it's all gone downhill for China's Xi Jinping

In a truly astonishing yet bizarre move, China once banned, for a brief period, the English alphabet 'N'. Imagine spelling China without "n". According to a professor of Chinese language at the University of Pennsylvania, banning individual alphabet was a part of a 'widespread censorship clampdown.' It extended to "N" because it also referred to the number of terms Xi Jinping could stay in office, "n" meaning the mathematical equation n>2.

"Winnie the Pooh""Immortality"Lifelong control""Shameless""Xi Zedong" - a hybrid of the names Xi and Chairman

Ironically enough, George Orwell's dystopian novels Animal Farm and 1984, which describe a fictional world where authoritarian leaders in the form of animals strictly control the populations under them are also banned.

A somewhat unusual phrase "to board a place" was also banned in China, owing to its homophonic reference to the Chinese term "to ascend the throne". And in an entirely obnoxious yet blatant example of curbing free speech, the word disagree is also illegal to post on social media. It will immediately be flagged and the post will be taken down.

Read | Isolated At World Health Assembly, Xi Jinping's Bigger Challenge Is Coming At Home

Students and the general youth who were tired of Beijing's scrupulous watchdog methods of keeping its citizens under its oppressive thumb began voicing their concerns on social media and it fell on the government's radar as more and more people actively took to the internet to express their distraught with Xi's government and the Communist leadership.

The censorship wasput in place initially to monitor and block social media posts and searches that hinted towards any criticism of Xi Jinping's term limit announcement. Shortly after the NPC made the announcement, viral posts started flagging up on Weibo, which were then promptly deleted by censors and word bans were effectively put in place starting 2013.

Read | Sena talks up 'most important neighbour' China; blames US, absolves Nehru & questions Modi

When users attempted to publish banned terms, an error message popped up: "Sorry, this content violates the relevant laws and regulations on Weibo's terms of service."

As more and more words were banned, the Chinese people kept finding new ways to mask their dissent against Xi's oppressive regime. However, their sense of humour, wit and zeal for freedom was ostensibly not shared by China's increasingly autocratic internet "tsars".

Read | LAC Faceoff: India rejects China's 'exaggerated and untenable' claim over Galwan Valley

See the article here:
Why Chi*a banned the letter n and top 5 bizarre words censored by Xi Jinpings govt - Republic World - Republic World

Gail Asper, the woman who led the campaign to bring her father's vision for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights to fruition, says she is "very troubled" by allegations of racism and homophobia raised by current and former employees in recent weeks.

Her comments come the same day the museum issued an apology on behalf of its executive team for the practice of hiding gay content on tours at the request of certain tour groups.

Asper took over the museum project when her father,Izzy Asper,died in 2003,and now sits on its board of trustees. Shesaid she is watching the developments closely.

"They are committed to a complete and fully transparent accounting of systemic racism and discrimination at the museum," she said in a statement to CBC.

"I'm happy they are undertaking this process."

Earlier this week, CBC News reported that current and former employees said management would sometimes ask staff not to show any gay content on tours at the request of certain guests, including religious school groups.

The museum confirmed that from January 2015 until the middle of 2017, schools and classes could make a request for content to be excluded. That included stories about diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.

"This practice was wrong and was ended. This practice is contrary to the museum's mandate, and contrary to everything we stand for as a museum for human rights," the museum's apology letter, issued Friday afternoon, says.

The letter goes on to say that the executive team acknowledges that hiding these stories and experiences is a "profound betrayal" to the LGBT community, to students, and to the museum's staff, volunteers and donors.

"And it is a betrayal of the museum's central conviction that all human beings are born equal in dignity and rights," the letter says.

A thorough review of the practice will be done as part of the external investigation the museum has initiated into complaints about systemic racism and discrimination at the museum, the letter says.

The letter comes after John Young, the CEO of the museum, announced Thursday in a staff-wide email that he won't be seeking reappointment when his term ends this August. He had previously said he intended to continue his role.

Last week, the museum said it has hired a lawyer to investigate complaints of racism and other forms of discrimination including homophobia at the museum in Winnipeg.

Former Winnipeg mayor Glen Murray, who was the first openly gay mayor of a major North American city, also announced Thursday he was stepping down from the board of the Friends of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights over the allegations, saying this type of behaviour totally goes against what the museum was set up to do.

"When you see this culture of people who are experiencing racism, who are seeing the erasing and denial of the other journeys that are the whole reason for the museum, it's devastating," he told CBC Information Radio host Marcy Markusa in an interview Friday.

"It's totally institutionalized discrimination."

The original vision for the museum which wasfirst announced in 2003, during Murray's time as mayor was asa "transformative" institution for Winnipeg and for the world, he said, where people could not only learn about the history of human rights, but a place where current human rights issues would be discussed and advanced.

Murray who iscurrentlyrunning for the leadership of the federal Green Partysaid he thinks it's time for the federal government to look into why that's not happening.

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault said in an emailed statement that an institution like the CMHR "should not be perceived as condoning homophobia or engaging in self-censorship."

"Its role is to expose the realities of those whose voices have been silenced, not to silence them even more."

He said his office takes this matter very seriously and is in contact with the museum's senior management to ensure it is addressed.

In an email, Barry Karlenzig, the president of Pride Winnipeg, said his organization was very disappointed by the recent news that the CMHR has been censoring its exhibits for certain guests. He said Pride Winnipeg will be looking at different venues to host its welcome gala for the Fiert Canada Pride conference, set to take place in Winnipeg in 2022.

"We hope the CMHR will take this opportunity to do better, to accurately and fully reflect the history and culture of 2SLGBTQIA* Canadians in their permanent exhibitions without censorship,"Karlenzigsaid.

Visit link:
Gail Asper 'very troubled' by allegations of discrimination at Canadian Museum for Human Rights - CBC.ca

Former US national security adviser John Bolton Image Credit: AP

US president Donald Trumps administration is suing former national security adviser John Bolton in a last-ditch effort to block publication of his forthcoming memoir.

The Trump administration apparently understands that directly asking the court to bar publication would fail. So instead, government lawyers have invented a series of extraordinarily weak legal claims based on the nondisclosure agreement that all national security officials must sign.

The case should be dismissed by the court. It is a frivolous lawsuit, in lawyers jargon. Worse, it attempts an end-run around clearly established First Amendment law.

To be clear, I have no great sympathy for Bolton personally. He should have testified before the House of Representatives during last years impeachment inquiry, when what he has to say would have mattered.

It wasnt a good look. Nevertheless, law is law, and free speech is free speech. There are important principles at stake here. As is often the case, when the government comes after a citizens free speech, the citizen isnt a model one.

Prior restraint

The reason the lawsuit doesnt just ask the court to prohibit publication or order redactions to the book is that this would amount to what free speech law calls prior restraint that is, censorship. Such censorship is profoundly disfavoured under the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court refused the Nixon administrations attempts to impose prior restraints in the case of the Pentagon Papers, and those were classified. Just about the only circumstance in which a court might allow prior restraint would be the publication of the recipe for making a hydrogen bomb.

Because a direct request for censorship would be laughed out of court, the Trump administration lawyers have gotten creative. Their complaint alleges three breaches of contract based on two standard nondisclosure agreements that national security officials like Bolton sign.

In essence, even after leaving office, the officials will submit their publications for the National Security Council to review, lest they contain any classified information.

One of these agreements contains a sentence that says the employee will assign to the government any profits from the disclosure of classified information.

The factual problem with the governments argument is that, as it acknowledges, Bolton did submit his manuscript for an extraordinarily lengthy and detailed review. A designated NSC official made hundreds or maybe thousands of editorial suggestions, and Bolton complied.

Then, after this months-long process was over, the administration told him a different official would be undertaking a further review at the request of an assistant to the president meaning it came from a political appointee.

Although the White House has not formally given its approval to Bolton, it is pretty clear that he has not breached his obligation to submit the manuscript for review. Whats more, he hasnt published it yet, so even if there were a breach, it so far hasnt happened.

Legal problems galore

At the legal level, the problems are many. To name just a few:

The government has invented a brand-new idea that Bolton had an obligation to the government to protect the classified information, as though he were a trustee of the government rather than an employee. Nothing in the contract says so, of course.

If the court were to embrace this theory, potentially everyone who signs an NDA could be treated differently from the way their NDAs read.

The government is also insisting that Bolton tell his publishers not to publish. In legal terms, this kind of order is called specific performance. But specific performance is not the legal remedy in this situation. Third, the government is demanding all of Boltons royalties or proceeds from the book.

But the NDA contract only says that the government would be entitled to royalties from the disclosure of classified information at most, some small percentage of the books overall revenue.

Theres more, but I suspect youre already getting the flavour of just how outrageous the governments legal theories are.

Any reasonable court will dismiss them and soon. Courts have the power to sanction lawyers who waste everyones time with frivolous arguments, and to impose penalties including the awarding of attorneys fees to defendants who are subject to frivolous lawsuits. But this lawsuit is even worse than frivolous.

Its an assault on established law and on the First Amendment.

Noah Feldman is a columnist and author. He is a professor of law at Harvard University.

Continue reading here:
Why is Trump determined to censor Bolton's book - Gulf News

TV: I read on your website that all your main staff are young Black women. Why did you feel like it was important for young people to be at the forefront of the magazine, and particularly young Black women?

AT: Its funny, we recently made the decision not to put for Black women in the bio of our site. We thought about it, and we realized that so many spaces for white people exist just by default they dont have to name the space for it to be for white people. So we decided we wanted to create a space that prioritized Black womens needs, but put it out there as if its a given.

Of course, I wanted to uplift specific voices, and thats why my team is made up of Black women, but the people on my team are also some of the most brilliant people Ive ever met. Everyone is so good at their role and so passionate about the mission. Were all students and were all so committed to learning and seeing this through, and I think that really shines through on the site.

TV: What do you think Unplug Collective is adding to the discussion of Black womens bodies that maybe other magazines arent talking about as much?

AT: I feel like were taught that story telling has to be a very specific arc: It has to have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and the end needs to have some sort of resolution. But I think for Black women specifically, and especially when were talking about our journeys with our own bodies, there might not be a resolution to the story yet. For example if someone is writing about fatphobia and medical discrimination, and theyre writing about a time when they were misdiagnosed for an illness because of their weight, they are still going through this, and there is not a typical resolution to their story yet. Our number one priority is to allow people to be transparent about their feelings, rather than have a tidy story thats going to get views.

Whats often so difficult about writing is that a lot of language related to trauma is inaccessible. For example words like gaslighting or fatphobia are things that many Black women have faced, but may not have the language to talk about. I think that if we can show people that our lived experiences are just as valuable to learn from as a typical textbook, we can make a huge shift in the way that people view Black womens trauma and trauma in general.

TV: What has the response been to the Unplug Collective since you launched?

AT: The response has been overwhelmingly positive. I would say I get a least two responses a day saying I just started therapy after reading your website or I didnt know I had an eating disorder until I read a conversation in the comments section.

We see the comments section of the website as a bit of a community healing circle. Our publication doesnt remove the writing process from the reaction process: Our titles are very to the point, we encourage writers to submit a photo along with their work, and every article has a comments section so people can respond to someones story immediately. Its essentially online group therapy in a way thats very accessible.

Our whole mission revolves around the idea that everyone is a story teller, everyone is a writer, and everyone has influence. That means that anyone can submit as well. The only pitching process is sharing your Google doc, and if your story is accepted, the editor will call you, talk to you about what youre going through, and see if you need any support in your writing. So by the time the story has been published, the writer will have gone through a bit of a healing process already, and then when people begin to comment, it continues that process.

Read more:
The Unplug Collective Allows Black Women to Express Themselves Without Censorship - Teen Vogue

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said governments wanting to censor social media platforms is not the right reflex.

Asked during an interview on Fox News about President Trumps plan to sign an executive order curbing the power of Twitter, Facebook and Google, Zuckerberg said it would depend on what the intent is.

But in general, I think a government choosing to censor a platform, because theyre worried about censorship doesnt exactly strike me as the right reflex there, he said in the interview that aired on Thursday.

The founder of the social media giant said such platforms strive for a balance: we try very hard to give people a voice, and we get a lot of criticism from some people who think that we censor too much.

Zuckerberg said his company cares deeply about giving people a voice and empowering individuals.

I dont think that you build a company that gives people a voice like this if you dont believe that individuals having a voice is a good thing, he said.

Zuckerberg said hes trying to give people a wide ability to express themselves, but warned that real harm can be done if its creating violence.

But broadly speaking, we try to give people as much latitude and having a voice as possible, he said.

Trump said hes preparing to sign an executive order on social media companies after Twitter added fact-checking links to two of his tweets claiming that allowing voting by mail would cause rampant fraud and result in a rigged election.

In an interview on MSNBC, Zuckerberg said he didnt think social media networks like Twitter should be fact-checking political speech.

I dont think that Facebook or internet platforms in general should be arbiters of truth, Zuckerberg said on Squawk Box.

Political speech is one of the most sensitive parts in a democracy, and people should be able to see what politicians say, he continued.

See more here:
Mark Zuckerberg says social media censorship not the 'right reflex' - New York Post