Category Archives: Transhuman News

Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and youll be hung out to dry.

The above is a quotation from George Orwells preface to Animal Farm, titled "The Freedom of the Press," where he discussed the chilling effect the Soviet Unions influence had on global publishing and debate far beyond the reach of its official censorship laws.

Wait, no it isnt. The quote is actually an excerpt from the resignation letter of New York Times opinion editor and writer Bari Weiss, penned this week, where she blows the whistle on the hostility toward intellectual diversity that now reigns supreme at the countrys most prominent newspaper.

A contrarian moderate but hardly right-wing in her politics, the journalist describes the outright harassment and cruelty she faced at the hands of her colleagues, to the point where she could no longer continue her work:

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how Im writing about the Jews again. Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly inclusive one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

Weisss letter reminds us of the crucial warning Orwell made in his time: To preserve a free and open society, legal protections from government censorship, while crucial, are not nearly enough.

To see why, simply consider the fate that has met Weiss and so many others in recent memory who dared cross the modern thought police. Here are just a few of the countless examples of cancel culture in action:

These are just a few examples of many. One important commonality to note is that none of these examples involve actual government censorship. Yet they still represent chilling crackdowns on free speech. As David French put it writing for The Dispatch, Cruelty bullies employers into firing employees. Cruelty bullies employees into leaving even when theyre not fired. Cruelty raises the cost of speaking the truth as best you see ituntil you find yourself choosing silence, mainly as a pain-avoidance mechanism.

These recent observations echo what Orwell warned of decades ago:

Obviously it is not desirable that a government department should have any power of censorship... but the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the [government] or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.

Similarly, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell noted in a 1922 speech It is clear that thought is not free if the professional of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living.

Some might wonder why its really so important to protect speech and thought beyond the law. After all, if no ones going to jail over it, how serious can the consequences really be?

While understandable as an impulse, this logic misses the point. Free and open speech is the only way a society can, through trial and error, get closer to the truth over time. It was abolitionist Frederick Douglas who described free speech as the great moral renovator of society and government. What he meant was that only the free flow of open speech can challenge existing orthodoxies and evolve society. From womens suffrage to the civil rights movement, we never would have made so much progress on sexism and racism without the right to speak freely.

Silence enshrines the status quo. As John Stuart Mill put it:

If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

This great discovery process through free-flowing speech first and foremost requires a hands-off approach from the government, but it still cannot occur in a culture hostile to dissenting opinion and debate. When airing a differing view can get you mobbed or put your job in jeopardy, only societys most powerful or those whose views align with the current orthodoxy will be able to speak openly without fear.

Orwell and Russell were right then, even if were only fully realizing it now. Self-censorship driven by culture, not government, erodes our collective discovery of truth all the same.

See the rest here:
Why George Orwell's Quote on 'Self-Censorship' Is More Relevant Than Ever | Brad Polumbo - Foundation for Economic Education

SHANGHAI To protest censorship during the COVID-19 outbreak, a Chinese artist known as Brother Nut kept his mouth shut for 30 days, using metal clasps, gloves, duct tape and other items.

In the project #shutupfor30days he also sealed his mouth with packing tape with 404, the error code for a webpage not found, written across it, a nod to the blocking of online content that is common in China for sensitive issues.

If you ask me how an artist should digest unfair treatment, such as violence or censorship, my first reaction is: keep fighting, with art, said Brother Nut.

The 39-year-old artist has built a reputation for statement-making projects in a country where the room for dissent has shrunk and censorship has intensified under President Xi Jinping.

China faced a barrage of criticism over the virus that emerged late last year in Wuhan, from being slow to sound the alarm to the treatment of a doctor who tried to alert authorities about the outbreak but was reprimanded by police for spreading rumors.

The doctor, Li Wenliang, became a symbol of the outbreak in China and later died from coronavirus.

Sometimes I feel my job is similar to that of an NGO or a journalist seeking to raise awareness of social issues and the moves to counter them, said the soft-spoken, long-haired artist during an interview at a cafe in Shanghais M50 art district.

Brother Nuts previous performances include tugging a battery-powered vacuum cleaner around Beijing and creating a solid brick from polluted air.

In 2018, he invited a heavy metal band to play in a village polluted with heavy metals, prompting local environmental authorities to investigate the contamination.

To speak up for investors who lost their savings in a financial scam, Brother Nut staged a torch relay dubbed Good Luck Beijing, which in Chinese sounds similar to Beijing Olympics.

He was later detained for 10 days by police.

Threats and calls from police are commonplace, which he said makes him angry, rather than fearful, although he does not want his real name to be published.

Brother Nut acknowledged that during last months project to maintain silence, he sometimes spoke to himself while eating.

We need expressions of art whenever and wherever. Theyre like flowers growing in cracks and allow us to dance in the most desperate time, he said.

Go here to see the original:
Artist holds his tongue in protest of pandemic censorship in China - New York Post

Israel's fight against the second wave of the coronavirus is thoroughly out of control.

Regulations are pulled out of thin air (shutting restaurants only to open them again too late to save the ditched produce), there is no organized database upon which to make decisions, people are confused due to the clueless leadership, and above all there is dwindling public trust in the government.

At war: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud MK Yifat Shasha-Biton

(Photos: Adina Wellman and Alex Kolomoisky)

To those who are looking for political motive behind every struggle or argument, this is no longer about left or right, it is about life itself.

This theater of the absurd reached a crescendo on Saturday night, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to fire his own Likud party's head of the Knesset coronavirus committee, MK Yifat Shasha-Biton, after she made it clear she was not going to automatically agree to every government decision.

Finance Minister Israel Katz also decided to reprimand his ministry's director-general Karen Turner-Eyal after she defended the head of the budget department Shaul Meridor against social media attacks from Netanyahu and other Likud members.

Meridor came under fire for daring criticize Netanyahu and Katz's plan to distribute money "to everyone" as part of their financial aid program.

The prime minister's son Yair Netanyahu even went so far as to brand anyone at the Finance Ministry who thinks before automatically reciting his father's talking points as "terrorists."

Under fire: Shaul Meridor

(Photo: Rafi Kotz)

It is not for nothing that Turner-Eyal said the comments directed at her colleague Meridor were "extremely violent."

Shasha-Biton, Turner-Eyal and Meridor are people who decided as part of their job to voice their concerns and expert opinion on the government's decisions decisions which are often controversial or downright motivated by foreign interests and political schemes.

They refused to align themselves with the narrative imposed on them from above. Yes, such officials might be a bit more "courteous" and express their thoughts via channels other than social media.

But to go for their heads? Is that how the Israeli government plans to fight the coronavirus pandemic?

Finance Minister Israel Katz and Director-General Karen Turner-Eyal

(Photo: Orel Cohen)

The preoccupation with what Meridor says or what Turner-Eyal is is tweeting is characteristic of a leadership that does not know how to handle a crisis such as the coronavirus.

True, the fight against the contagion is a tough one. It is much easier to blame political rivals, threaten anyone who does not toe party line and pit one against the other.

The politicians and the financial experts who criticize the government's decisions and warn of ill-advised plans are those certain they are doing their jobs as part of the fight against the contagion.

You can criticize them or disagree with them, but that is not the issue.

The problem is that anyone who thinks differently is being figuratively burned at the stake.

With such an attitude, it will be impossible to defeat the coronavirus.

Read more:
Censorship in a time of coronavirus - Ynetnews

Metacritic is implementing a 36-hour review delay to ensure that people actually had enough time to play a game before sharing their thoughts about it online.

Speaking to Game Spot about the new policy, a spokesperson for Metacritic said

We recently implemented the 36 hour waiting period for all user reviews in our games section to ensure our gamers have time to play these games before writing their reviews. This new waiting period for user reviews has been rolled out across Metacritics Games section and was based on data-driven research and with the input of critics and industry experts.

Although Metacritic says the delay isnt in response to user reactions to any particular game, the announcement does come a few weeks after The Last of Us Part II was released. The game was review bombed on the site.

Review bombing happens when users give a large number of negative reviews to a game, typically as low as possible, in order to drop its overall score. The popularity of the game is then harmed, which has an impact on sales and the revenue it can generate.

Its worth noting that a lot of negative reviews on Metacritic (and other review sites) are based on reactions to leaks regarding games, not people actually playing them.

By delaying user reviews, anyone visiting the site after the release of a game wont be bombarded by unfounded hate towards it. And reviews from critics and gaming publications wont get lost in the noise.

Review bombing has been a major problem for every site which aggregates scores based on reviews of video games, films, TV shows and music albums. The most notorious incident being an attempt to drag down Captain Marvels score on popular review site Rotten Tomatoes.

Some gamers might view the move as an attempt to stifle their opinions, and perhaps it is. But is that really a bad thing?

Ever since the rise of social media, Joe Public has been given a platform to shift the narrative in various areas of the entertainment industry. It only takes a second for a seemingly harmless comment or tweet to spiral out of control, forcing studios to change their CGI graphics, fire a director or change their casting choice.

The truth is cancel culture hides under the guise of an opinion, which everyone is entitled to, regardless of the facts laid out in front of them.

However, there needs to be a line drawn between the need to express and opinion and causing financial ruin to a company. A few cranky gamers shouldnt have the power to create multiple accounts and bombard a platform with low scores, essentially destroying something that doesnt belong to them.

Perhaps Metacritic is leaning toward censorship, but what we really should be wondering is why arent we doing it everywhere else too?

Originally posted here:
Is Metacritics New Review Decision Leaning Towards Censorship? - Fortress of Solitude

Reports that Netflix is scrapping a Turkish series following a stand-off with the Turkish government over a gay character have sparked a discussion on the streaming platforms complete withdrawal from the country.

On Saturday, several Turkish news outlets reported that Netflix was pulling on the plug on teen comedy drama Ak 101 (Love 101) after Turkeys state broadcasting regulator RTK pressed to censor a leading gay character.

The total financial cost of RTKs condemnation of the series that premiered earlier this yearis a whopping 35 million lira ($5.1 million)for the ten-episode season, each episode amounting to 3.5 million lira, Fatih Altayl wrote in column in HaberTrk on Saturday.

From now on, interest in Turkish series and productions will increasingly decline and one considers the shows that these companies will no longer have produced in Turkey, the loss is great, Altayl said.

Television series have become on ofTurkeys mostprestigious exports since the ruling Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2012, with hundreds of series being sold to over 100 countries in Eastern Europe, South America and South Asia and the Middle East. The export of Turkish dramas reached $500 million in 2018, according to A Haber news.

At home, frustration is growing over Ankaras intervention in the entertainment industry. Controlled by allies of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, RTK has come under fire for turning increasingly conservative under the 18-year rule of his AKP.

Director Ece Yren weighed in on the negotiation breakdown, telling Turkish entertainment website Fasikl on Sunday that it was very scary that the series production was not permitted over a gay character.

The character in question, Osman, engages in no physical acts of intimacy in the show yet the government is still halting production, Yren told Fasikl.

Turkish pop singer Demet Akaln took to Twitter on Sunday to express her dismay at the reports of Netflixs departure from Turkey.

Netflix saved our souls during the quarantine! Whoever doesnt wish to watch it simply wont, Akaln said, referring to the Ak 101. This is no good. Where are we going to watch Netflix now?

Akaln, a pro-government figure, later deleted her tweet saying she was caught up in the moment, and wondered when Netflix would release an official statement on the show to end speculation.

Netflix has yet to release a statement over the series in question.

In 2018, Reed Hastings, the cofounder and CEO of Netflix dismissed concerns of theNetflix being forced out of Turkey over tightening censorship rules at the time.

Were in Saudi Arabia. Were in Pakistan. If there are no problems there, will we have problems in Turkey? I cant imagine that, Hastings told Hrriyet newspaper.

Read this article:
Censorship standoff sparks concerns of Netflixs withdrawal from Turkey - Ahval

Anyway, this was nothing compared to what the British writer Ian McEwan inspired on Twitter when he apparently poisoned the world by writing a novel narrated by a foetus. This was a sinister plot to humanise zygotes and, thus, outlaw abortion forever. According to NASA, which can heat-map Twitter outrages from space, there are about 4 billion collective spasms of strange and performative outrage each day, so the Foetal Narrator Controversy is naturally consigned to obscurity.

Loading

Except in my memory, where Ive installed a plaque to commemorate it. The contagious apoplexy that McEwans (unread) book generated seemed to me a form of significant but undiagnosed illness, and one regret of deleting my Twitter account is not being able to cite the unhinged responses I received from folks when I asked them, sincerely, if they were serious.

You can say that ridiculing Twitters exotic grievances is an easy sport. Sure, except that years ago it seemed to me that Twitter wasnt merely reflecting, but engendering and magnifying, a kind of wickedly censorious piety. And one that was increasingly influencing journalists and artists. Ive had editors more interested in avoiding controversy than in judging the accuracy and value of my work.

Online, piety has no trouble finding affirmation. But the thing with piety is that it stubbornly resists private examination. This might work for the seminary, but it seems ruinous for a writer. Unless youre an awful one. In which case, this is an optimal environment to work in so, congratulations on being born to an age that enthusiastically supports your mediocrity.

Loading

I suspect the most politically pious in this country wont be satisfied until certain professions have yielded their specific values and functions in deference to a vision of society that is perfectly liberated from aggravation. Its a vision of a giant creche.

All contest would be outlawed. Literature would become dogma. Universities would moonlight as daycare centres. The law would abandon its duty to evidentiary thresholds and the presumption of innocence, and become a place of infinite credulity. Comedy would cede the joys of irreverence, and prefer applause to laughter. Journalism would reject curiosity, exploration and corroboration, in favour of politically sanctioned advocacy and authentic personal essays. Increasingly, newsrooms will serve their readers a narrow, ideologically curated diet.

Ive disagreed with plenty of Bari Weisss work, but I agreed with her this week when she wrote, in her open letter resigning as an opinion editor at The New York Times, that a new consensus has emerged in the press ... that truth isnt a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

These days, its quite common to hear: It is imperative that a writer of non-fiction write only about experiences theyve had. When confronted with this stupidity, I experience my own violent irrationality and consider applying the credo in extremis by torching all newsrooms and the history sections of libraries.

A common defence of the lefts censoriousness however venomous and trivial is that it is merely free speech deployed against anothers. Thats fundamentally true, and its also disingenuous: the threat of mobilised zealotry is chilling speech.

I cant prove the negative here I cant measure the things not written or said. But I can tell you that Ive spoken to a few eminent writers about this authors of works wed consider classics who have told me they would not dare to publish the work today. One writer told me she had not slept the night she spoke to me about such things, so fearful was she that Id publish it. Thats a problem.

Loading

Its also a problem when scholars are sacked for tweeting links to academic papers, when good faith cannot be distinguished from bad, when writers self-censor or have to explain that their insistence on complexity is owed to intellectual integrity and not, say, their belief in white supremacy or Satan.

Increasingly, those who have contributed to a culture of outrageous sensitivity are being impaled on the swords they helped sharpen. Past months have resembled a kind of woke purge. Which makes schadenfreude very easy to indulge, but well need to resist that dubious pleasure lest we perpetuate this cycle of mob-ruled destruction of careers and reputations.

This isnt either/or. It shouldnt be truth versus freedom. It shouldnt be inferred that criticism of this censoriousness means that the critic doesnt believe there arent righteous battles being fought. But you cant tell me that elements of this online piety arent absurd, indulgent or destructive.

You cant tell me that middle-class folk arent publicising interpersonal spats as proof of systemic violence, or that were not partially cannibalising culture in a moment of historic uncertainty and vast, easily industrialised disinformation. Or that I cant resist or make fun of Jacobin zealotry. You cant.

Martin McKenzie-Murray is a freelance writer.

Martin McKenzie-Murray is a regular contributor and a former Labor political speechwriter.

Continue reading here:
Spare us the Twitter zealots and their pious left censorship - Sydney Morning Herald

Written by Surbhi Gupta, Edited by Explained Desk | New Delhi | Updated: July 21, 2020 6:57:26 pm Directed by the acclaimed Pakistani filmmaker Sarmad Khoosat, Zindagi Tamasha won the prestigious Kim Ji-Seok Award at the Busan International Film Festival last year. (Still from the trailer)

Last week, Pakistans Senate Committee for Human Rights approved the release of the film Zindagi Tamasha, dismissing all objections raised against it. Senator Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), who chairs the panel, said in a tweet on July 14 that the committee had found nothing wrong with the film, and that the Pakistani censors could now go ahead to release it post-Covid.

Two days later, however, a petition was filed in a Lahore court seeking a lifetime ban on the film. Following a short hearing, the Additional Sessions Judge asked for a reply from the makers of the film, and adjourned the hearing until July 27.

Directed by the acclaimed Pakistani filmmaker Sarmad Khoosat, Zindagi Tamasha won the prestigious Kim Ji-Seok Award at the Busan International Film Festival last year. A bilingual film that is mostly in Punjabi, it stars Arif Hassan, Eman Suleman, Ali Qureshi, Samiya Mumtaz, and Imran Khoosat.

The films scheduled release on January 24 this year was stalled, and a series of protests, open letters, and multiple reviews by the censors followed.

What is the film about?

An exploration of many themes, Zindagi Tamasha tells the story of Rahat Khawaja (played by Arif Hassan), a naat khawan a poet who recites poetry in praise of the Prophet. In an introduction of the character, the filmmakers said that Rahat Khawaja enjoys a celebrity status amongst the community in the old city of Lahore, and is a devout Muslim, who, in the eyes of everyone is a superhuman incapable of any sacrilege. Hence, when he does wrong there is no forgiveness for him.

From the trailer of the film it appears that Khawaja and his family find themselves ostracised after a certain video featuring him becomes public. The contents of the video are not clear. The trailer appears to hint at the misuse of Pakistans infamous blasphemy law. Sarmads sister Kanwal Khoosat, who has co-produced the film, has said that tolerance is the overarching theme, and main takeaway of the film.

Who is Sarmad Khoosat, the films director?

Khoosat, 41, is a critically-acclaimed filmmaker, and considered by many to be among Pakistans best. After directing TV shows and telefilms for some years, Khoosat made his big screen directorial debut with Mantoin 2015. The critically and commercially successful film had Khoosat himself playing the role of the novelist and playwright Saadat Hasan Manto.

Khoosat has been active in the Pakistani entertainment industry for well over a decade, and has directed the popular TV drama Humsafar, starring Fawad Khan and Mahira Khan, and Shehr-e-Zaat. He was awarded the Pride of Performance, the highest national literary honour by the Pakistani government, in 2017.

Who is opposing the release of the film?

After the film was cleared by the censor board, the Islamist political party Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), began protests against its release. Even after the board reviewed and cleared the film for the second time after asking for a few cuts, the TLP called for mass rallies across the country.

The characterisation of the naat-reader in the film is such that it can cause discomfort to the public and might lead them to deviate from Islam and Prophet (Muhammad), the TLP had said in a statement. Thus this movie must not be released as it could otherwise be a grave test of the Muslims of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The party was founded by the Barelvi preacher Khadim Hussain Rizvi after the 2016 hanging of Mumtaz Qadri, a commando who had been assigned to protect the former Governor of Punjab province Salmaan Taseer but who had, in 2011, killed the Governor as alleged retribution for Taseers statements in favour of Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian woman who had been convicted of blasphemy.

The TLPs main agenda has been the opposition to attempts at changing or diluting the blasphemy laws. It has held several protest rallies and demonstrations to this end, and has shown its ability to gather massive crowds. The TLP contested the elections in Pakistan in 2018, and won three seats in the Sindh provincial assembly.

What position has the government taken?

While the film was cleared by all three censor boards (the CBFC, Punjab, and Sindh boards) in Pakistan, the Sindh Board of Film Censors put a ban on Zindagi Tamashathree days before its scheduled release, as it anticipated that it could cause unrest within a segment of the society. The censor authorities in Punjab followed suit.

Firdous Ashiq Awan, who was then adviser to Prime Minister Imran Khan on Information and Broadcasting, tweeted that the producer of the film had been told to delay the release until the censor board had consulted with the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII), a constitutional body that advises the legislature on Islamic issues. This was the first time in the history of Pakistani cinema that the approval of the CII was sought on the content of a film.

Express Explainedis now onTelegram. Clickhere to join our channel (@ieexplained)and stay updated with the latest

How did the filmmaker respond?

In an open letter written a few days before the scheduled release, and addressed to the countrys President, Prime Minister, Chief of the Army Staff, Chief Justice, Ministry of Information, and the public at large, Sarmad Khoosat said that he wanted to explore themes like gender constructs, class divisions and human experiences.

There was never any intention to attack, to point fingers at or humiliate any individual or institution, he said.

Khoosat subsequently tweeted that he had been getting dozens of threatening phone calls and messages, and published a second open letter, in which he reiterated that the film was about a good enough Muslim there was/is no mention of a sect, party or faction of any sort. Neither in the uncensored nor the censored version. He said that his film was an empathic and heartfelt tale of a bearded man who is so much more than just that.

How has Pakistani civil society reacted?

Civil society, the film fraternity, and sections of the media have come out in support of Khoosat, and criticised the government for succumbing to pressure from extremist elements. Among those who have backed Khoosat is the acclaimed British-Pakistani writer Mohammed Hanif (who wrote A Case of Exploding Mangoes), who has seen the film, and who wrote a blog for Samaa TV in an a bid to clarify some points.

The film, Hanif said, was not about child molestation, as had been alleged. The subject doesnt figure at all in the plot, nor is it a part of the subplot. Its neither mentioned nor alluded to, he wrote. He said that there was one line in which the main protagonist says, But what about those who molest children? And the censor board had ordered even that line deleted, he said.

Hanif also said that there were no ulema in the film, and that the protagonist was a small property dealer. He is a compassionate man, who helps out the needy, composes and reads sehras at weddings and makes halva at Eid Milad un Nabi and distributes it. He is not a professional naatkhwan, but he loves reciting naats.

According to Hanif, the only taboo the film breaks is showing a man with a beard doing household chores. I cant remember the last time a bearded man or any man was shown in a film cooking, doing laundry, doing his ailing wifes hair. Is showing a bearded man doing house chores an insult to our faith? he wrote.

Which films have been banned in Pakistan?

Pakistani censors have repeatedly banned Indian films, including Padman, Raazi, Raees, Udta Punjab, Neerja, Haider, Bhaag Milkha Bhaag, among many others. They also banned The Da Vinci Code in 2006 after protests from the Christian community.

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Explained News, download Indian Express App.

Read the original:
Explained: The controversy around Pakistani film Zindagi Tamasha - The Indian Express

Your partner recording and posting a video of you showering without your knowledge seems like the sort of thing that only happens in awful relationships ... or when you're partnered with a renowned prankster and endlessly devoted troll like Chrissy Teigen.

She is one of those celebrities who is just as well known for her shenanigans as she is for being a model, host, and author. Typically, those shenanigans revolve around trolling her husband, singer and EGOT winner John Legend.

Messing with Legend is nothing new for Teigen, and nothing Legend isn't used to. He has gone on record multiple times saying he loves her sense of mischief and sass.

The first line in his hit song "All Of Me" (which was written for Chrissy) is:

Teigen even joked she knew, for sure, the song was about her just from that line.

We're establishing this all because it's important to note that Legend is a willing participant in his own repeated roastings.

For many people, this round of Shenanigans With Chrissy would have been humiliating. For John Legend, it's just another day being married to your best friend and biggest troll.

Recently, she posted a video of him naked in the shower. The clip is only four seconds long, and lovingly censored by Teigen's strategically placed hand, but yup... that's definitely naked John Legend. In fact, it's naked John Legend only kept "decent" by Teigen who, ever the supermodel, is precariously balancing on her toes.

Teigen can't help but laugh as she films.

Where mere mortals like you and I might cringe at the idea of a shower video posted for millions to see, Legend and the couple's friends and family (and fans!) find it hilarious.

This is just another in a lengthy string of ribbings at Teigen's hand. She has also messed with him by comparing him to the cartoon character Arthur, joking about how all babies look just like him and posting countless teasing pics pretending to do things like pick his nose or grab his butt.

People, particularly their friends, are laughing right along with the pair as usual.

Chrissy Teigen / Instagram

Chrissy Teigen / Instagram

Chrissy Teigen / Instagram

Chrissy Teigen / Instagram

Chrissy Teigen / Instagram

We can't wait to see what she comes up with next on her endless quest to mess with her husband. Keep up the fun, Ms. Teigen!

See the rest here:
Chrissy Teigen Filmed John Legend Taking A Shower With Just Her Hand As A Censor, And Her Fans Are Living For It - Comic Sands