Category Archives: Transhuman News

Censorship In Schools And The Effects On Our Children Censorship in schools is a complicated situation because there are many variables involved that can impact the way children learn and the way schools serve to educate. Censorship in schools usually exists in the form of the removal or manipulation of materials or learning processes. These materials might range from that which officials and parents have generally decided is inappropriate for our children, such as nudity, to teaching subjects that some find objectionable, such as evolution versus creationism. For the most part, censorship in Americas schools tends to focus on social and religious issues, with many materials called into question as controversial. In other countries, politics would join religion in center stage for censorship, with criticism of the government censored as well. Instead of the government, however, our censorship often comes in the form of concerned parents who do not want their children exposed to a worldview other than their own. A particularly popular topic in schools today is book censorship.

Learning about Darwin might be construed as offensive because of the possible conflict with the religious beliefs of the parents. Sexual education is watered down until it is practically worthless because parents might be offended at sexual references in school, and classic books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are being banned in some areas because they have racial references that might offend some people.

The Effects of Censorship

While the attempt to keep children pure for as long as possible is admirable, it takes the form of leaving gaping holes in their education, if not academically, then about life.

Censorship in schools can also lead to a narrow worldview with holes in the cultural and international education of our children. If a child does not know from literary examples that African Americans were ever abused in our society, then how will those same children understand the implications of marches or rallies for black rights in modern society, or the struggles that people of color still go through to be treated as equals in all ways? Additionally, our children, if restricted to an education that supports their familys religion, will have no frame of reference to understand other religions, other cultures, and other beliefs.

While parents may be tempted to shelter their children from issues that they find unfavorable or offensive, they may be restricting their childs ability to grow and learn at the same time. These restrictive worldviews are the seeds of bigotry, with the implication being that anyone who believes differently from you must be foolish or misinformed.

Censorship in schools seems to come from a desire to ensure that our children grow up making the choices and following the beliefs that we desire for them by removing any other options. This may ensure that those children conform with our beliefs in the short run, but the risk is that they will react with hostility to those same ideas years later when they are exposed to other opinions.

Many would argue that a gay child who is not exposed to information about homosexuality may behave in a way that he is told is proper at first. Eventually, he will hear about homosexuality from someone and will be all the more upset at his former enforced ignorance of the subject, yet no less likely to act on his desires from then on. This is a matter of opinion and not of solid fact, but it is one that should be taken into account when we think about the potential effects of censorship in schools.

The Snowball Effect

Additionally, censorship in schools tends to snowball when warring factions of parents take the battle of wills to the classroom with book banning.

There are many cases throughout censorship history that involve the removal of one or two books or forms of teaching to appease one group of parents, only to have another set of censorship opportunities requested by another group. The old adage you can't please everyone certainly rings true in this case, as a veritable snowball effect is a common danger of censorship in schools.

Practical Considerations

Another difficulty in monitoring censorship is that it is against the nature of concerned parents to think that they are committing this act.

In Conclusion

Schools should be upheld asstandards of education and should be able to prepare students for life in an open world. If schools continue to succumb to the desires of special interest groups, they run the risk of closing minds and leaving children in the dark when it comes to various important social issues. The impact of censorship in schools is significant in light of the way of the world and in light of the ever-changing social climate.

How Would You React in a Crisis?

Read the original here:
Censorship In Schools And The Effects On Our Children

Artists removing work from an exhibition (or having it removed for them) is a pointed and often political gestureand part of a lineage covering many decades to the present. Last year, eight artists called for their work to be removed from the Whitney Biennial in protest of the chair of the museums board. Since then, Phil Collins and Ali Yass pulled out of a MoMA PS1 show about the Gulf Wars, and a group of artists removed their art from the Aichi Triennale in Japan over claims of censorship. Meanwhile, a video by Xandra Ibarra was removed from a show of Chicanx performance art in Texas earlier this year after local politicians deemed it obscene.

Removals such as these have historical precedents. Below is a guide to some of the most notable artworks that have been removedeither by force or by choiceover the past 50 or so years.

Takis pulls work from Museum of Modern Art(1969)The Machine as Seen at the End of the Mechanical Age, Pontus Hultns 1968 group show at MoMA, has been considered a landmark exhibition for its interest in technology. But the show is also major for what happened around itthe removal of an artwork by the Greek artist Takis. Toward the end of the shows run, Takis picked up a sculpture of his that was on view in the exhibition, claiming that the museum had not consulted him before installing it, and moved it into MoMAs courtyard. He described the removal as a symbolic action intended to open up conversation between artists and upper-ranking museum staff. After discussion with MoMAs director, the work was officially taken out of the exhibition for good.

Robert Morris closes show at the Whitney Museum(1970)Robert Morris removed not just one artwork but an entire show as debate surrounding the Vietnam War raged in America. Many in the New York art scene tried to figure out what role artists could play in protest, and Morris became the leader of an antiwar movement that swept the citys art worldand even resulted in a widespread strike that saw museums and galleries close. As part of his efforts, Morris shuttered his solo exhibition at the Whitney in an gesture, he said at the time, meant to underscore the need I and others feel to shift priorities at this time from an making and viewing to unified action within the art community against the intensifying conditions of repression, war and racism in this country.

Daniel Buren sculpture taken down at the Guggenheim(1971)Many artists have dramatically transformed the rotunda of the Guggenheim Museum in New York, but none has courted so much scandal as Daniel Buren. His artistic intervention in the spacea striped drape titled Around the Corner that hung from the ceiling and extended almost all the way downdidnt seem controversial. But some artists who were exhibiting in its midst (in a now-defunct recurring survey known as the Guggenheim International) felt differently. In an effort led by Dan Flavin and Donald Judd, five artists claimed that Burens art obstructed views of Frank Lloyd Wrights sloping architectureand their own work. They called for it to be deinstalled, and after they got what they wanted, feted art historian Douglas Crimp (then a curator at the museum) resigned because of the fracas.

Ulay moves Hitlers favorite painting(1976)Sometimes removal can be both a form of protest and an artwork in itself. For a protest action titled Irritation There is a Criminal Touch to Art,performance artist Ulay seized his attention on the 1837 Carl Spitzweg painting The Poor Poet: a quaint image of a writer counting out the meters of his verse in a cramped attic that was also Adolf Hitlers favorite artwork (he even owned a copy of it). Ulay chose not to let Germany forget that fact by marching into the Neue Nationalgalerie in Berlin, taking the work of the wall, and bringing it to the home of a Turkish immigrant elsewhere in the city. Ulay returned the painting 30 hours later, and the temporary theft was documented by his partner Marina Abramovi.

Richard Serras Tilted Arc deinstalled (1989)From its initial installation in 1981, Richard Serras Tilted Arca 120-foot-long arc crafted with Corten steel in Lower Manhattans Foley Plazawas meant to lead to an intriguing reorientation of a viewers understanding of a picturesque location. Not everyone saw it that way, howeverand after howls from the public, a jury voted in favor of taking down the enormous mass of 73 tons of steel that were unceremoniously hauled away to a government-owned parking lot in Brooklyn.

Adrian Piper pulls out of Conceptualism survey in L.A. (1995)In 1995, the Museum of Contemporary Art Los Angeles staged 19651975: Reconsidering the Object of Art, a major survey focused loosely on the evolution of Conceptualism. But the proceedings were marred by controversy when one of the sponsors was revealed: Philip Morris, the cigarette company that owns Marlboro. The artists in the show claimed not to have been notified in advance, and Adrian Piper asked MOCA to pull her work from the show and replace it with Ashes to Ashes (1995), a piece focused on her parents struggles withand, ultimately, deaths fromcancer that may have been caused by smoking. When the museum declined, she withdrew from the show entirely.

Tania Bruguera installation shuttered at the Havana Biennial (2000)Tania Bruguera is no stranger to controversy, having regularly staged boundary-pushing performances that have raised the ire of officials in her home country of Cuba. Originally staged in a fortress used to house political prisoners in the 1950s, her installation Untitled (Havana, 2000) was a darkened space in which viewers could see barely visible nude performers who appeared to be slapping their bodies and video footage of Fidel Castro as they walked across a mat of sugarcane. Brugeruas consideration of the state of the body under oppressive regimes was closed by authorities hours after opening. Since then, it has been acquired by MoMA, which restaged it in 2018.

Adrian Piper yanks video from black performance art exhibition (2013)Eighteen years after her MOCA removal, Piper pulled work from Radical Presence: Black Performance in Contemporary Art, an exhibition spread across NYUs Grey Art Gallery and the Studio Museum in Harlem. Pipers work appeared in the NYU part, where she was presenting documentation of her past performances as the Mythic Beinga male alter ego she assumed to test gender and racial norms. Piper said she felt limited by the shows purview and suggested that curator Valerie Cassel Oliver organize multi-ethnic exhibitions that give American audiences the rare opportunity to measure directly the groundbreaking achievements of African American artists against those of their peers in the art world at large.

Yams Collective drops out of the Whitney Biennial (2014)Amid outrage over a work by the white male artist Joe Scanlan, who got black female performers to play a fictional character known as Donelle Woolford, the Yams Collective (also known by the name HOWDOYOUSAYYAMINAFRICAN?) pulled their work from the Whitney Biennial in 2014. We felt that the representation of an established academic white man posing as a privileged African-American woman is problematic, even if he tries to hide it in an avatars mystique, one of the collectives members told Hyperallergic at the time.

Shanghai officials strike Ai Weiwei from survey (2014)Ai Weiwei has frequently accused governments and museum figures of censorship in ways that have affected his standing in his home country of China. In 2014, days before the government-operated Power Station of Art in Shanghai was to stage an exhibition devoted to the winners of collector Uli Siggs Chinese Contemporary Art Award, officials in the city yanked Ais workincluding his famed Sunflower Seeds installationand dropped his name from the artist list. At the time, Sigg said, We dont understand but we must accept that his works will not be in there.

Animals pulled from Chinese art show in New York (2017)The Guggenheim Museum faced a widespread outcry when several historically important artworks featuring live animals went on view in a survey of Chinese art. The controversial pieces included Huang Yong Pings Theater of the World, featuring a see-through case in which insects and amphibians preyed upon one another; photo documentation of Xu Bings A Case Study of Transference, in which pigs were inked with Chinese characters; and a Sun Yuan and Peng Yu video that involved dogs on treadmills. Animal-rights groups widely decried the works, and after an online petition garnered tens of thousands of signatures, the museum pulled themleading some to wonder whether the protesters properly understood the cultural context for the art on view.

Olu Oguibe obelisk taken down in Germany(2018)A giant obelisk dedicated to immigrants by Nigerian-born Olu Oguibe was one of the most celebrated offerings at the 2017 edition of Documentait even won the artist the exhibitions top prize. But after the city of Kassel formalized plans to install the work, the work, titled Monument to Strangers and Refugees, was targeted by right-wing politicians who raised doubts about its pro-refugee message and the price of its installation. The monument was removedbut then, just two weeks later, reinstated.

10 artists pull out of the Aichi Triennale in Japan (2019)Almost from its beginning, the Aichi Triennale began generating controversy when officials made the decision to remove a show-within-a-show titled After Freedom of Expression? That exhibition featured a sculpture by Kim Seo-kyung and Kim Eun-sung that referred to the history of ianfuAsian women who were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese Imperial Army. And when it was taken off view, 10 artistsincluding Pedro Reyes, Tania Bruguera, Minouk Lim, and Claudia Martnez Garaypulled their own works from the triennial, claiming that the removal of the ianfu piece was a violation of its makers freedom of expression. Ultimately, officials relentedand the ianfu work was reinstated along with all the other works that been taken away.

Read the original:
13 Notable Removals of ArtworkThrough Censorship, Protest, and More - ARTnews

The progressive media organization Free Press thinks President Donald Trump is spreading dangerous misinformation during his televised press briefings on the government's coronavirus response. So it petitioned federal regulators to make broadcasters either stop airing them or "put those lies in context with disclaimers noting that they may be untrue and are unverified."

It was an odd demand. If Free Press think the president is abusing his authority, the group probably shouldn't be asking his administration to police how people cover the president's pronouncements. Seems like the sort of request that could backfire.

Thankfully, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rejected the petition on Monday, sending a stern rebuke to anyone who thinks censorship is a valid response to problematic speech.

"The federal government will notand never shouldinvestigate broadcasters for their editorial judgments simply because a special interest group is angry at the views being expressed on the air as well as those expressing them," said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in a statement. "In short, we will not censor the news."

Free Press based its argument for FCC intervention on public health, reasoning that Trumpas well as certain right-wing media personalities, like Rush Limbaughhad given false information that could lead people to make unsound medical decisions. The petition specifically cited the president's praise for the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, which is unproven as a remedy for COVID-19.

It's true that the FCC has some power to prevent the dissemination of false information. But federal law wisely places important limits on the agency, and for obvious reasons. No one should want regulators to have broad discretionary power to suppress speech that they subjectively believe is contrary to the public interest. This would inevitably lead to politically motivated censorship of speech that criticizes government actors.

In rejecting the petition, FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson Jr. cogently explained that the FCC can take action against broadcasters only if they knew the information being broadcast was false, if they knew it would cause substantial harm, andif the information actually did cause substantial harm. Johnson pointed out that Free Press's demand for censorship fails on all three counts:

At this moment, broadcasters face the challenge of covering a rapidly-evolving, national, and international health crisis, in which new informationmuch of it medical or technical in nature and therefore difficult to corroborate or refute in real timeis continually revealed, vetted, and verified or dismissed. In addition, we note that the President and members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, including public-health professionals, have held daily press conferences in which they exhaustively answer critical questions from the press. Under such circumstances, it is implausible, if not absurd, to suggest that broadcasters knowingly deceived the public by airing these press conferences or other statements by the President about COVID-19. Moreover, there is a strong argument that broadcasters are serving the public interest when they air live coverage of important news events, such as briefings by the President, the White House Coronavirus Task Force, and state governors, during this national emergency.

The impulse to punish broadcasters for letting people hear what their government officials have to say for themselves is bizarre, and it's a relief to see the FCC take the obvious position that the First Amendment prohibits such censorship. Media outlets can choose whether they want to air Trump's remarks on COVID-19or anyone else's. The government doesn't get to make this decision for them.

Continue reading here:
A Progressive Media Group Demanded Censorship of Trump's Coronavirus Press Briefings. The FCC Said No. - Reason

People waiting to be tested for coronavirus outside a hospital in Sarajevo, Photo: EPA/Fehim Demir

The rights organisation Transparency International, TI, in Bosnia and Herzegovina has called on Zeljka Cvijanovic, President of the Serb-led entity, Republika Srpska, to withdraw a decree banning the spread of panic and disorder during a state of emergency, saying that the Bosnias constitution does not allow the entities to suspend the right to freedom of expression and opinion.

In Republika Srpska, a decree with the force of law prohibiting the spread of panic and disorder during a state of emergency came into force on Tuesday.

The decree, which follows the introduction of the state of emergency in the entity, stipulates fines of 500 to 4,500 euros for individuals and companies that spread panic and fake news through the media and social networks. Opposition parties in the RS describe the regulation as controversial.

The Board of Directors of the Association of Bosnian Journalists has meanwhile called on both Bosnian entities to ensure unhindered access to information and decisions regarding the COVID-19 epidemic in a safe and free manner, without imposing any restrictions, censorship or restrictions on journalists.

Such an approach calls for the urgent withdrawal of decisions and regulations with legal force concerning the restriction of freedom of expression and opinion in the media and on social networks, as well as the abolition of the power of individuals, police and other security agencies to censor the media and citizens, with rapid investigations or the imposition of very high fines, as in Republika Srpska, the Association said in a press release.

The current RS decree is almost identical to the earlier ruling banning panic and fake news that the RS government adopted on March 19.

One of the first individuals fined for violating the decree is a medical doctor, Maja Stojic Dragojevic, who is also a member of the Presidency of the largest opposition party in the RS, the Serbian Democratic Party, SDS. She was fined for writing on Facebook that there were not enough ventilators, beds, or intensive care services in the RS, and for claiming that the RS was unprepared for what is to come.

The Association of Bosnian Journalists has also warned that the government of Bosnias other entity, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, through its Ministry of the Interior and cyber-crime units, had begun monitoring information on social networks, and that five criminal proceedings had since been instituted for allegedly spreading false information and panic.

Regardless of the emergency, it is against all democratic values to impose institutional censorship and restrictions on freedom of expression and information and to give broad authority to individuals engaged in crisis staffs or police and security agencies to interpret and regulate journalistic rights and media freedoms according to their standards, the association said.

The Journalists Association has said it will invite international organisations and European institutions for the protection of freedom of expression to respond to the censorship of information about COVID-19 in Bosnia.

The Council of Europes Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovic, recently said measures to combat misinformation should not be abused to hinder media freedom. She warned that freedom of the media was being suppressed in several countries under the pretext of combating misinformation about the coronavirus.

See the rest here:
Bosnia Trying to Censor Information About Pandemic, Journalists Say - Balkan Insight

People wearing masks, attend a vigil for Chinese doctor Li Wenliang, in Hong Kong, February7, 2020.

For authoritarian-minded leaders, the coronavirus crisis is offering a convenient pretext to silence critics and consolidate power. Censorship in China and elsewhere has fed the pandemic, helping to turn a potentially containable threat into a global calamity. The health crisis will inevitably subside, but autocratic governments dangerous expansion of power may be one of the pandemics most enduring legacies.

In times of crisis, peoples health depends at minimum on free access to timely, accurate information. The Chinese government illustrated the disastrous consequence of ignoring that reality. When doctors in Wuhan tried to sound the alarm in December about the new coronavirus, authorities silenced and reprimanded them. The failure to heed their warnings gave COVID-19 a devastating three-week head start. As millions of travelers left or passed through Wuhan, the virus spread across China and around the world.

Even now, the Chinese government is placing its political goals above public health. It claims that the coronavirus has been tamed but wont allow independent verification. It is expelling journalists from several leading US publications, including those that have produced incisive reporting, and has detained independent Chinese reporters who venture to Wuhan. Meanwhile, Beijing is pushing wild conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus, hoping to deflect attention from the tragic results of its early cover-up.

Others are following Chinas example. In Thailand, Cambodia, Venezuela, Bangladesh, and Turkey, governments are detaining journalists, opposition activists, healthcare workers, and anyone else who dares to criticize the official response to the coronavirus. Needless to say, ignorance-is-bliss is not an effective public health strategy.

When independent media is silenced, governments are able to promote self-serving propaganda rather than facts. Egypts President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, for example, downplayed the coronavirus threat for weeks, apparently wanting to avoid harming Egypts tourist industry. His government expelled a Guardian correspondent and warned a New York Times journalist after their articles questioned government figures on the number of coronavirus cases.

The government of Turkeys President Recep Tayyip Erdogan implausibly denies that there are any COVID-19 cases in its prisons, and a prosecutor is investigating a member of parliamenthimself a doctorwho says that a seventy-year-old inmate and a member of the prison staff have tested positive. Thailands Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-ocha warned journalists to report on government press conferences only and not to interview medical personnel in the field.

Of course, a free media is not a certain antidote. Responsible government is also needed. US President Donald Trump initially called the coronavirus a hoax. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro called the virus a fantasy and preventive measures hysterical. Before belatedly telling people to stay home, Mexican President Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador ostentatiously held rallies, and hugged, kissed, and shook hands with supporters. But at least a free media can highlight such irresponsibility; a silenced media allows it to proceed unchallenged.

Recognizing that the public is more willing to accept government power grabs in times of crisis, some leaders see the coronavirus as an opportunity not only to censor criticism but also to undermine checks and balances on their power. Much as the war on terrorism was used to justify certain long-lasting restrictions on civil liberties, so the fight against the coronavirus threatens longer-term damage to democratic rule.

Although Hungary has reported Covid-19 infections only in the hundreds to date, Prime Minister Viktor Orbn used his partys parliamentary majority to secure an indefinite state of emergency that enables him to rule by decree and imprison for up to five years any journalist who disseminates news that is deemed false. Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has also awarded himself emergency powers to silence fake news.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces corruption charges, his justice minister cited the coronavirus to suspend courts for most cases, as did a close parliamentary ally as he attempted to prevent the oppositions new majority from ousting him as Knesset speakera move that the Israeli Supreme Court said undermin[ed] the foundations of the democratic process. The Trump administration has cited the coronavirus to discourage requests under the Freedom of Information Act, suddenly insisting they be made by only traditional mail, in spite of the greater public health safety of electronic communication.

Some governments are breathing a sigh of relief that the coronavirus has provided a convenient reason to limit political demonstrations. The Algerian government has halted regular protests seeking genuine democratic reform that have been under way for more than a year. The Russian government has stopped even single-person protests against Vladimir Putins plans to rip up term limits on his presidency. The Indian governments recently announced three-week lockdown conveniently ends the running protests against Prime Minister Narendra Modis anti-Muslim citizenship policies. It remains to be seen whether such restrictions outlive the coronavirus threat.

Other governments are using the coronavirus to intensify digital surveillance. China has deepened and extended the surveillance state that is most developed in Xinjiang, where it was used to identify some of the one million Uighur and other Turkic Muslims for detention and forced indoctrination. South Korea has broadcast detailed and highly revealing information about peoples movements to anyone who might have had contact with them. Israels government has cited the coronavirus to authorize its Shin Bet internal security agency to use vast amounts of location-tracking data from the cellphones of ordinary Israelis. In Moscow, Russia is installing one of the worlds largest surveillance camera systems equipped with facial recognition technology. As occurred after September 11, 2001, it may be difficult to put the surveillance genie back in the bottle after the crisis fades.

There is no question these are extraordinary times. International human rights law permits restrictions on liberty in times of national emergency that are necessary and proportionate. But we should be very wary of leaders who exploit this crisis to serve their political ends. They are jeopardizing both democracy and our health.

View original post here:
How Authoritarians Are Exploiting the COVID-19 Crisis to Grab Power - Human Rights Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was a crucial development for the UK release.

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

Story continues

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

Read more: Twin Peaks at 30

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

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

A PG certificate film classification DVD video disk.

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

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

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

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

Read more: How Honor Blackman set the Bond girl template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an image of the entire statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Dean Weingarten:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Malzberg: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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