Category Archives: Transhuman News

By Barry Jason MauerUCF Forum columnist

Censorship is not all bad! Free-speech idealists argue that the solution to bad speech (misinformation, lies, abusive language, etc.) is not censorship but more speech. But bad speech can, and often does, drown out the good.

A classic form of bad speech is hate speech. Jeremy Waldron, a law professor at the New York University School of Law, describes it this way:

"Its aim is to compromise the dignity of those at whom it is targeted, both in their own eyes and in the eyes of other members of society. And it sets out to make the establishment and upholding of their dignity... much more difficult. It aims to besmirch the basics of their reputation, by associating ascriptive characteristics like ethnicity, or race, or religion with conduct or attributes that should disqualify someone from being treated as a member of society in good standing."

Thus, hate speech is really anti-speech because it aims to shut down the speech of others. And in the United States, hate speech has shut down the speech of minorities and women for hundreds of years. Defenders of hate speech often disguise it as "pride," "state's rights" or "religious freedom." But we are mistaken to treat anti-speech as if it were normal speech, deserving of protection. We can and should be intolerant of intolerance.

Although the United States has a First Amendment protecting free speech, it does not extend to the workplace, the classroom, or the dinner table. It is limited to the press, to religion, to assemblies, and to petitions. And as every journalist, parishioner or public assembly participant knows, there are powerful limits in these arenas, too. We don't have absolutely free speech because we live within the confines of powerful and interlocking institutions: family, education, entertainment, commerce, career, the law, the military, religion and others.

These institutions offer benefits to their members but also constraints and a narrow range of choices of expression. If these institutions were to offer too much freedom, they would be unable to perpetuate the social relations that keep them functioning. So speech inside an institutional context is limited, but speech outside of an institutional context typically has less power. Speech is limited either way.

The question, therefore, is not whether we ought to have constraints on speech but what kinds of constraints?

Censorship is an institutional constraint. When we hear the word censorship, we often imagine a banned book (i.e. schools and libraries removing the book). This is censorship at the point of reception. Protests erupt. Demand for the banned book goes up.

Censorship happens more frequently at the point of distribution than it does at the point of reception, such as an institution refusing to distribute a speech or a text through its channels. This type of censorship rarely leads to protests because outsiders rarely hear about it.

The most common form of censorship is self-censorship, or censorship at the point of production, which means you have internalized the censor's rules and decided to abide by them of your own volition. Perhaps you learned that the benefits of compliance outweigh the costs of resistance, or you rationalized that you can't win anyway.

We may self-censor for good reasons, such as politeness, but sometimes we self-censor because we see someone else made into a negative example and we fear it could happen to us.

For instance, some journalists who otherwise might have criticized the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq silenced themselves rather than risk reprisal--from the government, their corporate owners, or those in the public who were for the war. The result was that journalism inflicted a major blow to its own integrity for behaving as an administration mouthpiece, and Americans became among the least-informed people in the world about the war.

Beyond self-censorship, there are other limitations: ideologies--such as racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia--that prevent us from even thinking certain thoughts, such as thinking of others as human beings with dignity and rights.

We have too much censorship in some areas of our society and too little censorship in others.

There is too much censorship from some plutocrats who suppress the truth about their misrule. They silence whistle-blowers while their propagandists hog the microphone. They maintain these beliefs either through outright censorship or through a pretense of balance in which the media referee fails to penalize those who lie consistently and brazenly. Might we have learned about the lead poisoning in Flint, Mich.'s, water earlier if we could have heard more of whistle-blowers and less of the politicians' denials?

If we hold to ethical principles, such as truth and justice, we can encourage or demand censorship as needed. For example, we should encourage ordinary citizens to participate in democracy, but ban unlimited political contributions by corporations. We should encourage the release of classified information that reveals government abuses, but ban lawmakers from becoming lobbyists once they leave office.

If you want to change the levels of censorship in our society--in other words, to benefit society by loosening or tightening censorship--the best approach is to appeal to the stated values of our institutions. Thus, to loosen censorship by expanding press freedoms, appeal to journalistic institutions as watchdogs of the powerful. To expand academic freedom, appeal to the university's stated aims to seek truth and benefit humanity.

And to appeal for greater censorship, apply the same appeals to our higher values.

Barry Jason Mauer is an associate professor in the UCF Department of English. He can be reached at barry.mauer@ucf.edu.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

See the original post here:
Censorship Is Not All Bad | HuffPost

To the editor: I support Black Lives Matter and acknowledge the need to go from non-racist to anti-racist. No doubt I have a lot of personal growth potential in that regard (I dont like Gone With the Wind, but I hate to see Hattie McDaniel canceled, Opinion, June 12).

But with all due respect to critics of Gone With the Wind, I believe that censorship is the wrong approach.

Films, plays, books and other works of historical significance should be readily available and studied, for all their brilliance and failings, not shut away and censored. Dont we yet understand the slippery slope of censorship?

Should Margaret Mitchells book also be banned? Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn? Shakespeares Merchant of Venice because of its depiction of Jews? The film Breakfast at Tiffanys because of Mickey Rooneys character? All of these works have serious racist elements.

Plants grow in the sunlight so do we.

Ward Bukofsky, Encino

..

To the editor: As a Black American, I can tell you that Gone With the Wind is so very painful to watch. Its just as bigoted as The Birth of A Nation. I will never allow my grandchildren to watch that blasphemous movie.

I still cant understand how those in power in Hollywood could ever produce something so offensive to minorities.

Paulette Mashaka, Carson

..

To the editor: As someone who has seen Gone With the Wind not merely once, but at least 30 times, I take issue with some of the opinions expressed by Pamela K. Johnson in her piece on the film and actress Hattie McDaniel.

Although it is certainly true that the films depiction of slaves was most certainly offensive most blatantly the portrayal of Prissy by the actress Butterfly McQueen, who later deeply regretted playing the role I believe that Mammy as portrayed by McDaniel was the most fully developed character in the film.

It is to its credit that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences realized as much in 1939 and voted her best supporting actress. McDaniels Oscar, a historic achievement, was well deserved.

Kristine Kazie Keenan, Pasadena

..

To the editor: Worrying about McDaniels acting legacy however brilliant in the wake of Gone With the Wind being dropped from the HBO Max streaming service is like bemoaning the demise of the Marlboro Mans career when cigarette ads were banned on television.

The greater good takes precedence.

Eileen Flaxman, Claremont

See the article here:
'Gone With the Wind' censorship is a slippery slope - Los Angeles Times

In a flash, Gone with the Wind, the 1939 American film classic, was gone. So, too, was Cops, the pro-cop reality show about to start its 33rd season until Paramount Network banished it. Days later, A&E pulled from its schedule Live P.D., which follows cops on the job. All three have fallen victim to the prevailing politically correct winds that have already engulfed journalism, causing senior staff shifts at the New York Times, ABC News, Variety, Bon Appetit, and Refinery 29, among other less well-known outlets.

Now film and television have caught the censorship, or self-censorship bug, as self-appointed cultural commissars and Maoist online mobs demand that, in the wake of the killing of George Floyd and the eruption of protests, violence, and looting in more than 100 American cities, what we see on our movie and TV screens, in addition to what we read, must be devoid of what they deem to be racism, sexism, and proto-fascism.

But slowly, cautiously, some blowback has begun. Over the weekend, Jacqueline Stewart, a host on Turner Classic Movies and a professor at the University of Chicagos Department of Cinema and Media Studies, announced that she would be narrating a discussion of the films historical context when HBO Max returns it to its streaming servicestill at an unspecified date.

When HBO Max announced last week that it was withdrawing the film pending the addition of a disclaimer denouncing the films racist missteps and historical context, Bob Greenblatt, WarnerMedias chief, called the move a no-brainer. That it was, but not in the way he meant.

Gone with the Wind, as Stewart reminded us in an editorial announcing her new role as contextualizer-in-chief, remains not only the highest-grossing film of all time when adjusted for inflation, but the winner of eight Oscarsincluding a supporting- actress win for Hattie McDaniel, the first black actor to take home the coveted statuette. Though widely criticized for its romanticized depiction of the antebellum South and its softening of the horror of slavery, the film is a work of genius. A sprawling Civil War epic chronicling the love affair of Scarlett OHara, the daughter of a southern plantation owner, and Rhett Butler, an irresistible womanizer and gambler, it placed sixth, the New York Times reported, on the American Film Institutes 1998 list of greatest films of all time.

Among its many black defenders is Whoopi Goldberg, the actor and co-host of The View. Noting that the film was made at a different time, Goldberg warned that banning films like Gone with the Wind and shows like Cops was perilous. Censoring such films, she said, would mean that many popular blaxploitation films would also have to be banned.

Spike Lee, who used a celebrated sequence from Gone with the Wind in his own film, Black KKKlansman, told The View that students and other film buffs should be able to see such films, even those that are more openly racist. I think that one of the most racist films ever, D.W. Griffiths Birth of a Nation, should be seen, he said, adding that he showed the film in his class at New York University.

Film censorship in America is almost as old as the industry itself. In 1897, the state of Maine banned the showing of a film of a heavyweight championship fight. In 1907, Chicago became the first U.S. city to enact a censorship law authorizing its police chief to screen all films to determine whether they were fit to be seen by the public. Some 100 cities and states soon created local censorship boards. In the 1930s, self-censorship gradually replaced state bans and restrictions. Fearful of federal regulation, the motion picture industry adopted morality codes that persisted until the breakdown of the studio system and the rise of independent filmmakers, in another culturally revolutionary moment in Americathe late 1960s.

Now, the self-censorship impulse has returned in force. The push to ban unwoke work, films considered openly or subliminally racist, moreover, has been embraced by media and cultural critics whose mission should be to expand the limits of expression. For if Gone with the Wind cannot be seen without a warning label, less highly acclaimed work stands little chance. Dont expect to see Cops on TV anytime soon, no matter how many streaming services ostensibly compete for viewers.

Why stop there? Lets ban screenings of Al Jolsons performances in black face, and reruns of Norman Lears brilliant All in the Family, the 1970s sitcom whose racist, sexist, homophobic, working class antihero, Archie Bunker, was must-see viewing. Lets throw Shirley Temple movies under the bus. We cant have doorman Bill Bojangles Robinson, one of Americas greatest tap dancers, teach little Shirley how to do a time step to the strains of My Old Kentucky Home in The Little Colonel. Forget about seeing the 1937 classic The Good Earth, whose apparently racist producers chose white actress Luise Rainer rather than Anna May Wong to play the sold slave and prostitute in her Oscar-winning performance. Should The Wizard of Oz be seen by impressionable Americans, given its portrait of dwarfs? PETA would surely object to Alfred Hitchcocks The Birds for portraying our feathered friends as mass killers. And dont The Godfather films suggest that Italian-Americans are in thrall to the mafia?

The impulse to self-censor, however powerful in such politically polarized times, is deadly to any vibrant culture, no matter how seemingly compelling its justification. It must be resisted.

Judith Miller is a City Journal contributing editor and author of The Story: A Reporters Journey and Germs: Biological Weapons and Americas Secret War.

Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images

View post:
Resist The Self-censorship Bug - City Journal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture by: Getty.

Help spiked prick the Covid consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As per the report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So where does that leave us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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