Category Archives: Censorship

Sean ONeill, Chief Reporter

A multimillionaire at the centre of a police investigation over sexual assault allegations is trying to censor newspaper reports, though he is referred to only as Mr X.

The businessman, protected by court orders and reporting restrictions, claims that reports by The Times in which he is anonymised are a threat to his privacy and a breach of his human rights because they allegedly contain identifying information.

He has enlisted defamation lawyers and a reputation management firm to further restrict coverage by The Times of the police inquiry into allegations made by a former employee.

The articles Mr X wants censored do not identify him, do not say where he lives and do not refer to his type of business.

The campaign group Index on

Want to read more?

Subscribe now and get unlimited digital access on web and our smartphone and tablet apps, free for your first month.

Read the original:
Mr X tries to censor reports of sexual assault allegations - The Times

December 24, 2019 / by Crypto.IQ

YouTube, the most popular social media website for videos, is apparently censoring cryptocurrency-related content. Without any warning, crypto videos from the popular content creators Chris Dunn, Crypto Tips, The Cryptoverse, and Node Investor have been removed.

Even worse, those content creators received a one-week ban and a stern warning that if they continue to produce similar content they will be permanently banned.

Apparently most of the deleted crypto-related videos have been classified as harmful or dangerous content, although one content creator reports that their deleted videos were classified as sale of regulated goods.

It seems that fairly benign videos that simply discuss crypto market analysis are being classified as harmful or dangerous content and being deleted. Chico Crypto claims that one of the deleted videos was simply asking users if they have ever heard of Bitcoin (BTC).

It seems that YouTube is classifying cryptocurrency in general as harmful or dangerous content. It is possible that this is simply an overreaction to crypto scams, and that YouTube is blanket deleting crypto videos instead of taking the time to weed out the crypto scam videos. If this is true, this move would be similar to how Google Ads and Facebook Ads banned all crypto-related advertising in the past rather than filtering out ads which were crypto scams.

YouTube has yet to clarify the situation, and at this time YouTubes terms of service do not yet indicate that crypto-related content is banned.

In the worst case, the crypto community could start using blockchain-based alternatives for video sharing such as Steemit, DTube, and DLive.

Originally posted here:
YouTube Censoring Crypto-Related Videos Crypto.IQ | Bitcoin and Investment News from Inside Experts You Can Trust - CryptoIQ

BuzzFeed News is sorry to report Jason Derulo wasnt the only one who had to have his genital bulge digitally removed from the psychedelic live-action adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webers musical Cats.

His Cats costars Francesca Hayward (Victoria), Laurie Davidson (Mr. Mistoffelees), and Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) shed some much-needed light on the pressing situation during an interview on Friday with BuzzFeed News morning show AM to DM.

Everyone was gone! Nobody had a bulge!" revealed Fairchild.

The conversation around Jason Derulos genitalia has been one of the more bizarre news items to come out of an already bizarre movie.

Derulos dick, if anyone needs a refresher, has been having a hard time lately. First, it was censored by Instagram and then, apparently, by the movie. The Instagram controversy occurred after he posted a thirst trap which was subsequently removed by the platform because of its policy regarding aroused genitalia, but he argued he was only semi-aroused.

During a subsequent appearance on Andy Cohens radio show, Derulo, who plays Rum Tum Tugger in Cats, boasted proudly that producers of the movie "CGId the dick out" because it was so big.

But Fairchild said it wasn't just Derulo's package that had to be erased. "Its Cats!" he said. "If ours were gone, his should be gone!"

When told during his AM to DM interview that the Derulo penis censorship in Cats had been a "huge topic" of conversation in the BuzzFeed office, Davidson joked, "Huge topic? That's up for debate."

Cats is based on T.S. Eliots Old Possums Book of Practical Cats. It follows a group of cats called the Jellicle cats as they perform songs until one cat, named Old Deuteronomy (played by Dame Judi Dench in the movie) picks one of them to go to kitty-cat heaven.

Hayward confessed to BuzzFeed News that shes never seen the original musical performed live. I had a video and I just used to watch that all the time when I was, like, 8 years old, and I would always be Victoria, she said. Hayward is now the principal ballerina at the Royal Ballet and has had roles in major productions like The Nutcracker and Sleeping Beauty.

The cast members told BuzzFeed News that they had to go to three months of cat school to prepare for the role. We played a lot of games to get into the mindset and physicality of cats, Davidson said.

Hayward said that soon it became normal to see their costars as cats, adding that it would be weird to see them without the CGI setup, like dots on their faces, outside of filming.

Cats came out Friday, but the purr around it started months ago when the first trailer released and everyone was collectively shocked to see cat versions of A-listers like Dame Judi Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Taylor Swift, and Jennifer Hudson.

The reviews of the movie have been roughly the same.

But Fairchild said he feels the musical itself has always been polarizing."

See the article here:
Jason Derulo's "Cats" Costars Revealed It Wasn't Just His Bulge That Had To Be Removed - BuzzFeed News

Technology

Make your day. TikToks slogan conveys the idea of another playful company to add to the list of social media giants. The reality, though, is much darker.

Initially released as Musical.ly a platform that allowed users to upload videos of themselves miming to songs the company was later acquired by Chinese ByteDance, who then launched TikTok. Rather than focusing on music videos, the app is now a place where users can create, share, and watch any kind of short videos on a continuous loop.

According to GlobalWebIndex, TikToks target demographic is primarily Gen Z and Millennials between 16 and 24 years old. In November 2019, it hit an impressive 1.5 billion downloads worldwide, placing the app third in the list of most-downloaded non-gaming apps, after Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger.

Operating on such a huge scale, TikTok has come under harsh scrutiny from governments and the press about its transparency and content regulation. With its headquarters in Beijing, questions about TikToks ethics came to fruition long before the company expanded into Europe in September 2017. Bytedance has repeatedly had to defend itself from allegations of propagandist aims and preventing mentions of Tiananmen Square. With an already-tarnished reputation in countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh and India, can the app survive fresh accusations of censorship in a relatively new European market?

Of the 500 million active TikTok users, 150 million are located in China and use the Chinese version of the app (called Douyin). Other Asian countries like Japan, Vietnam, and Thailand have an equally high engagement.

A November 2018 breakdown of TikToks European markets noted that Germany was the top country for users with 4.1 million active, followed closely by France with 4 million, where views averaged a total of 6.5 billion and 5 billion respectively. In both countries TikTok users open the app around 8 times a day.

As of October 2019, Germanys user base has more than doubled with 8.8 million users and is now the 10th country in the world with the biggest TikTok following.

Indonesia was one of the first countries to block TikTok after videos on the platform were deemed blasphemous and pornographic. As a result, TikTok was removed from all app download stores for a week, beginning July 2018. Only once TikTok agreed to clear all negative content, apply additional restrictions for 14 to 18-year-olds, and set up a team of censors in Indonesia to sanitize content, was the app reinstated in the country.

Later, in February 2019, after declaring a war on pornography, Bangladesh followed suit and also shut down TikTok. Currently, the app remains unavailable in the country.

More recently, in April this year, India joined the list of countries hitting back at TikTok. Accusations of content featuring child pornography, accidental suicides and killings, as well as dangerous trends like jumping in front of cars surfaced. Other issues included spreading fake news and cyberbullying. For two weeks, new downloads of the app were banned across all of India, costing TikTok $500,000 in revenue each day. Following an appeal from TikToks parent company Bytedance, Madras High Court reversed its decision after one week.

In November 2019, German digital rights blog Netzpolitik gained access to TikToks moderation rules. The site noted that, although guidelines were extremely loose, TikToks strategy, however, is clear: certain content is given the widest possible reach, while others are systematically suppressed.

Netzpolitik also discovered that unwanted content on TikTok is divided into four categories: deletion, visible to self, not for feed, and not recommended. General videos that do not fall into these categories can still be marked risk and be blocked by location. TikTok claims the moderation is to ensure content complies with different country laws.

The strategy, however, is clear: certain content is given the widest possible reach, while others are systematically suppressed.

An unnamed source from TikTok also told Netzpolitik that protests are generally not welcome on the app. Since its parent company Bytedance is Chinese, the recent troubles in Hong Kong, for example, have little if any exposure on the platform.

Only a month later, Netzpolitik broke another story about TikToks use of censorship. This time, a leaked document revealed how TikTok made videos of people with disabilities less visible. The app also hid videos of overweight people and people identifying as LGBTQ by grouping them on special user lists, deemed higher risk.

The justification? TikTok claimed the action was to protect vulnerable users and those susceptible to harassment or cyberbullying based on their physical or mental condition. These special user lists were curated by a team of moderators who were assigned to make their judgements based on 15-second video uploads.

The controversial measure meant that videos of users with disabilities or perceived disabilities were only shown in the country where they were uploaded. In Germany, this shrunk a potential audience of 500 million to 8.8 million.

TikTok claims the special user lists were never intended to be a long-term solution and have since changed them. The platform has also emphatically denied censoring politicized content. Nonetheless, its moderation guidelines and Bytedances likely pressure to further Chinese foreign policy still compromise the platform.

By systematically disadvantaging unfavorable content, TikTok has fueled suspicions of censorship and its broader political goals. While TikToks growth does not appear to be slowing down, it remains uncertain whether the skepticism will have a lasting impact on its user base.

See the article here:
Will new claims of censorship threaten TikToks presence in Europe? - 150sec

WASHINGTONIn a segment that aired Friday, Fox News host Tucker Carlson made several false, outrageous, and unfounded accusations against The Heritage Foundation. Rob Bluey, vice president of communications at Heritage, released the following statement in response:

For nearly 50 years, The Heritage Foundation has represented the interests of the American people based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional values, and a strong national defense. Heritage does not support policies that deviate from these principles, nor are our recommendations ever influenced by donations or outside political pressure.

It was, therefore, incredibly disappointing to hear Tucker Carlson, whom we hold in high regard, mislead his viewers about Heritages work on the topics of big tech and censorship. Carlson is a former employee of Heritage who last year received our prestigious Salvatori Prize and who regularly features Heritage guests on his Fox News program. In other words, he knows Heritage, our people, and our principles.

Unfortunately, Carlson did not contact us in advance of his segment or provide Heritage with an opportunity to respond to his accusations. Rather than engage in a substantive policy debate, he chose instead to make ad hominem attacks and question our integrity. We are disappointed this came from someone whom we admire and respect.

The Heritage Foundation will not let these attacks go unanswered and we welcome the opportunity to have a substantive debate on public policy.

Carlsons claims began with an attack on a recent Heritage report about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. He claimed the reports author repeated lines verbatim from a trade association. This is false. In fact, the 13-page Heritage report contained 22 footnotes, all of which were properly quoted and attributed to sources. The report went through a thorough and lengthy process of vetting and review by Heritage scholars to ensure accuracy and agreement among all Heritage analysts involved in technology and social media policy.

The conclusions of Heritages report were based on the principles that guide all of our policy recommendationsprinciples Carlson seems curiously less interested in defending. Instead, he made an unfounded assertion against Heritage and outrageous smear of one of our scholars. It is disappointing that Carlson would deceive his viewers with such patently false information.

It should come as no surprise that Heritage supports empowering consumers rather than government. We are, and have always been, champions of the free market and critics of government intervention. Thats why we are forcefully pushing back on the few outspoken individuals who seem to prefer an expedient answer rather than a principled solution.

Carlson also failed to acknowledge Heritage experts consistent criticism of technology companies, including Googles decision to withdraw from the Department of Defenses Project Maven and its work with communist China on a censored search engine.

He apparently missed Heritage President Kay C. James Washington Post op-ed blasting Google for caving to the radical left and disbanding its AI board simply because she, a prominent conservative leader, was asked to join it.

And he made no mention of Google-owned YouTube censoring a video produced by The Daily Signal, Heritages multimedia news outlet. On our public platforms and in a private meeting with YouTubes CEO, we made our position abundantly clear: We will not tolerate this type of censorship and will stand side by side with other conservatives experiencing similar challenges.

Heritage and its team of dedicated scholars are committed to pursuing public policies that make life better for all Americans. Heritage is the largest public policy organization in America with more than 500,000 members and has the No. 1 ranking from the University of Pennsylvania for impact on public policy. We wont be intimidatedor bullied as we continue to represent the interests of conservatives and all Americans.

Read the rest here:
Heritage Foundation Responds to Tucker Carlson's False Accusations on Big Tech - Heritage.org

Mondoweiss readers, can you help us meet the challenge weve been offered this month? If we raise $100,000 from you and others by December 31, generous long-standing donors will match it with an additional $100,000.

We have less than two weeks left to unlock these funds. Can you donate today in honor of Elyse Crystall, Rabab Abdulhadi, and others fighting McCarthyism on campus? A gift of $40, $75 or whatever amount you can manage will make a difference!

If youve already donated this month, please accept our thanks! And read on to understand why activist professor Elyse Crystall supports Mondoweisss coverage of ChangeMakers.

As an academic and an activist, I believe justice in Palestine depends on changing minds in the U.S, which is the reason why Mondoweiss is of such value to me and I urge you to join me today in supporting their work.

You are, Im sure, well aware that while repression in Palestine increases, here in the U.S. we see greater awareness of the horrific conditions in Palestine. More people today understand that U.S. policy underwrites and U.S. taxpayer dollars fund the violation of Palestinian human rights. I have personal experience of how Mondoweisss coverage is critical in this process of increased understanding, and thats why Im asking you to contribute today.

Last spring my campus, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, came under attack when the Duke-UNC Consortium on Middle East Studies hosted a conference called Conflict over Gaza: People, Politics, and Possibilities. As the faculty advisor for our campuss chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), I was not entirely surprised. I know how long and hard campus groups have fought to destigmatize support for Palestinian rights and to dismantle the notion that criticism of Israeli state policies equals anti-Semitism.

A pro-Israel blogger generated controversy by distributing to local news media an edited video of a brilliant satirical performance by Palestinian rapper Tamer Nafar. Prompted by a local right-wing legislator, Trumps Department of Education (DOE) launched an investigation. Mondoweiss reported on the results, released in September. The DOE conditioned any future Title VI funds on our providing detailed information about how each activity of our program advances the national security interests and economic stability of the United States.

Obviously, this warning sought to intimidate all area studies programs nationally, and specifically Middle East studies, by making an example of ours. In response to the Trump administrations clampdown on our program, over 350 outraged professors nationwide signed a petition declaring their support for Palestinian rights and their refusal to be silenced. And Mondoweiss spread the word.

These attempts to silence Palestine solidarity in the U.S. have culminated in the Executive Order signed this month, aimed at providing easier legal paths for claims of anti-Semitism on campus. And you know as well as I that neither faculty nor students will go quietly in the face of this repressionand Mondoweiss will help alert the public at large of our resistance.

Over a dozen Israel-aligned groups make it their job to monitor pro-Palestinian academics, many of whom have been fired as a result. Pro-Israel groups tactics include media smears on Israels critics, labeling them anti-Semitic; efforts to rewrite university policies or state laws to penalize criticism of Israel; and pressure on donors and administrators. Im Jewish and still I feel the chill of censorship, and I know that the threat to those of Palestinian descent is much, much greater.

Earlier in the year Mondoweiss shared with you the fight of my friend Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi, who was sued multiple times for creating a threatening environment on her campus. Her own university, San Francisco State University, retaliated against her because of her passionate pro-Palestine positions. At Fordham University, students attempting to form an SJP chapter faced an intense, two-year legal battle.

As campus activism continues to come under attack, more than ever we need you to stand in solidarity with us. They wont stop trying to silence us, leveraging their influence and weaponizing anti-Semitism.

We rely on Mondoweiss to tell the truth loud and clear and to help us track the movement for justice in Palestine in the U.S. and globally.

The students, faculty, and staff at our universities are ChangeMakers because right now U.S. campuses are crucial arenas in the struggle for Palestine. Campus advocates fight effectively with historical facts, critical analysis, and persuasive rhetorical skillsand that inspires others to fight. Thats one of the reasons why those who seek to defend the indefensible focus their efforts on universities.

Universities are under attack, and sometimes we win as the students at Fordham University finally did! These success stories inspire us all, and we are indebted to Mondoweiss for informing us of each others struggles and victories.

Please join me in supporting Mondoweiss, so that thorough coverage read by hundreds of thousands can continue to advance our work for real change. Your donation today makes a difference.

Read more:
They want to silence you and mebut we stand up against the censorship - Mondoweiss

If you thought Eddie Murphys episode of Saturday Night Live would be amazing, you would be right. In fact, things are getting so crazy that the comedian managed to slip a curse word past the censors. A skit spoofing the Great British Bake-Off placed Murphy into a baking contest against some of the other cast members. A challenge concerning fictional characters led the star to make a version of Sonic the Hedgehog that ended up being scarier than the first live-action version that debuted this year. Murphy actually slipped in the word **** quick enough that nobody was able to bleep it in time.

From Mister Robinsons Neighborhood to Gumby all the hits were present in one way or another. The older Robinson drew raucous applause from the studio audiences. People on Twitter have been thrilled with the episode as Murphy has proved that he still has that fastball with the Gumby appearance as well. All in all the biggest episode of the year did not fail to disappoint as Lizzo did her thing on stage as well. It seems as though she wasnt scared off by all the fervor from her appearance at that Laker game recently. The dance moves were all there along with her amazing stage presence.

Murphy told Al Roker that fans could expect some throwbacks earlier this week during an appearance on The Today Show.

"We're talking about a Gumby thing. And we're talking about a Buckwheat thing," Murphy told the host. "And we're talking about a Bill Cosby thing, maybe. It'd be very funny. I don't know if would think it was funny, but it would be very funny."

"Mister Robinson, if we can come up with Mister Robinson," he mentioned. "Or Velvet Jones. I'm down for whatever as long as it's really, really funny."

The legend made everyone remember what the golden years of Saturday Night Live brought to the table.

See more here:
Eddie Murphy Sneaks a Curse Word Past the Censors on Saturday Night Live - Comicbook.com

China has censored online all mentions and video clips of a rare protest at a university after the institution dropped the phrase, freedom of thought, from its charter.

The new charter for Fudan University in Shanghai one of Chinas most prestigious now includes a pledge to serving the governance of the Communist Party and pushes academic independence below patriotism, leading to uproar among students and faculty.

The changes came to light Tuesday when the countrys education ministry said it had approved similar alterations for three universities.

Within hours, the Fudan charter amendments were trending online, with at least one hashtag generating at least a million views. Clips also circulated online showing students staging a flash mob protest on campus, singing the schools anthem, which includes the phrase freedom of thought.

Fudan professors also took online to express their alarm. Qu Weiguo, a professor of foreign languages, posted that he was very shocked to learn about the changes, which he said were made without consulting faculty.

But shortly after, such mentions and posts online were all deleted by Chinas active government censors, which routinely block news and information, and scrub the internet clean of any dissenting comments.

Read the original here:
China censors viral clips of a rare university protest after the academy downgrades 'freedom of thought' - The Telegraph

With out shyness! Yuliett Torres wore a brief so quick that she challenged censorship It leaves you breathless! Yuliett Torres is targeted on her private model as an teacher.

Yuliett Torres has been in comparison with Kim Kardashian herself for the very tight outfits she makes use of and the rearguard that simulates that of the socialite.

Though the Mexican mannequin doesnt have a lot qualification when making her publications, with clothes that train every part and trigger sensation.

Yuliett shocked her greater than 4.eight million followers just a few days in the past with a postcard the place she poses in a blue gown that appears a measurement much less and boasts a neckline that stands out with a gap and the shirt that has been unbuttoned.

However Torres drove netizens loopy with a summer time outfit the place she wears a brief so quick that it solely covers half of her rear. She accomplished the look with a sleeveless shirt.

The publication already exceeds 149 thousand likes and in it the health teacher wrote: these sunny days that by no means finish and their followers agree.

You might also like.

Read more:
Yuliett Torres Wore A Shorts That She Challenged Censorship - Sunriseread

I dont know about you, dear reader, but I personally have a very long and storied relationship with the Banned Book List. Perhaps it was growing up in Austin, Texas, around well-educated hippies and cause heads who taught me to stand up to someone dictating what is deemed appropriate without asking. Maybe its just that I dont like people telling me what I can and cannot read, and I very strongly feel no one should have dominion over what another person reads. Weve seen it time and again throughout history, this unfathomable attempt to censor works because people deem the message dangerous, or it doesnt fit a comfortable narrative. Its especially damaging when ignorance is dressed up as concern for children.

I dont think I remember a time when someone wasnt talking about the banned book list. One might not think that public schools in Texas would take issue with such a list. One might even presume it would be the librarians bible given the geography, but I found the exact opposite to be true. From the time we were learning to read, the banned book list was a topic of discussion. In every school, with every passing grade it was something to be examined, discussed, and in later years protested. The high school I attended participated in Banned Book Week every year. I vividly remember the librarian, and her assistant picking through the shelves to fill the cart with with materials. Teachers and students alike waited anxiously for the sign-up sheet to be posted, wherein we would select a slot to read aloud. For an entire week from the time the building opened until it closed students, teachers, and staff would pluck a tome from the heaping cart, and read aloud for any passer by. Year after year I was left with one glaring question: Why would anyone want to ban a book?

First, whats the difference between banned and challenged? Challenged is when an individual or group petitions to have a work removed from libraries, school curriculum, or otherwise restrict access based on specific reasons, e.g. contains LGBTQ themes, strong language, etc. A ban is the outright removal of those works. Who are these people? It could be anyone really. Parents, religious groups, staff and faculty, or even the students themselves.

In many cases people or groups challenge a book with the best of intentions. They feel the book depicts negative stereotypes, strong language or sexual content not suitable for age groups, depict social, religious, or political views. Regardless of the reason, perhaps banned is the wrong word for this list. The ALA and various groups on both sides of the issue agree that none of these books are outright banned in the United States, as the legal silence and censorship of any work is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Instead, what these challenges and bans do is seek to limit access to what people deem harmful works. They seek to remove them from public and school library bookshelves, and curricula for grades K12. Lets take a closer look at what these lists show us about the books and their authors.

In researching reasons books are challenged I was most surprised to find that year after year the top books were consistently reported for two things; profanity and sexual references. Some years we see an uptick in reports related to homosexual content, promoting the homosexual agenda, and religious views. Primarily, however, those expressing concerns most often site foul language, and anything involving sexuality and the human body. I found myself further confused when those language reports involved young adult books whose target audience is primarily the 12-18 age group. One could imagine theyve heard more colorful language in popular television, or in school.

I will admit that when I myself was in that age bracket I was particularly foul mouthed. When I hear of a book being reported for sexual content my first instinct is that they would be reporting The Pearl, printed for the Society of Vice in the late 1800s, or perhaps The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty, by A.N. Roquelaure. In both cases I can see why someone may not be particularly keen on young children thumbing through illicit pages of sexual exploration and erotica at an age where Pokemon and Yo Gabba Gabba are still topics of regular conversation. What I did not expect to find is books like The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas or The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, wherein anything related to sex is minimal and by no means the central point of these books.

Even Its Perfectly Normal by Robi Harris is a shock as its a book about what happens to the human body aimed at kids. In one report it was actually sited as being child pornography. My Moms Having A Baby! A Kids Month-by-Month Guide to Pregnancyby Dori Hillestad Butler was similarly hit as being sexually explicit when its intended purpose is to explain the process of pregnancy and birth to children and speak on their level. Nudity, sexually explicit context, or sexual education remains a popular reason to keep books out of the hands of youths, and out of popular media.

You may notice I did not cite inappropriate for age group in my statistics. There is a very specific reason for leaving it out. This applies either via direct citation as a reason, or in the spirit of the report topic to each and every report on the Banned Book list. On the topic of age appropriate content, reported books run the spectrum of available literature. From classic to sci-fi, books are reported right and left because they are perceived inappropriate for an age group on some level.

The most surprising to me on this front are books that are specifically written for an age group. The Captain Underpants Series, by Dav Pilkey is regularly criticized by reports to the list for being anti-family, and unsuited for the age group (711 year olds) for which it was written. To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee, while once was required reading in schools, is now deemed inappropriate for children according to The Banned Book List. I would then pose the question: What is appropriate for an age group if not works specifically written towards a target demographic?

So what do we take away from lists of the most challenged works, and the Banned Books list itself? In this day and age has it outlived its usefulness?

Constitutionally speaking, no book or piece of art can be banned. Based on the numbers, the reports, and that it seems as if just about anything is going to be challenged, including the Christian Bible, should the list be done away with all together? Should it serve as more of a rating capacity like the MPAA film rating system, or the ESRB for video games? Or should it serve as a platform for broader discussions? When we look at challenged books across the board, not just the top ten lists it reflects an unwillingness to have a conversation. Would it be possible to use the banned book list to see oppositional sides, and examine values we may not share in order to better understand another persons perspective? While we all take a look at those questions individuals, schools, and even stores will continue to celebrate Banned Book Week by finding ways to oppose those lists and challenges.

Please note the challenge reasons can vary from year to year. This is only a snapshot of over all challenge reasons.

8 times on the ALA Top Ten Challenged List

Synopsis: This childrens book tells the story of Ray and Silo, two male penguins at the zoo. The zookeeper, Mr. Gramsay, gives the pair an egg to hatch and care for. The female chick hatches and is subsequently named Tango by the zookeepers. Thus their family is complete with the addition of the couples baby girl. This is based on the true story of the authors falling in love at the Central Park Zoo in New York City.

Challenge reasons: anti-family, homosexuality, political viewpoint, religious viewpoint, unsuited for age group, additionally promotes the homosexual agenda

7 times on on the ALA Top Ten Challenged List

Synopsis: This story is presented in diary format. Were presented with the story of Junior; a 14-year-old young man growing up on the Spokane Indian Reservation through the course of a year. Junior is a hydrocephalic, small for his age, has a lisp, poor eyesight, and is prone to seizures, which makes him a target for regular bullying on the reservation. In a moment of anger regarding the poverty experienced both by his family and the reservation at large, he throws a book at his teacher. To address his frustrations the teacher suggests he attend a more affluent high school near by. Junior accepts and we follow him for a year as he adjusts to life in a predominantly white school, struggles to maintain his native heritage, faces tragedies on the reservation, and ultimately reconciles with friends on the reservation who felt left behind by his decision to transfer schools.

Challenge reasons: sexual references, profanity, violence, gambling, and underage drinking, and for its religious viewpoint

Note: Sherman Alexie has admitted to allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct against female authors.

7 times on the ALA Top Ten Challenged List

Synopsis: This coming-of-age novel follows Charlie in a series of letters to an unknown party. Through the letters we witness Charlie experience changing friendships, a shift in family dynamics, and the pitfalls of being socially awkward in high school. Charlie examines very serious relationship dynamics in his sisters abusive relationship and her unwillingness to leave her abuser, and in the decline of his friends relationship with a closeted homosexual football player. Through the course of the book Charlie must come to terms with his own trauma and relationships.

Challenge reasons: drugs/alcohol/smoking, homosexuality, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

6 times on the ALA Top Ten Challenged List

Synopsis: Captain Underpants is the accidental, but really kind of on purpose, alter ego of the ill-tempered principal Mr. Krupp. The series primarily revolves around the misadventures of two 4th graders, George Beard and Harold Hutchins. The boys cause Captain Underpants to go from comic book character they have created to real life by hypnotizing Mr. Krupp.

Challenge reasons: anti-family content, unsuited to age group, violence

5 times on the ALA Top Ten Challenged List

Synopsis: Jerry is a new student at an elite Catholic school, where he must face the hazing practices of the student body. When the teacher Brother Leon commits the school to selling twice as much chocolate, Jerry is coerced by the head of the schools secret society to abstain from selling for ten days. When Jerry decides not to sell past the ten days, he finds himself further pitted against.

Challenge reasons: nudity, offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

4 times on the ALA Top Ten Challenged List

Synopsis: In this coming of age story, Callie is a middle school student and theater lover. She works as part of the production crew rather than on stage. Callie struggles with confusing crushes, tween frustrations, and budding friendships.

Challenge reasons: challenged because it includes LGBT characters, was deemed sexually explicit, and was considered to have an offensive political viewpoint

4 times on the ALA Top Ten Challenged List

Synopsis: This father and son story revolves around Amir, the son of a wealthy merchant, and his friend Hazara, the son of his fathers servant. The boys spend their days kite fighting to escape their situation in Kabul. The boys bond is strained as the city falls around them, and ultimately broken. Amir must journey back home to right past wrongs when he learns of tragedies that have befallen his oldest friend.

Challenge reasons: offensive language, unsuited to age group, violence

4 times on the ALA Top Ten Challenged List

Synopsis: Miles Halter transfers in his junior year from his regular high school in Florida to Culver Creek Preparatory High School in Alabama. There, he meets a colorful cast of characters including Chip The Colonel Martin, hip-hop emcee Takumi Hikohito, and the titular Alaska Young. Alaska is a beautiful and emotionally unstable young woman. She is distant and insists she and Miles maintain a platonic relationship. Tragic and beautiful, the book navigates a complex coming-of-age story for our main character Miles.

Challenge reasons: drugs/alcohol/smoking, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

4 times on the ALA Top Ten Challenged List

Synopsis: Based on true events, Craig and Harry, two 17-year-olds, are taking part in a 32-hour marathon of kissing for the Guinness Book of World Records. While the story revolves around these two young men, it is told by a Greek Chorus of gay men who have died of AIDS.

Challenge reasons: challenged and burned for including LGBTQIA+ content

4 times on the ALA Top Ten Challenged List

Synopsis: Written as a series of IMs complete with send and cancel buttons at the bottom of each page, Angela (SnowAngel), Maddie (mad maddie), and Zoe (zoegirl) take us on an adolescent roller coaster ride beginning in their Sophomore year of high school. Boys, driving lessons, school woes, and other more complicated things life has to offer the girls weather the storm via text based conversation.

Challenge reasons: offensive language, religious viewpoint, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

Read the original here:
The Statistics of Censorship - Book Riot