Category Archives: Censorship

An emergency physician in Bellingham, Washington, Ming Lin used his personal Facebook account to claim that patients and staff lacked the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE) in his hospital. Having made public his grievances with his employer's handling of the covid-19 pandemic, he was fired soon after.

Lin's case is an ominous example. We cannot punish doctors for speaking out during this pandemic. They have a perspective that we need badly now - bringing back first-person knowledge of the worst extremes of a still-building crisis.

Until recently, it was difficult for physicians to share their experiences in newspapers and other publications, unless they could contort their own perspectives into the confines of a constantly mutating news cycle. As it did to so many facets of life, the coronavirus pandemic changed that. Suddenly, news outlets are actively seeking input from physicians and nurses. It should be an ideal time for these fellows to publish and lead. And it would be, if only their employers weren't getting in the way.

On the day that Lin first claimed he was fired, I sent a group of doctors that I work with in my capacity as a facilitator for the OpED Project a link to a CNN form that asked clinicians to share their experiences. In less than 10 minutes, my email was met with another from a hospital administrator, saying "[The hospital] is asking that you NOT share your stories with the media per an email that went out yesterday."

Soon after, a message arrived from the hospital's press office explaining the prohibition: "The format that these kinds of submissions would take inherently make things look more chaotic than they actually are," it read, adding, "We wouldn't want to create the impression that we are detracting from patient care in order to shoot these."

On March 11, another physician connected with my program posted an innocuous mention of a lack of tests and a picture of herself at work; the post was shared more than 1,800 times. She messaged me later saying "turned down interviews w ABC nightly news and Good morning America bc is scrutiny from [the hospital]," because her posts had angered "some important people." She didn't say exactly what irked them, but the only part of her post that would have had anything to do with her employer was the fact that it didn't have enough supplies, which aligned with Lin's complaints.

Similar issues seem to be playing out elsewhere. Fortune magazine and Bloomberg News have both reported that NYU Langone Medical Center in New York has forbidden staff from contacting the media without permission under threat of termination. A number of physicians have complained that they can't speak to the media for fear of being fired.

Protecting patient privacy is a must. So is treating patients; health-care providers shouldn't prioritize media appearances over medical appointments. But after working with health-care professionals during this crisis to facilitate their inclusion in the news, I don't think there's much risk to privacy or patients themselves. From what I've witnessed in working with them, my fellows are committed professionals, and they know that, in this unprecedented crisis, patient care includes public advocacy, minus the personal details.

We need to confront what this media management is really about. Esther Choo, an emergency physician at Oregon Health and Science University, said on CNN this past weekend that much of this is simply hospitals "not wanting to be upfront about how things aren't going well inside their walls." That sounds a lot like an attempt at self-preservation by corporate entities.

That's not to say that all hospitals have something to hide. Indeed, a shortage of PPE isn't an oversight on the facility's part; they are victims to failed leadership by the federal government. And it is true, of course, that we need clinicians doing on clinical duty, not getting ready for their close-up, though all the doctors I know put their professional responsibilities first.

But as the virus spreads, so do health-care providers' job descriptions; they're being asked to fill out clinical rosters in specialties they're not used to. It's not always clear whether this added media responsibility is one of whistleblower or citizen journalist but I don't think that matters. All that matters is that they be allowed to do it without fear of repercussions.

For safety and privacy reasons, journalists can't embed themselves in emergency department bays. The reporting of physicians and nurses is essential. In fact, it might be what saves us. That one Facebook post written by the doctor who declined all of those invitations to speak on national news shows convinced a local politician to activate state agencies in Massachusetts. Another published an op-ed in which he drew on his clinical experience in the hospital to explain how the United States could avoid becoming like Italy. Manufacturers and experts contacted him, inquiring how they could help. I suspect that his employer will eventually tout him as one of the heroes who helped solve the ventilator shortage, as will those of Lin and all the other physicians in the news - if they allow their employees to speak.

Not every doctor or nurse who's had a media appearance has been quieted or threatened. But I fear that many of those who've been allowed to speak have been encouraged to do so out of an interest in branding, rather than from a desire to provide real information.

Some may argue that these physicians should take their lumps if they don't follow their employers' orders. And there's some truth to that: When your job and health insurance are in play, sometimes it's wise to walk a safe path. But this is not one of those times - and they shouldn't have to put themselves in professional jeopardy to help inform us when they're already in the line of fire. And that means it's on their own employers to let them speak up. Rendering clinicians inconsequential during a worldwide pandemic is the worst thing they can do.

View post:
Hospitals are censoring doctors. That endangers the rest of us. - Bryan-College Station Eagle

In 1997, over a year after the film had debuted in US cinemas, one of the most underrated Hollywood comedies of the decade snuck out onto video, completely bypassing a theatrical run. Theres a sporting chance youd not heard of it: A Very Brady Sequel.

Even to get to video, this 12-rated film had required 23 seconds of cuts to get a certificate at all. For it found itself on the wrong side of the British Board of Film Classifications (BBFC) crackdown on nunchucks, a campaign that had intensified a few years earlier when the Turtles first came to town.

A publicity still for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles shows Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Donatello, Raphael and Judith Hoag as reporter April O'Neil. (New Line Cinema)

Nunchucks, then. The traditional martial arts weapon had come to the BBFCs attention after the success of Enter The Dragon, but itd come fully into focus with 1990s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film.

Itd be no understatement to say the whole Turtles phenomenon was a cause of sizeable consternation to British censors, leading infamously to the animated television series and associated merchandise going under the moniker Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles in the UK instead. But whilst the 1990 film got through with the word Ninja in the title, British cinema-goers were forced to wait a long time after their US counterparts to actually see it.

Now celebrating its 30th birthday, the movie landed on 30 March 1990 in the US, but wouldnt hit UK screens until 23 November of the same year. The near-eight-month delay was in part due simply to different times.

It wasnt uncommon for movies to follow their US release by such time lapses in the UK, in pre-internet days where spoilers and piracy were far, far lesser issues (around the same time, for instance, both Turner & Hooch and Parenthood would trail their respective US releases by half a year each).

Furthermore, whilst hindsight is easy enough, nobody quite saw the success of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles coming, at least not to the level it ultimately reached. When the $13.5m movie barnstormed its way to over $135m at the US box office, it would become the most successful independent film of all time (a record it held until Pulp Fiction shot up a few years later).

Jim Henson and the Ninja Turtles. (Golden Harvest/New Line/Kobal/REX/Shutterstock)

The movie was after a lot of development to and fro greenlit by Hong Kong studio Golden Harvest, with production work taking place in the US and at Jim Hensons Creature Shop in the UK.

But Golden Harvest still needed wide distribution, and no Hollywood studio would touch the film (burned, as the story goes, by the underwhelming grosses for 1987s Masters Of Universe). Every major turned the movie down, and cameras rolled on the film without a deal in place. Only half-way through filming did New Line Cinema agree to put the movie out in America.

You can't think about the early 1990s without thinking of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

This was a crucial development for the UK release.

New Line at this stage was a small company that hadnt as of yet been taken over by Warner Bros (and it was still a decade or so away from Lord Of The Rings). It had made its money off the A Nightmare On Elm Street series, but didnt have the safety net of a studio bank account or credit rating.

Story continues

Taking on Turtles was thus quite a gamble for the firm, and at this stage, it didnt have tentacles in the UK. A separate British distributor would need to be sought, and that was going to add an additional delay to the UK release.

Read more: Twin Peaks at 30

Had Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles been a studio film, there would have at least been a chance of a closer-together release. But ultimately Virgin Vision acquired the production for the UK market. By the time it came to actually release it at the end of 1990, the movie had become the sleeper hit sensation of the year in the States, and the Turtles themselves that years biggest toy craze.

It wasnt just Virgin Vision that noticed this, of course. The BBFC did as well. Conflict lay ahead: its distributors wanted a children-friendly PG certificate for the film, whilst the BBFC was hugely concerned by sequences including the aforementioned nunchucks, and didnt want anklebiters watching them.

A PG certificate film classification DVD video disk.

The-then head of the organisation, James Ferman, insisted on substantial cuts to the film, although not all at the BBFC agreed, with one examiner arguing their young daughter had watched the US version without being turned on to chainsticks. There was pressure to revise the entire policy, but Ferman didnt yield.

In all, one minute and 51 seconds were spliced out of the movie to secure the November cinema release. Not just nunchucks, as it happened, but also the title Turtle Power song was reworked to swap out the word ninja and substitute hero in its place. Certain moments were reframed too, with the BBFC fearing that British youth would seek to be ninja-influenced. Again, this new cut took a little time to put together.

The delay, as it happened, didnt prove detrimental to the films UK box office impact, with the movie proving to be a sizeable success (in spite of pretty hostile reviews). But the contribution of the several discussed factors led to it following that of the US by some time.

Incidentally, the story of the censorship of the quickly-made sequel The Secret Of The Ooze in the UK which involved sausages used as nunchucks being cut out is detailed at the BBFCs own website, and its a pretty infamous case. It was in the last vestiges of Fermans nunchuck crackdown, and the case study is something of a classic (look for the genuine line since there is real confusion between chainsticks and sausages this sequence needs to be carefully checked)

Read more: How Honor Blackman set the Bond girl template

The Turtles story, of course, has proven to have further cinematic legs, albeit none of the releases since have been as impactful as the original. The most commercially successful the 2014 reboot has nowhere near the fanbase, and nowhere near as iconic a title tune. Nor, notably, any cuts.

But that original film? Its birthday is being celebrated with good cause. A film that was a battle and a half to make, a huge risk to greenlight, and a tougher than expected job to release, three decades on, it remains arguably the Heroes In A Half Shells finest big screen work.

Read the rest here:
'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' at 30: Looking back at the controversy around its UK release - Yahoo Sports

Screen Shot of Rusk County statement showing First Amendment threat, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- On 30 March 2020, the Public Health Department of Rusk County, Wisconsin, issued a statement under the name of the County Sheriff and Dawn Brost, RN, of Rusk County Public Health. The statement appears to be a direct attack on First Amendment rights. From the Rusk County web page:

The Rusk County Sheriffs Office and Public Health Department take coronavirus infection (COVID-19) seriously. We are informing the public that making false statements and spreading rumors about COVID-19 is a crime and will be prosecuted.

No Wisconsin statute is cited. Wisconsin statutes have provisions for false statements or claims by a health care provider. A search did not find a statute for false statements by a member of the public, not for spreading rumors.

Here is an image of the entire statement:

The problem with prosecuting people for spreading rumors or making false statements is it is not clear who gets to decide what is false or not.

There are often diametrically opposed statements made by different media, which cannot both be true.

The First Amendment protects speech, very widely. There are exceptions for inciting riots, slander, defamation or inciting the violent overthrow of the government. There is a provision for disorderly conduct.

None of that seems to apply to the Rusk County threat about false statements and rumors.

The First and Second Amendments are tied tightly together. Openly carrying a firearm is a strong, symbolic, political speech. It is difficult to protect your right to freedom of speech and the press, if you have no right to bear arms, or are not allowed to protect the property necessary to spread your message.

The Wisconsin Constitution has a very strong provision protecting the right to keep and bear arms in Section 25:

Right to keep and bear arms. Section 25. [As created Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. [1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote Nov. 1998]

It also has very strong protection for freedom of speech, in Section 2:

Free speech; libel. Section 3. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous be true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.

The threat from Rusk County to prosecute for false statements and rumors about COVID-19 appears to be in direct contradiction to both the United States Constitution, and the Wisconsin State Constitution.

On 28 January 2020, the Rusk County Board of Supervisors voted, unanimously, not to make Rusk County into a Second Amendment Sanctuary County.

The Internet is full of rumors about COVID-19. The media is full of contradictory rumors about the virus, its lethality, origin, infectious qualities, and possible treatments.

Rusk County Health Department was contacted; Dawn Brost was not available and has not returned the phone call at this time.

The Sheriff's office was contacted; Sheriff Wallace has not returned the phone call at this time.

The statement may be an example of poor wording. At a minimum, a citation of a Wisconsin statute would do much to eliminate confusion.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

See the original post:
Wisconsin County Officials Attempt to Censor Speech about COVID-19 - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

YANGON: Civil society groups here have accused the government of taking advantage of the Covid-19 pandemic to censor legitimate information and curtail freedom of expression.

They claimed that the government had also abused the situation to restrict the media.

Recently, 264 associations, including media networks, womens groups and disability advocates, issued a joint statement condemning the governments forced blocking of 221 websites and refusing to lift an Internet blackout in restive areas of Rakhine and Chin states.

According to reports in the Myanmar Times, Daw Yin Yadanar Thein of Free Expression Myanmar said the blocking of websites had a chilling impact on press freedom.

The government is sending a message that if they want, they can block whichever website they want, whenever, she said, adding that this would lead to increased self-censorship.

On March 23, a further directive was issued to block 14 more websites which the ministry accused of disseminating misinformation.

Article 77 of the law allows the ministry to impose restrictions or bans in an emergency situation out of public interest. The government did not clarify what emergency it is invoking.

Foreign organisations have also criticised the move. Matthew Bugher, Asia representative for Article 19, said the blocking of ethnic news websites was drastic and unjustified.

He called it full-blown censorship of the kind not seen in Myanmar since Aung San Suu Kyis government took office.

Myanmar should immediately lift its order to block news websites for allegedly publishing fake news. Such orders will only stifle independent and critical reporting within the country, said Shawn Crispin of the Committee to Protect Journalists.

He added that censorship and harassment of the media was supposed to stop during Myanmars transition from military to elected rule.

But government officials deny the accusations. Although the officials have not published a full list of the 221 websites they ordered blocked, they said it includes those promoting pornography, child abuse and fake news about the pandemic.

Nine months ago, the government imposed an Internet blackout in nine townships in northern Rakhine and Chin states despite criticism by the UN and aid agencies.

Advocacy group Fortify Rights urged Nay Pyi Taw to lift the shutdown, which it said amounted to denying access to vital information during a public health crisis on top of the armed conflict risks.

The Myanmar government is preventing residents of Chin and Rakhine states from being informed of how to take precautionary measures, follow best practices and prevent the spread of the disease, said Matthew Smith, head of Fortify Rights.

See more here:
Myanmar govt accused of restricting media information - New Straits Times

Via Americas Lawyer:For years, young people being detained along our southern border have reported being sexually abused at the hands of both fellow detainees as well as US guards.Mike Papantonio and Trial Magazine Executive Editor Farron Cousins discuss the problem. Then, Political Commentator Steve Malzberg joins Mike Papantonio to talk about the controversial decision by Facebook to link your brain to a computer.

Transcript:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Mike Papantonio: For years, young people being detained along our southern border have reported being sexually abused at the hands of both fellow detainees as well as US guards. And even though things are getting worse, this behavior did not originate during the Trump administration as everybody would like to say, as plenty of past leaders have completely ignored this problem. Farron Cousins from Trial Lawyer Magazine is with me now to talk about it. Farron the numbers are staggering. 4,500 reports, allegations, clearly allegations of sexual abuse. The, if you look at this story though, Im hearing the same response that we heard under Obama. Obama had the same problem. Bush before him had the same problem. And the argument is always that its not the HS, its not the HHS employees. Theyre subcontractors in each state that are the problem. What is your take on this story?

Farron Cousins: Thats, thats kind of the same thing we hear about. You know, anytime theres bad things that the government does or bad things are happening from government employees is, oh no, no, no, its our private contractors. You know, its, its the private prison guards. Its the private mercenaries over in Iraq. The private contractors ripping us off. And now HHS says the same thing here. And the common thread is these contractors that were hiring to do these jobs, whether it is, make sure detainees arent getting raped or deliver goods overseas, its always the private contractors that are no good.

Mike Papantonio: Okay, heres what happens and weve seen it in every one of the stories you described. If theyre always looking, these, these contracts were talking about are always giveaways. Theyre political giveaways. And so the, so they, at one hand, they want to say, well, were not really responsible. It was, you know, some subcontractor. No, you are responsible because these are big gifts and big giveaways. People are making a lot of money. And if you cant hire people that are qualified to do it, you know, thats your, thats your problem. But right now, Ive got to tell you, this is a big problem, but I want to point out this has been a big problem for a long time. And as much as we talk about Obama, about Trump doing wrong. Obama, Bush did the same thing here, and they had the same problem and was never addressed.

Farron Cousins: Right. We had children locked in cages during the Obama administration along the southern border. We cannot overlook that and we cannot give him a pass. Its been going on for too long and now were finding out the extent of the abuse and each story that comes out is worse than the one before it. This takes the cake.

Mike Papantonio: Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg is researching a new mind reading technology, which is going to allow users to use their thoughts to navigate intuitively throughout the augmented reality. Steve Malzberg joins us for this story and no this is not an Onion story, its really happening. Steve, how this technology works, I, I had to do a triple read of the story. I know, there, the technology certainly is there. We, were finding that were able to do a lot of biometric kind of things. But as, as this is, as this is developing, you listen to, to, to mark Zuckerberg and it sounds like its way down the road. Whats your take?

Steve Malzberg: Well, you know, its being used for people with ALS. Theyre able to, some of them are able to type just by thinking and thats, thats what he envisions here. But I think he has more nefarious, uh, plans. Its not an implant. They dont put anything in your, into your head. This is interface that it reads your brain activity you put on, it looks like a shower cap. Okay. And its surrounds the brain and it discovers connections between your thoughts and brain activity. And it also makes use of optical imaging technology. And presumably by the way, coincidentally using glasses manufactured by Oculus Vr, which is owned by Facebook. So, you know, its all kind of incestuous there. Yeah.

Mike Papantonio: As I saw this story developed where Zuckerberg shows up at Harvard and hes giving a speech on the, the reality of, of technology. Where are, where are we, wheres it going, hows it going to get better? And this is where he, he, he reveals this, that hes been working on. And with so many Facebook innovations, Zuckerberg doesnt seem to see how brain computer interface breaches individual integrity and that, that came up in the, in the, where he gave the speech. A law professor said, you know, we still have a fifth amendment.

Steve Malzberg: Right.

Mike Papantonio: We dont want you in our heads. Youre already, youre already following us around by phone, by, by IPAD. My God, we cant get away from technology and now you want it to get right up in our head. Whats your thoughts?

Steve Malzberg: Oh, absolutely. I mean the red flags are just popping up all over the screen. They should be popping up in our heads as well. I mean, do you trust Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook when we know how our information has been shared and, and abused and, and theyre spying on us and all that kind of stuff. Do you want them to know your thoughts? Whats inside your head the way, as you said they do with smart phones and our computers. And then what happens if, if your thoughts get out, we know that we risk our medical information getting out and all kinds of different things. But if they knew what you were thinking, would you be prosecuted? Which youll be blacklisted? Would you lose your job? I mean the, the, the possibilities are limitless and theyre all frightening.

Mike Papantonio: Well, look, Facebook, you know, they want to establish their own what Zuckerberg calls his own supreme court. And let me tie this up a little bit. We all know that as you point out, theyre spying on us. Theyre following us. Theyre, you know, now theyre making decisions about whats, what, what we can say. And what we cant say. If theyre offended by what we say, they take it off the air. If theyre, if they like what we say, then they promote it. So what we have is this, all of this type of censorship taking place. And so he was really assaulted with those talking points when he gave this speech at Harvard. And so his response was, well, I havent been talking about this folks, but I want to tell you something. He made this announcement. Facebook is going to have a supreme court and the supreme court that I suppose hes going to a, is going to appoint is, is going to deal with these thorny questions about what appears on the Facebook platform. Did you follow this? Did you follow this part of the story?

Steve Malzberg: Oh yeah, absolutely. I mean, he says, I dont want to make these decisions of censorship or he didnt say censorship, what goes, but it doesnt go. So hes appointing or theyre appointing a 40 people, independent experts that will decide if a given comment should stay or go, whats hate speech? Whats hate, whats appropriate? What, I mean, every, every possible piece of censorship these 40 people will have. Now, are they going to go against what Zuckerberg thinks and Zuckerberg is not going to play any role. Hes not going to be the chief justice in this Supreme Court. He Says No. So youre shifting power to a group put together by Facebook and Zuckerberg. I mean, there are 2.3 billion users. There are mil, millions of cases every day. How could they even monitor this with 40 people? That, none of it makes sense.

Mike Papantonio: Steve, I want to have you back on and I want to analyze how the numbers are showing that millennials are just fine with this level of censorship, that in their mind, somebody should be making a decision about the things we think about. Thank you for joining me, Steve. Well pick up this conversation again.

Visit link:
Thousands Of Migrant Detainees Report Sexual Abuse & Facebook Researching Mind Reading Technology - The Ring of Fire Network - The Ring of Fire...

U.S. Army sergeant Maatje Benassi was among several hundred U.S. service men and women who traveled to Wuhan to take part in the Military World Games in October.

But, according to a widely-believed conspiracy theory, the 52-year-old road racing cyclist carried something else with her on her trip to China: The coronavirus.

The story has no grounding in fact. It was a fairy tale dreamed up by U.S. conspiracy theorist George Webb in Washington, DC. But the Communist Party of China (CCP) has promoted it so aggressively within China that it has become accepted knowledge among the Chinese populace that the U.S. military imported the coronavirus to Wuhan and began the pandemic that has killed over 50,000 people and infected more than a million worldwide.

Its difficult to say how many Chinese people accept the conspiracy as true, but the CCPs promotion of the idea across social networks WeChat and Weibo, as well as amplification through state-run TV, has made it inescapable in Chinese society. Indeed, any Chinese person who disputes that narrative on social media can have their account shut down and their families arrested.

I couldn't argue against the posts that the virus was brought to China by the U.S. military even though I knew it was a lie because any evidence I post against the Chinese government propaganda will be deleted, the Wechat group can be deleted, my account will be suspended and I can put my family in danger, one Chinese American named Zhang, who did not want to be named over fears of retribution, told VICE News.

READ: China is now blaming a lone US cyclist for the coronavirus pandemic

Globally, Beijings efforts to deflect criticism and pin the blame on the U.S. have been hit and miss, but at home, the effort has been hugely successful. More than half a dozen China experts say there is widespread acceptance of the narrative which has found a receptive audience thanks to decades of anti-US indoctrination and a complete lack of an independent media or access to outside sources.

Sadly most Chinese people really believe the U.S. brought the virus to China and they call it USA virus, Lucy, a 45-year-old Chinese American who recently returned to China to take care of her parents, told VICE News. The CCPs anti-American propaganda is very successful.

Conspiracy theories around the origin of the coronavirus are not unique to China. We have seen everyone from celebrities sharing a video claiming Bill Gates created the coronavirus to Sen. Tom Cotton claiming the disease was deliberately created in a virology lab in Wuhan.

But what is unique to China is the inability for most citizens in the country to fact-check the claims being made by official CCP outlets, or to seek any independent information outside Chinas Great Firewall, which blocks access to most western news outlets and other sources of information, such as Google and Wikipedia.

READ: Here's how China is rewriting the history of the coronavirus pandemic to make itself the hero

Chinese citizens are fully aware that their government censors criticism of Beijing on WeChat and Weibo while pushing messages that portray it in a positive light. Theyre also aware of the consequences for challenging that or for seeking outside information.

When the government spreads disinformation about other countries and blocks counter-narratives, it is much easier for people to buy into governments narratives because you just dont have access to alternative sources of information, Yaqui Wang, a China researcher at Human Rights Watch, told VICE News.

And when it comes to claims about the U.S. Chinese people have been conditioned to believe the worst.

CCP disinformation about the U.S. is nothing new, through textbooks, movies and many other educational, cultural, and media productions, Beijing has been increasingly promoting the narrative that the U.S. is an imperialist power that wants to undermine the rise of China.

Chinese media doesnt need much effort to convince its people of that blatant lie that the U.S. army brought the disease to Wuhan, most Chinese people, after 70 years of anti-American propaganda, are already convinced the U.S. is an evil country and is responsible for many bad events in the world, Lucy said.

Inside of China the conspiracy spread rapidly through WeChat, a messaging app that is so deeply integrated into Chinese life that losing your account means losing access to banking, online shopping, ordering taxis and much more.

According to Zhang, the conspiracy theory was shared in multiple WeChat groups they were in, and in such a way that it looked like a coordinated effort.

A few weeks ago, I started to see posts about the virus was brought to China by the U.S. military, the source said. All the posts appeared in different WeChat groups at around the same time. Keep in mind most WeChat groups are completely independent of each other. For the same posts to show up in all the large WeChat groups at the same time, it has to have the government behind it.

The CCP has a huge amount of control over how WeChat operates and has already shown its willingness to use that power to control the coronavirus narrative.

It has banned WeChat users inside the country who have shared anything vaguely negative about the governments response to coronavirus, it has silenced overseas WeChat users without their knowledge, and it has ramped up the level of censorship on the topic of coronavirus as the epidemic escalated.

READ: Wuhan's crematoriums are filling thousands of urns with coronavirus remains each day

The fact China has not banned this topic from being discussed on WeChat shows that it is happy for it to continue to be disseminated.

The topic has been widely discussed on WeChat and Weibo, one Hong Kong-based social media researcher known by the Twitter handle Chelsea, told VICE News. The CCP doesnt censor the discussion of origin. As most Chinese think the virus is not from China. I think this is the direction that CCP want it to keep going.

The view is backed up by Victor Shih, a China expert at the University of California.

Although the Chinese government and Chinese tech companies have demonstrated numerous times that they have the capacity to stop rumors and forwards from going viral on WeChat using censorship tools, they have not chosen to stop this groundless theory from circulating among Chinese communities, Shih told VICE News.

But unlike previous anti-U.S. propaganda, this time around Beijing is also seeking to sow disinformation further afield. What is new this time is that China is doing this kind of disinformation externally, on Twitter, a platform blocked in China, and through its external-facing media outlets, Wang said.

Research published this week by the Stanford Internet Observatory shows that the seeds of the conspiracy go back at least to January, when news of the virus in Wuhan.

It is unclear when the conspiracy theory was first floated or by whom, but it had gained enough traction by the turn of the year that on Jan. 2, a Chinese-language YouTube channel shared a video dismissing the idea that the pneumonia in Wuhan was the result of U.S. genetic warfare.

READ: China is trying to rewrite the history of silenced coronavirus whistleblower doctor Li Wenliang

It was around this time that whistleblower doctor Li Wenliang tried to warn friends about a growing pneumonia-like virus spreading in his hospital in Wuhan before the government silenced him.

The researcher said that because platforms have pledged to remove disinformation related to the origin of the coronavirus, and our research started in mid-March, some materials could have been removed.

Throughout January and February, the conspiracy theory continued to filter through on platforms like YouTube and Twitter which are banned in China and the English-language versions of Chinas state-backed media also began boosting the unfounded claims.

Then, in March, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian gave the conspiracy the CCPs seal of approval, tweeting that It might be U.S. army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan.

A week later he doubled down on the claim, citing Webbs conspiracy theory about Benassi being coronavirus patient zero, without a shred of evidence.

Beijings reason for persisting with these claims is simple.

While people are discussing and debunking these conspiracy theories, they are not talking about its initial failings in responding to the outbreak and the questions being raised over the veracity of the figures it has shared about the outbreak.

Propaganda like this largely serves the leadership's interests in that it takes attention away from other problems in China, one of the co-founders of GreatFire.org, an organization that tracks Chinas online censorship, told VICE News, using the pseudonym Charlie Smith. You and many of your peers are covering this story now instead of covering other, more truthful, and likely hurtful, stories. It's a waste of everyone's time except The Party's.

Cover: A couple wearing face masks arrive at the railway station in Wuhan, in China's central Hubei province on April 6, 2020. (Photo: HECTOR RETAMAL/AFP via Getty Images)

Read the original here:
The Chinese Government Has Convinced Its Citizens That the U.S. Army Brought Coronavirus to Wuhan - VICE

(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)

David Cuillier, University of Arizona

(THE CONVERSATION) In times of mortal strife, humans crave information more than ever, and its journalists responsibility to deliver it.

But what if that information is inaccurate, or could even kill people?

Thats the quandary journalists have found themselves in as they decide whether to cover President Donald J. Trumps press briefings live.

Some television networks have started cutting away from the briefings, saying the events are no more than campaign rallies, and that the president is spreading falsehoods that endanger the public.

If Trump is going to keep lying like he has been every day on stuff this important, we should, all of us, stop broadcasting it, MSNBCs Rachel Maddow tweeted. Honestly, its going to cost lives.

News decisions and ethical dilemmas arent simple, but withholding information from the public is inconsistent with journalistic norms, and while well-meaning, could actually cause more harm than good in the long run. Keeping the presidents statements from the public prevents the public from being able to evaluate his performance, for example.

Truth and falsehood can fight it out

The Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, updated in 2014 during my term as president, states that the press must seek truth and report it, while also minimizing harm.

When the president of the United States speaks, it matters it is newsworthy, its history in the making. Relaying that event to the public as it plays out is critical for citizens, who can see and hear for themselves what their leader is saying, and evaluate the facts for themselves so that they may adequately self-govern.

Thats true even if leaders lie. Actually, its even more important when leaders lie.

Think of libertarian philosopher John Miltons plea for the free flow of information and end of censorship in 1600s England. Put it all out there and let people sort the lies from the truth, Milton urged: Let her and Falsehood grapple.

If a president spreads lies and disinformation, or minimizes health risks, then the electorate needs to know that to make informed decisions at the polls, perhaps to vote the person out to prevent future missteps.

Likewise, theres a chance the president could be correct in his representation of at least some of the facts.

Its not up to journalists to decide, but simply report what is said while providing additional context and facts that may or may not support what the president said.

Maddow is correct that journalists should not simply parrot information spoon fed by those in power to readers and viewers who might struggle to make sense of it in a vacuum. That is why its imperative journalists continuously challenge false and misleading statements, and trust the public to figure it out.

Craving information

Those who would urge the medias censorship of the presidents speeches may feel they are protecting citizens from being duped, because they believe the average person cant distinguish fact from fiction. Communication scholars call this third-person effect, where we feel ourselves savvy enough to identify lies, but think other more vulnerable, gullible and impressionable minds cannot.

It is understandable why journalists would try to protect the public from lies. Thats the minimizing harm part in the SPJ code of ethics, which is critical in these times, when inaccurate information can put a persons health at risk or cause them to make a fatal decision.

So how do journalists report the days events while minimizing harm and tamping down the spread of disinformation? Perhaps this can be accomplished through techniques already in use during this unorthodox presidential period:

-

Report the press briefings live for all to see, while providing live commentary and fact-checking, as PolitiFact and others have done for live presidential debates.

-

Fact-check the president after his talks, through contextual stories that provide the public accurate information, in the media and through websites such as FactCheck.org.

-

Call intentional mistruths what they are: Lies. With this administration, journalists have become more willing to call intentional falsehoods lies, and that needs to continue, if not even more bluntly.

-

Develop a deep list of independent experts that can be on hand to counter misinformation as it is communicated.

-

Report transparently and openly, clearly identifying sources, providing supplemental documents online, and acknowledging limitations of information.

The coronavirus pandemic is a critical time for the nations health and its democracy. Now, more than ever, we need information. As humans, we crave knowing what is going on around us, a basic awareness instinct, as termed by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their foundational book, The Elements of Journalism.

People arent dummies

Sometimes people dont even realize they need information until after they have lost it.

In his autobiography, the late Sen. John McCain wrote that upon his release after five years as a Vietnamese prisoner of war, the first thing he did when he got to a Philippines military base was order a steak dinner and stack of newspapers.

I wanted to know what was going on in the world, and I grasped anything I could find that might offer a little enlightenment, McCain wrote. The thing I missed most was information free, uncensored, undistorted, abundant information.

People arent dummies. They can decipher good information from bad, as long as they have all the facts at their disposal.

And journalists are the ones best positioned to deliver it.

[You need to understand the coronavirus pandemic, and we can help. Read our newsletter.]

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/its-a-bad-idea-for-journalists-to-censor-trump-instead-they-can-help-the-public-identify-whats-true-or-false-134962.

Go here to read the rest:
It's a bad idea for journalists to censor Trump instead, they can help the public identify what's true or false - The Baytown Sun

The Israel Defense Forces on Wednesday acknowledged it had made a mistake in censoring the fact that several F-16 fighter jets were damaged due to flooding during a rainstorm earlier this year, but said this not was an effort to cover-up the incident.

This determination was made as part of an investigation into the flooding, which was completed this week and presented to IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi.

The chief of staff stressed that the investigation found that from the start of the flooding incident and throughout it, there was no intention to hide it from the public. The opposite is true there was a clear intention to publicize it. At the same time, mistakes were made in how it was handled, the military said in a statement.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFree Sign Up

On January 9, a strong storm pummeled Israel, which flooded a stream near the Hatzor Air Base near Ashdod, sending huge amounts of rainwater into the underground hangars where a number of F-16 fighter jets were being stored, damaging eight of them. The repairs from the flooding were estimated to cost NIS 30 million ($8.7 million).

A military truck evacuates Israeli citizens through a flooded road in the northern Israeli city of Nahariya, on a stormy winter day, on January 8, 2020. (Meir Vaknin/Flash90)

The investigation presented to Kohavi this week confirmed the findings of the militarys initial probe: commanders at the base failed to sufficiently prepare for the inclement weather, which led to the flooding of the hangars.

The probe released on Wednesday also addressed a secondary aspect of the incident: the decision to censor the matter, which was seen as an attempt to cover up an embarrassing, costly mistake.

The military determined that the Israeli Air Force and Military Censor had been correct in barring publication on the matter for the first few hours of the incident, but that this ban should have ended far more quickly than it did.

The chief of staff determined that the Air Forces request of the Military Censor to delay publication of the event from Thursday, January 9, to Friday, January 10, was correct. However, by Friday, January 10, [the Air Force] could have informed the Military Censor that the information could be published. The failure to notify the censor was a mistake by the Air Force, the IDF said.

An F-16 fighter jet that was damaged by flooding during a rainstorm in January is seen in its hangar after it returned to service in this undated photograph released on February 3, 2020. (Israel Defense Forces)

The military said it had planned to inform the public of the incident on January 12, but this wasnt carried out because of an internal error in the Air Force.

News of the incident was eventually reported later that day, following multiple requests for permission by journalists.

IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi addresses a group of Kfir Brigade soldiers stationed at the Gaza border on January 22, 2020. (Israel Defense Forces)

The chief of staff summarized the matter by saying that the IDF is a glass house that the public can watch what happens inside and that it is expected of those who serve in it and of the organization in general to display high standards and moral, professional and honest behavior, the IDF said.

The military did not indicate that the chief of staff would take any disciplinary action against the officers involved in the unnecessary censorship.

In January, Israeli Air Force chief Amikam Norkin censured three officers for failing to properly prepare for the flood.

The commander of the F-16 squadron, the maintenance squadron commander and the aviation squadron commander all received official reprimands.

The officers were found to have incorrectly assessed the force of the incoming rainstorm, which dropped some 50 million liters (13 million gallons) of water onto the area around the base in the span of half an hour and caused a nearby stream to overflow.

As a result of this flawed evaluation, they did not evacuate the underground hangars in time or take other steps necessary to prevent the flooding, the investigation found.

Read the original here:
IDF denies cover-up attempt in censoring news of F-16s damaged in flood - The Times of Israel

') : ""; }, t.getDefinedParams = function (n, e) { return e.filter(function (e) { return n[e]; }).reduce(function (e, t) { return p(e, function (e, t, n) { t in e ? Object.defineProperty(e, t, { value: n, enumerable: !0, configurable: !0, writable: !0 }) : e[t] = n; return e; }({}, t, n[t])); }, {}); }, t.isValidMediaTypes = function (e) { var t = ["banner", "native", "video"]; if (!Object.keys(e).every(function (e) { return s()(t, e); })) return !1; if (e.video && e.video.context) return s()(["instream", "outstream", "adpod"], e.video.context); return !0; }, t.getBidderRequest = function (e, t, n) { return c()(e, function (e) { return 0 t[n] ? -1 : 0; }; }; var r = n(3), i = n(115), o = n.n(i), a = n(12), c = n.n(a), u = n(10), s = n.n(u), d = n(116); n.d(t, "deepAccess", function () { return d.a; }); var f = n(117); function l(e) { return function (e) { if (Array.isArray(e)) { for (var t = 0, n = new Array(e.length); t n ')) : ""; } function ae(e, t, n) { return null == t ? n : J(t) ? t : Q(t) ? t.toString() : void j.logWarn("Unsuported type for param: " + e + " required type: String"); } function ce(e, t, n) { return n.indexOf(e) === t; } function ue(e, t) { return e.concat(t); } function se(e) { return Object.keys(e); } function de(e, t) { return e[t]; } var fe = ge("timeToRespond", function (e, t) { return t = e.length ? (this._t = void 0, i(1)) : i(0, "keys" == t ? n : "values" == t ? e[n] : [n, e[n]]); }, "values"), o.Arguments = o.Array, r("keys"), r("values"), r("entries"); }, 101: function _(e, t, n) { "use strict"; var r = n(102), i = n(72); e.exports = n(104)("Set", function (t) { return function (e) { return t(this, 0 >> 0, o = 0; if (t) n = t;else { for (; o = b.syncsPerBidder ? a.logWarn('Number of user syncs exceeded for "'.concat(t, '"')) : d.canBidderRegisterSync(e, t) ? (f[e].push([t, n]), (r = p)[i = t] ? r[i] += 1 : r[i] = 1, void (p = r)) : a.logWarn('Bidder "'.concat(t, '" not permitted to register their "').concat(e, '" userSync pixels.')) : a.logWarn("Bidder is required for registering sync") : a.logWarn('User sync type "'.concat(e, '" not supported')); var r, i; }, d.syncUsers = function () { var e = 0 Object(y.timestamp)(); }, s = function s(e) { return e && (e.status && !S()([O.BID_STATUS.RENDERED], e.status) || !e.status); }; function w(e, r, t) { var i = 2 i && (r = !1)), !r; }), r && e.run(), r; } function g(e, t) { void 0 === e[t] ? e[t] = 1 : e[t]++; } }, addWinningBid: function addWinningBid(e) { g = g.concat(e), x.callBidWonBidder(e.bidder, e, o); }, setBidTargeting: function setBidTargeting(e) { x.callSetTargetingBidder(e.bidder, e); }, getWinningBids: function getWinningBids() { return g; }, getTimeout: function getTimeout() { return S; }, getAuctionId: function getAuctionId() { return m; }, getAuctionStatus: function getAuctionStatus() { return b; }, getAdUnits: function getAdUnits() { return y; }, getAdUnitCodes: function getAdUnitCodes() { return d; }, getBidRequests: function getBidRequests() { return h; }, getBidsReceived: function getBidsReceived() { return f; }, getNoBids: function getNoBids() { return l; } }; }, n.d(t, "c", function () { return H; }), t.f = d, t.d = J, n.d(t, "e", function () { return Y; }), n.d(t, "h", function () { return f; }), n.d(t, "g", function () { return l; }), t.i = p; var C = n(0), s = n(9), w = n(42), a = n(26), o = n(78), j = n(11), _ = n(3), r = n(32), i = n(13), c = n(12), B = n.n(c), U = n(33), u = n(2); function R(e) { return (R = "function" == typeof Symbol && "symbol" == _typeof(Symbol.iterator) ? function (e) { return _typeof(e); } : function (e) { return e && "function" == typeof Symbol && e.constructor === Symbol && e !== Symbol.prototype ? "symbol" : _typeof(e); })(e); } function D() { return (D = Object.assign || function (e) { for (var t = 1; t e.getTimeout() + _.b.getConfig("timeoutBuffer") && e.executeCallback(!0); } function J(e, t) { var n = e.getBidRequests(), r = B()(n, function (e) { return e.bidderCode === t.bidderCode; }); !function (t, e) { var n; if (t.bidderCode && (0 t.max ? e : t; }, { max: 0 }), g = 0, b = v()(e.buckets, function (e) { if (n > p.max * r) { var t = e.precision; void 0 === t && (t = y), i = (e.max * r).toFixed(t); } else { if (n = t.length ? { value: void 0, done: !0 } : (e = r(t, n), this._i += e.length, { value: e, done: !1 }); }); }, 62: function _(e, t, r) { function i() {} var o = r(28), a = r(94), c = r(63), u = r(50)("IE_PROTO"), s = "prototype", _d = function d() { var e, t = r(55)("iframe"), n = c.length; for (t.style.display = "none", r(97).appendChild(t), t.src = "javascript:", (e = t.contentWindow.document).open(), e.write("

")); var s = v(b[r.size_id].split("x").map(function (e) { return Number(e); }), 2); a.width = s[0], a.height = s[1]; } a.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce(function (e, r) { return e[r.key] = r.values[0], e; }, { rpfl_elemid: o.adUnitCode }), e.push(a); } else u.logError("Rubicon: bidRequest undefined at index position:".concat(t), d, c); return e; }, []).sort(function (e, r) { return (r.cpm || 0) - (e.cpm || 0); }); }, getUserSyncs: function getUserSyncs(e, r, t, i) { if (!R && e.iframeEnabled) { var n = ""; return t && "string" == typeof t.consentString && ("boolean" == typeof t.gdprApplies ? n += "?gdpr=".concat(Number(t.gdprApplies), "&gdpr_consent=").concat(t.consentString) : n += "?gdpr_consent=".concat(t.consentString)), i && (n += "".concat(n ? "&" : "?", "us_privacy=").concat(encodeURIComponent(i))), R = !0, { type: "iframe", url: o + n }; } }, transformBidParams: function transformBidParams(e) { return u.convertTypes({ accountId: "number", siteId: "number", zoneId: "number" }, e); } }; function y(e, r) { var t, i = 0 969, isMobile = window.innerWidth b ? a : b; } /** * Fast loop through watched elements */ function onScroll() { list.forEach(updateVisibility); } /** * updates seen property * @param {Visble} item * @param {{}} evt * @fires Visible#shown * @fires Visible#hidden */ function updateSeen(item, evt) { var px = evt.visiblePx, percent = evt.visiblePercent; // if some pixels are visible and we're greater/equal to threshold if (px && percent >= item.shownThreshold && !item.seen) { item.seen = true; setTimeout(function () { item.trigger("shown", new VisibleEvent("shown", evt)); }, 15); // if no pixels or percent is less than threshold } else if ((!px || percent = 0 && rect.left >= 0 && rect.bottom 1) { result += getLinearSpacialHash(remainder, Math.floor(stepSize / base), optimalK - 1, base); } return result; } /** * @param {ClientRect} rect * @param {number} innerHeight * @returns {number} */ function getVerticallyVisiblePixels(rect, innerHeight) { return min(innerHeight, max(rect.bottom, 0)) - min(max(rect.top, 0), innerHeight); } /** * Get offset of element relative to entire page * * @param {Element} el * @returns {{left: number, top: number}} * @see http://jsperf.com/offset-vs-getboundingclientrect/7 */ function getPageOffset(el) { var offsetLeft = el.offsetLeft, offsetTop = el.offsetTop; while (el = el.offsetParent) { offsetLeft += el.offsetLeft; offsetTop += el.offsetTop; } return { left: offsetLeft, top: offsetTop }; } /** * Create a new Visible class to observe when elements enter and leave the viewport * * Call destroy function to stop listening (this is until we have better support for watching for Node Removal) * @param {Element} el * @param {{shownThreshold: number, hiddenThreshold: number}} [options] * @class * @example this.visible = new $visibility.Visible(el); */ Visible = function Visible(el, options) { options = options || {}; this.el = el; this.seen = false; this.preload = false; this.preloadThreshhold = options && options.preloadThreshhold || 0; this.shownThreshold = options && options.shownThreshold || 0; this.hiddenThreshold = options && min(options.shownThreshold, options.hiddenThreshold) || 0; list.push(this); updateVisibility(this); // set immediately to visible or not }; Visible.prototype = { /** * Stop triggering. */ destroy: function destroy() { // remove from list list.splice(list.indexOf(this), 1); } /** * @name Visible#on * @function * @param {'shown'|'hidden'} e EventName * @param {function} cb Callback */ /** * @name Visible#trigger * @function * @param {'shown'|'hidden'} e * @param {{}} */ }; Eventify.enable(Visible.prototype); VisibleEvent = function VisibleEvent(type, options) { var _this = this; this.type = type; Object.keys(options).forEach(function (key) { _this[key] = options[key]; }); }; // listen for scroll events (throttled) $document.addEventListener("scroll", _throttle(onScroll, 200)); // public this.getPageOffset = getPageOffset; this.getLinearSpacialHash = getLinearSpacialHash; this.getVerticallyVisiblePixels = getVerticallyVisiblePixels; this.getViewportHeight = getViewportHeight; this.getViewportWidth = getViewportWidth; this.isElementNotHidden = isElementNotHidden; this.isElementInViewport = isElementInViewport; this.Visible = Visible;}]);}, {}];require=(function e(t,n,r){function s(o,u){if(!n[o]){if(!t[o]){var a=typeof require=="function"&&require;if(!u&&a)return a(o,!0);if(i)return i(o,!0);var f=new Error("Cannot find module '"+o+"'");throw f.code="MODULE_NOT_FOUND",f}var l=n[o]={exports:{}};t[o][0].call(l.exports,function(e){var n=t[o][1][e];return s(n?n:e)},l,l.exports,e,t,n,r)}return n[o].exports}var i=typeof require=="function"&&require;for(var o=0;o

Here is the original post:
Trump Is Now Openly Trying to Censor His Critics. He May Succeed. - Slate

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Every high-profile controversy discloses a deeper reality, and the one involving Woody Allen and the off-again, on-again publication of his memoir is no different. There is the despised celebrity and then the despised many, who have no power and for whom a sex accusation or conviction may make their very existence criminal. There is one damned book and then the damned many, banned by the thousands by state and federal prison authorities. There is one attention-seeking crowd of private censors and then the crowd working less noisily, organizing morality campaigns to remove books from school, university, and public libraries. Every year the American Library Association puts out a Top 10 Most Challenged Books list. In 2017 the list included Sex Is a Funny Word, a sex education book, challenged because of fears it might lead children to ask questions about sex. Since 2015, half the titles have had queer subjects.Ad Policy

Censorship is rarely called by its true name among those who practice it. History groans with the righteous justifications of private interests bent on erasing words and people they dont like. New excuses cant hide the old reflex. They do make it easy, though, to mistake the moral scold for the rebel spirit. Some scenes from the long contest between the vice cop of the mind and the champion of free thought offer a clarifying light.

Beginning in the 19th century, Anthony Comstock and his New York Society for the Suppression of Vice (supported by J.P. Morgan, William Dodge, Samuel Colgate, and The New York Times) ruined thousands of writers lives and destroyed hundreds of thousands of pounds of books and pamphlets, many by women, in the service of protecting innocent girls. Comstocks successor, John Sumner, took up the cause in the 1910s, pressuring publishers into melting the printing plates for obscure, supposedly obscene novels, and in 1920 he and his crowd invoked the safety of young girls to get Margaret Anderson and Jane Heap, lesbian heroes of the avant-garde press, arrested and prosecuted for daring to be the first in the world to publish Ulysses. Sumner also got the Post Office to burn some 20,000 copies of The Little Review, where the women had been serializing James Joyces masterwork. The vigilantes of decency had already scared off dozens of men in the reputable book trade from publishing anything by Joyce. When Dubliners finally got into print in Europe, a private citizen bought up the entire edition and had it set ablaze in Dublin. Joyce called it a new and private auto-da-f.

Joyce is but a name we know. Avowed protection from deviance, dirt, degeneracy, and the corruption of children led to such routine burning of unknown titles by unknown authors in the Western world that when the Nazis torched the library and archive of the great Magnus Hirschfelds Institute for Sexual Science in 1933, the act reverberated most forcefully among Hirschfelds fellow Jews, sex radicals, and researchers, who were already habituated to stepping cautiouslystudying womens sexual satisfaction in the United States, for instance, under the camouflage of maternal health. Depending on ones point of view, Hirschfeld might be categorized as a sexual psychopath (an American synonym for homosexual in the 1930s), part of a group to be watched, suspected, obliterated, or as a founder of the worlds first gay rights organization and a giant in the study of human sexuality (that would be current historys view; thank you, sexual liberation). One final example from a vast history: During the Red Scare and the interrelated though oft-ignored Lavender Scare, Cold War centurions in industry, the arts, media, unions, and other organizations cast themselves as defenders of democracy against radical contagion and guardians of wholesome (straight, marital) sexuality in their effort to shut people up, lock them up, oust them from their jobs, exile them, and deprive others of the freedom to see, read, know, be.

There is an element of the absurd in raising Ronan Farrows censorious zeal and Hachettes cowardly decision to pulp Woody Allens memoir, Apropos of Nothing, on the heels of such weighty history. The books resurrection by Skyhorse Publishing, announced as we went to press, does not lessen it. These are absurd times, when censors masquerade as justice warriors. For them, the degenerate man, as Allen has been labeled, is the real object of erasure. For Hachette, the cowardice was threefold, actually: first, in keeping its acquisition of Allens book a secret from Farrow, who as an author with its Little, Brown division did deserve the courtesy of a heads-up. Second, in caving to the crowd, including protesting staffers, who invoked allegiance to Farrow and victims rights to validate their censors reflex; third, in couching its public explanation of the betrayal of an author (Allen) and the destruction of a book in the soothing language of commitmentto challenging books, conflicting points of view, and a stimulatingwork environment. Hachette ought simply to have said what it meant: We fear the crowd. The crowd has power. Our US revenues dropped in 2019, so we chose the power side over the pervert.Related Article

Farrows duplicity is more obvious. He made his first splash promulgating one side of a family drama, convicting Allen of child molestation in the public minddespite copious reasons for doubt, including official investigations finding no abuse (which I discussed years ago in The Nation) and his brother Mosess severe rebuttal in a 2018 blog postand lamenting media industry efforts to obstruct his own writing about Hollywood.

Free speech for me but not for thee, as Nat Hentoff famously condensed it, is an ignoble political standard. Farrow, of course, is laden with emotion, with loyalty to his mother, Mia, and sister, Dylan, and his own lifetime of exposure to their accusing narratives. He cannot be dispassionate about Allen, and its preposterous to think he should be. Its preposterous as well that others who care about writing, ideas, independent thought, and the freedom to see should lash their intellect to Farrows prejudices. More disturbing is the pretense that theres high principle in cleansing the public sphere of anyone whos been declared a public demon.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

For the crowd in this case, the weasels way out of complicity in censorship took routes, all of them dead ends. Censorship is an act of the state. Businesses are free to do what they want. Who needs another book by Woody Allen? Hes had his day in the sun. Hes rich; he can self-publish (and, look, his book will still come out in France). This is a down payment on justice and accountability; the powerful have always had a platform, finally the powerless have a voice. Free speech is a bourgeois construct to maintain the social order, so why care about it for Woody fucking Allen? Such were the sentiments floating in the suspect air after the staff walkout that preceded Hachettes decision to pulp the book. So brave, power agent Lynn Nesbit said of the walkout. I feel moved almost to tears. Nesbit represents not just Ronan Farrow but also Dylan and Mia, who have both profited off accusations against Allen via book contracts and considerable flattery in the press.

It requires no illusions about the social order or the free marketplace of ideas to understand that the dead end is the point at which someone commands someone else to shut up. The problem with private censorship is not so different from the problem with the nondisclosure agreement. But under the cover of #MeToo, censorship and the will to shun and silence are being renovated as social goods when exercised by the self-declared forces of good, on behalf of the good, as if definitions of whats good, whats progress, arent always politically contested. Its remarkableat a time when scientists are purging their work of dangerous terms like climate change and fetal tissue and transgender in order to maintain federal fundingthat anyone might feel confident that their own claim to purity cant boomerang.Related Article

The cowing power of the crowd suits the authoritarian spirit of the time, and some traditional defenders of free speech have gone soft or silent. The ACLU did not respond to a request for comment after the book was quashed. The Writers Guild issued no statement. PEN America issued a wobbly statement, which left Allen twisting in the wind, though its CEO, Suzanne Nossel, did slam Hachettes decision on the radio. Index on Censorship, by contrast, took swiftly to social and other media to defend principle. At the National Coalition Against Censorship, Christopher Finan criticized Hachette and pointed to the continuing relevance of The Freedom to Read Statement, first issued by librarians and publishers during the Cold War. Amid the current enthusiasm for moral cleansing, its propositions bear study, particularly one that states, No art or literature can flourish if it is to be measured by the political views or private lives of its creators. No society of free people can flourish that draws up lists of writers to whom it will not listen, whatever they may have to say.

The early sex radicals and avant-garde feminists, who really were brave, recognized that the struggle to expand the realm of freedom had to include the freedom to write, read, see, and be seen, all of which broadened knowledge ofhence possibilities forhuman experience. (Its notable that Sylvia Beach, also a lover of women, was the first to publish Ulysses in its entirety, from her bookshop in Paris in 1922, thus providing the basis on which the men at Random House were able to orchestrate the landmark Supreme Court ruling on obscenity years later.) Vice, a term that in those days covered almost any writing about sex and any nonconformist behavior, was the point of a spear that helped enforce every social hierarchy and intensify every form of repression. We dont use the word much today, but the vice cop of the mind is still on the beat, allowing a certain kind of sex talkthe stories of abuse and accusationbut making it unanswerable, deciding who is worthy to speak, who is not, and who should hide. Skyhorses bet on a market for Allens book while much of society is housebound should not obscure that larger and unlovely reality.

See the original post:
This Was Never Just About Woody Allen. It Still Isn't. - The Nation