1. category
  2. Transhuman News

Page 1,543«..1020..1,5421,5431,5441,545..1,5501,560..»

Category Archives: Transhuman News

MoU signed to commercialise gene therapy in India – Odisha Sun Times

Posted: August 11, 2017 at 5:45 pm

New Delhi: In a bid to advance research and commercialise regenerative medicine and gene therapy in India, the Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprise (ABLE) a consortium of biotechnology companies on Friday signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with a Japan-based trade association.

The collaboration between ABLE and Forum for Innovative Regenerative Medicine (FIRM) will focus on advancing the individual and common missions by sharing information including technology, policy and laws partnerships and opportunities such as co-sponsoring meetings and other cooperation based on common concern.

It will also help advance and promote commercialisation of life saving products in regenerative medicine within India, Japan and other countries.

We are proud to be a partner in this revolutionary research and industry collaborations. The partnership is a step forward to enhance the learning and training on cell and gene treatment leading to enhancement of the cell and gene therapies which help to address major unmet medical needs in India, P. Manohar, Head (Committee for regenerative medicine group) at ABLE, said in a statement on Friday.

Our association with ABLE is an opportunity to work towards the advancement of the field (of regenerative medicine and cell and gene therapies) and tap on the potential to transform human healthcare. Through the partnership, we can share learnings and insights to contribute towards curing major human illness, added Yuzo Toda, Chairman at FIRM. (IANS)

See the original post:
MoU signed to commercialise gene therapy in India - Odisha Sun Times

Posted in Gene Medicine | Comments Off on MoU signed to commercialise gene therapy in India – Odisha Sun Times

Human Germline Genome Editing Genetics bodies weigh in on debate with position paper – JD Supra (press release)

Posted: at 5:45 pm

In an article published in American Journal of Human Genetics on 3 August 2017, an international group of 11 organisations with genetics expertise has issued a joint position statement, setting out 3 key positions on the question of human germline genome editing:

(1)At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy.

(2)Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research.

(3)Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is (a) a compelling medical rationale, (b) an evidence base that supports its clinical use, (c) an ethical justification, and (d) a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.

This serendipitously timed statement comes on the heels of Shoukhrat Mitalipov and colleagues at Oregon Health and Science Universitys publication of an article in Nature reporting the successful use of CRISPR/Cas9 in human embryos to correct a mutation in a gene called MYBPC3 that causes a potentially fatal heart condition known as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The publication of this article has drawn the attention of the wider mainstream media and reignited the public debate as to the desirability, feasibility and ethics of editing the human genome in an inheritable way.

Gene editing - putting the paper in context

Whilst debates about the ethics of gene editing (both somatic and germline) go back decades, human germline genome editing has never before been realistically possible from a technical standpoint. That has changed with the advent of the CRISPR/Cas9 system, whose efficiency and ease of use has not only opened up the field of gene editing to a far larger number of companies and laboratories than previously, but has brought the editing of specific genes in a human embryo out of the realms of fantasy into reality. The potential for such technology to improve quality of life and prevent suffering caused by debilitating genetically inherited diseases has captured the imagination of many, particularly people living with currently intractable genetic conditions, their friends and family. However, the power of the technology has also conjured up the familiar spectres of playing God, the uncertainty of long term effects on individuals (and what it means to be human itself), marginalisation of the disabled or genetically inferior and the potential for inequality to manifest itself genetically as well as socioeconomically.

Germline cell editing poses significantly more concerning ethical and regulatory issues than somatic cell editing. The latter will only result in uninheritable changes to the genome of a population of cells in the particular individual treated, whilst the former involves genetic changes that will be passed down, for better or worse, to the individuals offspring.

In early 2015, the first study demonstrating that CRISPR/Cas9 could be used to modify genes in early-stage human embryos was published. Although the embryos employed for those experiments were not capable of developing to term, the work clearly demonstrated that genome editing with CRISPR/Cas9 in human embryos can readily be performed. That report stimulated many scientists and organisations to clarify their stance on the use of genome-editing methods. The United Kingdom and Sweden have both approved experiments for editing DNA of a human embryo but not those that involve implanting embryos. In the UK, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has approved an application by developmental biologist Kathy Niakan, at the Francis Crick Institute in London, to use CRISPR/Cas9 in healthy human embryos. Currently, such experiments cannot be done with federal funding in the United States given a congressional prohibition on using taxpayer funds for research that destroys human embryos. Congress has also banned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from considering a clinical trial of embryo editing. As would be expected, the safety requirements for any human clinical genome-editing application are extremely stringent.

However, earlier this year, US-based National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), published a report that concluded using genome-editing technology, such as CRISPR/Cas9, to make alterations to the germline would be acceptable if the intention was to treat or prevent serious genetic disease or disorders, and the procedure was proven to be safe ( significant and, to an extent, subjective hurdles to be overcome).

The ASHG position paper

The position paper was the product of a working group established by the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), including representatives from the UK Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and US National Society of Genetic Counsellors. These groups, as well as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, British Society for Genetic Medicine, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Professional Society of Genetic Counsellors in Asia, and Southern African Society for Human Genetics, endorsed the final statement. The group, composed of a combination of research and clinical scientists, bioethicists, health services researchers, lawyers and genetic counsellors, worked together to integrate the scientific status of and socio-ethical views towards human germline genome editing.

As part of this process, the working group reviewed and summarised nine existing policy statements on gene editing and embryo research and interventions from national and international bodies, including The International Society for Stem Cell Research (2015) Statement on Human Germline Genome Modification, The Hinxton Group (2015) Statement on Genome Editing Technologies and the statement released following the International Summit on Human Gene Editing (2015) co-hosted by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (UK). It was observed that differences in these policies include the very definition of what constitutes a human embryo or a reproductive cell, the nature of the policy tool adopted to promote the positions outlined, and the oversight/enforcement mechanisms for the policy. However, by and large, the majority of available statements and recommendations restrict applications from attempting to initiate a pregnancy with an embryo or reproductive cell whose germline has been altered. At the same time, many advocate for the continuation of basic research (and even preclinical research in some cases) in the area. One notable exception is the US National Institutes of Health, which refuses to fund the use of any gene-editing technologies in human embryos. Accordingly, due to the lack of public funding in the US, work such as that done by Mitalipovs group must be privately funded.

The working group considered that ethical issues around germline genome editing largely fall into two broad categories those arising from its potential failure and those arising from its success. Failure exposes individuals to a variety of health consequences, both known and unknown, while success could lead to societal concerns about eugenics, social justice and equal access to medical technologies.

The 11 organisations acknowledged numerous ethical issues arising from human germline genome editing, including:

exposing individuals to potentially harmful health consequences, since the magnitude of the potential risks of off-target or unintended consequences are yet to be determined;

the risk that if highly restrictive policies are placed on the conduct and public funding of basic research in the field, this could push research out of the public eye and public interest, underground to private funders or overseas, to organisations and territories where it would be subject to less regulation, transparency and oversight. This could result in research not being subject to ethical and peer oversight, such as ethics board approval, data sharing, peer review and dissemination of research resources;1

the de facto inability of future individuals who are the result of genetic editing, to consent to that editing;

concerns around the boundaries of eugenic use of gene editing technology, which the groups acknowledged could be used to reinforce prejudice and narrow definitions of normalcy in our societies; and

ensuring the gene editing technologies do not worsen existing or create new inequalities within and between societies, noting: Unequal access and cultural differences affecting uptake could create large differences in the relative incidence of a given condition by region, ethnic group, or socioeconomic status. Genetic disease, once a universal common denominator, could instead become an artifact of class, geographic location, and culture. A dangerous consequence of such inequality could be that reduced incidence and reduced sense of shared risk could affect the resources available to individuals and families dealing with genetic conditions.

Having touched on each of these issues, the group then outlined its consensus positions:

1. At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy.

It was noted that there is not yet a high quality evidence base to support the use of germline genome editing, with unknown risk of health consequences and ethical issues still to be explored and resolved by society.

The group observed that two major categories of safety concerns are (i) the effect of unwanted or off-target mutations, and (ii) the potential unintended effects of the desired on-target base changes (edits) being made. It noted that it is reasonable to presume that any human genome-editing therapeutic application will require stringent monitoring of off-target mutation rates, but there remains no consensus on which methods would be optimal for this, or what a desirable maximum off-target mutation rate would be when these techniques are translated clinically. The working-group thus outlined its views on the minimum necessary developments that would be required (at least from a safety perspective) before germline genome editing could be used clinically:

definitions of broadly acceptable methodologies and minimum standards for measuring off-target mutagenesis;

consensus regarding the likely impact of, and maximum acceptable thresholds for, off-target mutations; and

consensus regarding the types of acceptable genome edits with regard to their potential for unintended consequences.

2. Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research.

The group agreed that conducting basic scientific [techniques?] involving editing of human embryos and gametes can be performed ethically via compliance with applicable laws and policies, and that any study involving in vitro genome editing on human embryos and gametes should be conducted under rigorous and independent governance mechanisms, including approval by ethics review boards and meeting any other policy or regulatory requirements. Public funding for such research was seen as important in ensuring that such research is not driven overseas or underground, where it would be subject to less regulation, oversight and transparency.

3. Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is (a) a compelling medical rationale, (b) an evidence base that supports its clinical use, (c) an ethical justification, and (d) a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.

Even if the technical data from preclinical research reaches a stage where it supports clinical translation of human germline genome editing, the working group stresses that many more things need to happen before translational research in human germline genome editing is considered. The criteria identified by the group in this position cut across medical, ethical, economic and public participation issues and represent the setting of an appropriately high and comprehensive standard to be met before human germline genome editing may be applied clinically. The group acknowledges the challenges of public engagement with such technical subject matter but encourages new approaches to public engagement and engagement of broader stakeholder groups in the public discussion.

The ethical implications of altering the human germline has been the subject of intense discussion in recent years, with calls for such work to be put on hold until the process of genome editing is better understood. ASHG supports somatic genome editing and preclinical (in vitro human and animal) germline genome research but feels strongly that it is premature to consider human germline genome editing in any translational manner at this time.

The working group concludes that Many scientific, medical, and ethical questions remain around the potential for human germline genome editing. ASHG supports somatic genome editing and preclinical (in vitro human and animal) germline genome research but feels strongly that it is premature to consider human germline genome editing in any translational manner at this time. We encourage ethical and social consideration in tandem with basic science research in the upcoming years.

This appears a reasonable position largely in line with the recommendations from the major national and international groups surveyed by the working group. It balances the need to encourage further basic research and validation with strong awareness of the ethical and societal implications of human germline genome editing, setting a high bar before such technology should be translated to the clinic. No doubt, however, the debate will continue, particularly in respect of public funding for such work. Whether the US will maintain their stance against public funding, in the face of international competition, and potential loss of talent and investment, remains to be seen.

Footnotes

1. In this connection it should be noted that China is a good example of a jurisdiction where there is very strong government investment in biotech, including CRISPR, and less regulatory standards than in the West. This combination of factors seems to be fuelling the pace of research there (many CRISPR firsts have come in China e.g. first CRISPR clinical trial in humans; first CRISPR editing of human embryos), but potentially at the risk of less rigorous, well controlled science being conducted (e.g. the recent retraction of the NgAgo paper).

Read the original post:
Human Germline Genome Editing Genetics bodies weigh in on debate with position paper - JD Supra (press release)

Posted in Gene Medicine | Comments Off on Human Germline Genome Editing Genetics bodies weigh in on debate with position paper – JD Supra (press release)

It’s 1984 at Google – CNSNews.com

Posted: at 5:45 pm


New York Times
It's 1984 at Google
CNSNews.com
Google's firing of software engineer James Damore for daring to express politically incorrect ideas in an internal memo is the latest example of the political left's tyrannical propensity to suppress speech, thought and dissent. Almost as troubling as ...
A memo to Google firing employees with conservative views is anti-diversityThe Conversation AU
An Inauspicious Day For GoogleBenzinga
Google 'punished me' for repeating what science says about male/female difference: fired engineerLifesite

all 572 news articles »

Read this article:
It's 1984 at Google - CNSNews.com

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on It’s 1984 at Google – CNSNews.com

How to fight Trump’s climate science censorship – The Hill (blog)

Posted: at 5:44 pm

Farmers are on the front lines of climate change. The people who grow the food we eat deserve clear, candid scientific advice on coping with global warming and the growing threat drought and extreme weather pose to American agriculture.

But such honest counsel, it turns out, wont come from the Trump administration. A recently revealed series of emails shows that U.S. Department of Agriculture experts who help farmers deal with manmade warming were told after President Trump took office to stop using terms like climate change and reduce greenhouse gases.

My organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain these remarkable emails sent to staff at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a component of the USDA that provides land-conservation assistance to farmers.

The USDA emails have ignited a firestorm of controversy because they reveal the Trump administrations stark impact on language used by agency staff. NRCS leadership instructed employees to describe their work without any reference to climate change, instead describing weather extremes and eliminating any reference to human causes.

But obtaining those incriminating communications which are clearly public records was no easy task.

As an attorney specializing in public records law, I am profoundly grateful for the Freedom of Information Act, a landmark law that provides Americans with the right to know what their government is up to.

Yet in just the first six months of Trumps presidency, Ive been flabbergasted by his administrations dogged determination to avoid complying with this critically important law.

After the center submitted its FOIA request to the USDA in early April, the agency blocked the release of records under an exemption so abused by the government that some have labeled it the withhold it because you want to exemption.

The center was forced to appeal the NRCSs withholdings of information. We pointed out that officials failed to conduct an adequate search for responsive records and improperly redacted information.

As a result of the centers appeal the NRCS finally released 65 pages of records without redaction.

In other public records cases, weve actually had to sue. Indeed, weve filed 10 lawsuits to force the Trump administration to comply with its legal duty to make public records available to the public.

For example, the center sued the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to provide public records of closed-door meetings between the agency, states and industry groups regarding Trumps weakened wetlands regulations under the Clean Water Act. Those changes could potentially eliminate protections for millions of acres of wetlands, which are critical to water purification and provide habitat for hundreds of endangered species.

Weve also had to sue the EPA, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior and Department of State for failing to provide records addressing the censorship of words or phrases related to climate change in formal agency communications, violating deadlines established under the law.

We dont yet have the full picture of Trumps scientific censorship, since were still waiting for many federal agencies to release public records.

Yet one thing seems clear: The administrations opposition to transparency is closely connected to its desire to censor climate scientists and other federal experts. An administration that favors alternative facts over the truth is naturally determined to operate under the cover of darkness.

Thankfully, we have an open records law that can reveal disturbing realities like the fact that the climate-deniers now running our federal government are so determined to ignore science that theyll avoid telling farmers about climate changes increasingly potent threats to our food supply.

Thats not a pleasant thing to know, but its critical for Americans to have the full facts about the Trump administrations alarming attacks on truth.

Meg Townsend is an open government attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, a non-profit advocacy organization focused on protecting at-risk species and protecting thelands, waters and climatethose species need to survive.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See original here:
How to fight Trump's climate science censorship - The Hill (blog)

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on How to fight Trump’s climate science censorship – The Hill (blog)

The Price of Censorship for China’s Internet Giants – Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Posted: at 5:44 pm


Wall Street Journal (subscription)
The Price of Censorship for China's Internet Giants
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
By blocking foreign competition, China's censorship regime has groomed the country's internet companies into some of the world's biggest companies. Now Big Brother is turning against the behemoths. The country's largest social-media platforms ...
China's censorship crackdown targets WeChat, Weibo, and BaiduTNW
China Steps Up Censorship of Social Media SitesTheStreet.com
China probes Tencent, Baidu and Sina over subversive contentFinancial Times
Fortune -BBC News
all 78 news articles »

Read more here:
The Price of Censorship for China's Internet Giants - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on The Price of Censorship for China’s Internet Giants – Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Conservative And Independent YouTube Channels Hit By Censorship And Demonetization – The Daily Caller

Posted: at 5:44 pm

YouTube is now demonetizing videos from content creators deemed too controversial for the platform, and conservatives and independents are being heavily impacted.

The move follows YouTubes announcement earlier in August to catch and flag controversial religious and supremacist content hosted on the popular video-hosting website. Political and social commentators on YouTube are feeling the hurtand they believe that they may be on a blacklist for having the wrong opinions.

The Daily Caller previously spoke to several popular commentary YouTubers who expressed skepticism of the system when the move was first announced last week.

Affected creators are unable to make money from their work, which is automatically flagged or vetted by volunteer experts. In addition, the new system incorporates tougher standards for controversial videos that do not break YouTubes terms of service, which are placed in a purgatory state that effectively censors them from being recommended to YouTube viewers.

The Daily Caller spoke to conservative and independent YouTubers whose channels are now being affected by the new policy. Conservative journalist Lauren Southern believes there is a drive to stifle politically divergent voices.

I think it would be insane to suggest theres not an active effort to censor conservative and independent views, said Southern. Considering most of Silicon Valley participate in the censorship of alleged hate speech, diversity hiring and inclusivity committees. Their entire model is based around a far left outline. Theres no merit hiring, theres no support of free speech and there certainly is not an equal representation of political views at these companies.

Independent journalist and activist Luke Rudkowski, who runs WeAreChange, told The Daily Caller that hundreds of his videos were demonetized in a single day on Thursday, effectively killing his ability to earn a living on YouTube.

Having had 660 of my videos demonetized in one day left me a little stunned since this is the core for my income but left me with the impression that this was done on purpose, said Rudkowski, who said that the videos included some of his most popular videos from years ago. This was videos from years ago predominately targeting the most viewed videos which has eviscerated my income.

Rudkowski, who believes it isnt a coincidence that he was targeted, says that he has experienced repeated issues with YouTube.

After dealing with all the repeated issues with YouTube it is clear that this is a campaign to de-incentivize any critical thinkers and anti authoritarians from their platform, he said.

Daniel Sulzbach, better known as MrRepzion, told the Daily Caller that YouTubes demonetization of his videos has hurt his incentive to make new content. He says that it hasnt been the first time his videos were demonetized, but when the issue happened previously in early 2017, he was able to successfully appeal for them to be restored.

The difference now is that my videos are not being restored with monetization when I file for manual review, said Sulzbach.

The YouTuber, who is known for his blistering culture critiques, discussions about atheism, and video game topics, says he doesnt understand why so many of his videos were flagged.

Some of them make zero sense, especially my video game streams, he said. This is just conjecture at this point, but I think my channel could be on a potential blacklist or list of some sort where my content is looked upon more than others?

I dont make any crazy radical videos, he continued. I hardly even do videos regarding feminism, social justice, etc. anymore. He says that even a 2-year old video response to an Instagram was demonetized without explanation, as well as content from when he was still a Christian.

Sulzbach told the Daily Caller that he plans to rely solely on Patreon to keep making videos, for now. If I fall below a threshold, Ill just quit, he said.

Edgy YouTube comedian Razorfist says every single one of his videos was demonetized. His biggest issue with the site was how the platform values progressive voices over everyone else through biased algorithms. Razorfist cited a video rebuttal to Sam Seder (a left wing comedian) as an example of the bias. He claims that Seder posted a reply containing Razorfists video in its entirety, but the algorithm flagged the original video for demonetization.

If leftist channels are being white-listed, someones going to have to explain to me how this algorithm is functionally any different than a conservative blacklist, he said.Razorfist tells the Daily Caller that he knows his content is edgy and profane, and understands why large family-friendly companies wouldnt want to advertise on his videos, but he wants to know why Google allows for leftist comedians to perform the same humor without any backlash.

Googles going to need to explain to me why John Oliver can engage in weekly invective punctuated by a hail of profane epithets, skew it leftward, and still have ads for Pampers and pimple cream adorn the margins of his unwatchable videos, he said.

Conservative vlogger and cultural pundit Mark Dice told The Daily Caller he believes YouTube is upset at the rise of conservative channels on YouTube over the past year, and that the new policies are designed to squelch dissenting voices.

I think YouTube is furious that so many conservative channels have gotten so popular in the last year, and they dont want us to be able to work full-time doing what were doing because our message is at odds with almost everything that Google and YouTubes leadership stands for, said Dice, who says that even his monetized videos are underperforming as a result of the changes.

To deal with the demonetization of his channel, Dice said that he plans to continue producing videos and supplementing his income through Patreon and merchandise sales, and a new book. He says that his videos performed better when he had a 10th of his subscriber count, years ago.

Dice believes that despite the seeming hopelessness of the situation expressed by so many other YouTubers, Google and YouTube may have made have shot themselves in the foot by censoring conservatives.

YouTube has kicked a bees nest by going after Diamond and Silk [a channel of two black female Trump supporters]. I think it wont be long before President Trump is commenting on YouTubes censorship, he said.

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at@stillgray on Twitterand onFacebook.

The rest is here:
Conservative And Independent YouTube Channels Hit By Censorship And Demonetization - The Daily Caller

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on Conservative And Independent YouTube Channels Hit By Censorship And Demonetization – The Daily Caller

The Head Of Indian Film Censorship Has Been Fired – Birth.Movies.Death.

Posted: at 5:44 pm

Goodbye, old friend.

This is a big moment for Indian cinema, and for me personally. If youve been following along these last two years, you might recall the Central Board of Film Certifications decisions about the length of the kiss in Spectre, censoring drugs and the state of Punjab in a film about the drug crisis in Punjab, banning a feminist film for being lady oriented, among a whole host of other decisions that range from silly to outright homophobic. You may also recall my bizarre interview with CBFC chairperson Pahlaj Nihalani in January, which ended with me being kicked out of his office. Hes been a thorn in my side and in the side of artistic expression here in India. Heheld the word "intercourse"ransom, claiming he would only restore it to the film Jab Harry Met Sejal if 100,000 married people above the age of 36 voted for it on his Twitter poll (after a poll open to everyone was cleared with ease), and he even recentlyannounced cigarettes and liquor would be blurred out of movies entirely, in addition to the recent blackening out of partially nude bodies.

So it is with great pleasure that I now report Pahlaj Nihalani just been fired and replaced as the head of the CBFC.

The news broke on Times Now earlier today, but its been a long time coming. Once Udta Punjab beat an 89-cut mandate in the courts last year, and once Alankrita Srivastavas Lipstick Under My Burkha made it to Indian cinemas last month after being banned entirely, the writing seemed to be on the wall for Nihalani. Nothings a sure thing until its a sure thing, so the months worth of rumblings about him losing his job didnt necessarily inspire confidence (nothing eventually became of that parallel certification committee proposed in 2016 either), but here we are. Hes gone, and hopefully the boards regressive attitude will follow.

Nihalajis successor is Prasoon Joshi, lyricist, poet, screenwriter,CEO of McCann World Group India and Asia Pacific chairman of McCann Erickson. Its hard to say whether or not things will improve under him just yet; he was, after all, a communications manager for Prime Minister Narendra Modis campaign, and you may recall what silliness Nihalanis affection for Modi, whom he once called his action hero, eventually resulted in. Pragmatically speaking though, so long as Joshi doesnt want to try and ban the word lesbian and censor any and all forms of sexual content even from films rated A (Adult), its a step up.

Joshi is notably forward-thinking when it comes to depictions of women in cinema. Whether that manifests as artistic dialogue or restriction remains to be seen, but by all accounts, things look good. Its worth noting that Joshi was involved with the film Aarakshan, which was banned in several states back in 2011. Hes also worked on several films (like the anti-authoritarian Rang De Basanti) with actor Aamir Khan and an ad with Udta Punjab producer Anurag Kashyap, both strong vocal opponents of censorship, and according to filmmaker Mukesh Bhatt, whos been publicly embroiled in censorship debates since things began to worsen, Joshi understands the necessity of creative freedom.

Given that Nihalanis term was set to end in January 2018, his early removal feels like a positive sign. The problem as a whole isnt going to go away overnight, since its a combination of the widespread social inability to disagree on art and the continued ability of the Government to make these decisions for cinema via the Cinematograph Act of 1952, but this feels like a step in the right direction. The general attitude towards censorship as a means of cultural preservation can best be summed up in this exchange from my interview with Nihalani:

PN: As a filmmaker youre protected, I will say the certificate is very important for the movie, and its the responsibility of the filmmaker when we are projecting heritage property.

SA: Sorry?

The government protects heritage property, the Red Fort and other things. So isnt it the Governments job to protect Indian culture? Which is also heritage?

It is, but if were talking about specific monuments versus this nebulous idea of Indian culture

No, no, see, its life! When there is nothing, its only the heritage property which supports Indian culture.

So are we talking just about physical monuments, or

Im talking about when its the responsibility of the government to protect them! So the same way, its the governments job to protect our Indian culture.

And who defines what Indian culture is?

Thats the government.

And if someone disagrees with that stance

No, no, no, no, no. Thats not my-- then go and fight with the Parliament. Fight with the government. Ive got the duty to go according to the Act. If they want changes, Ill go with the changes.

Given the way the Indian film industry has vocally opposed every censorship controversy, replacing Nihalani with a seasoned Industry regular feels like something of a victory. Hopefully it means a more positive environment when it comes to art and artistic discourse too.

Now if youll excuse me, Im going to go do this for a while:

The rest is here:
The Head Of Indian Film Censorship Has Been Fired - Birth.Movies.Death.

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on The Head Of Indian Film Censorship Has Been Fired – Birth.Movies.Death.

Lyft Sparks Censorship Fears With Email Asking Drivers to Speak to Company Before Media – NBC Bay Area

Posted: at 5:44 pm

WATCH LIVE

Lyft apparently doesn't agree with the adage, "Any publicity is good publicity."

In an email, the San Francisco-based ride-sharing giant asked its drivers to pump the brakes before speaking with the press, and instead check in with Lyft officials first, according to the San Francisco Examiner.

The July note states: Email press@lyft.com if youre ever contacted by a reporter. Speaking of Lyft in the news: Were here to help if you get approached for an interview. Shoot a note to our communications team and theyll make sure youre prepared for any questions.

The message has created a stir, raising concerns about censorship.

Some drivers have taken to online message boards, calling it a scare tactic. Others say this is Lyfts way of trying to get in front of bad publicity, which has plagued its biggest competitor, Uber, according to the SF Examiner.

Drivers also wrote that they are independent contractors, not employees, so Lyft cannot restrict their actions.

Scott Coriell, a Lyft spokesperson, shared a statement with NBC Bay Area, which reads: "Drivers are free to speak to the press and we know they do all the time. There are no restrictions or requirements. We often hear from drivers who are approached by the media and have questions or concerns. We wanted to remind them that we're here as a resource. We have sent similar reminders in the past."

Published at 9:44 AM PDT on Aug 10, 2017 | Updated at 10:41 AM PDT on Aug 10, 2017

Continue reading here:
Lyft Sparks Censorship Fears With Email Asking Drivers to Speak to Company Before Media - NBC Bay Area

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on Lyft Sparks Censorship Fears With Email Asking Drivers to Speak to Company Before Media – NBC Bay Area

Diamond and Silk accuse YouTube of ‘censorship’ after company demonetized ‘95%’ of their videos – Twitchy

Posted: at 5:44 pm

Trump supporters Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson better known as Diamond and Silk took to Twitter on Thursday to accuse YouTube of censorship and a violation of their 1st Amendment rights (yeah, we know) after the company demonetized a reported 95% of the duos videos:

The pair thinks it might have something to do with their being Trump supporters and conservatives:

YouTube responded with instructions the pair could follow to appeal the decision:

Coincidentally, Hardaway and Richardson met with officials at the Commerce Department on Monday to discuss ways in which to grow their business and build their brand. From Gizmodo:

YouTube stars Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardsonbetter known as Diamond and Silk, respectivelywere invited to the Commerce Departments headquarters this week, apparently to discuss ways in which they could expand their business. The pair runs a political blog aimed at promoting President Trump and denigrating his critics.

The Commerce Department revealed Diamond and Silks visit in a photo posted on the departments official Twitter account, which said the duo had met with the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) to discuss how to grow their business and build their brand.

A spokesperson for the department later told Gizmodo that the tweet was deleted out of an abundance of caution as the department was not clear it had received permission to post the photo:

***

See the article here:
Diamond and Silk accuse YouTube of 'censorship' after company demonetized '95%' of their videos - Twitchy

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on Diamond and Silk accuse YouTube of ‘censorship’ after company demonetized ‘95%’ of their videos – Twitchy

Libertarian Republicans seek Rand Paul reinforcements – Washington Examiner

Posted: at 5:43 pm

Austin Petersen is trying to pull off a difficult task: doubling the number of libertarian-leaning Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was re-elected just last year with 57.3 percent of the vote in a mostly quiet election cycle for Republicans inspired by his father's two GOP presidential campaigns. He is so far the only one to make it into the upper chamber.

"Libertarians have a messaging problem, not an ideas problem," said Petersen, 36. Ambitious and energetic, he is running for Senate in Missouri, a state President Trump carried by nearly 19 points in November, hoping to win the Republican nomination to challenge incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.

Maine state Sen. Eric Brakey, 29, is running on a similar platform to become the Republican challenger to Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. "He's much less of a Bernie Sanders independent and much more of a Hillary Clinton corporatist type who hands out favors to big-government cronies," Brakey said of his would-be opponent.

"Angus King has been around in politics in the state for as long as I've been alive," said Brakey. "There's a big opportunity here in the state of Maine for us to pick up this U.S. Senate seat."

Both Petersen and Brakey plan to run to the right of the Democrats on fiscal issues while expanding the Republican coalition by hitting their opponents on criminal justice reform and corporate welfare.

"Conservatism runs deep in both parties here," said Petersen. "Even the Democrats in Missouri are very strongly traditional on issues like abortion and gun rights." Yet he believes he could do better appealing to African-American voters in places like St. Louis County, where criminal justice issues boiled over in Ferguson, than more conventional Republicans. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., squeaked through to another term by three points last year even as Trump was winning the state handily.

"I see this in my own state senate races," said Brakey. "A constitutionalist, libertarian message can appeal to the very strong conservative base of the Republican Party while also appealing to independents and even socially liberal voters."

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, is the most established figure who is popular with the libertarian wing of the party who will try his hand at a statewide race next year. Labrador, a Freedom Caucus member, announced in May that he is running for governor. "Idaho needs a proven conservative leader who will stand against the special interests and politicians that have picked the winners and losers in our state Capitol for too long," he said in a statement.

Former Texas Rep. Ron Paul served 12 terms in the House as a Republican, most of them in obscurity, before becoming a national political figure with his 2008 presidential bid. He ran a second time in 2012, nearly doubling his raw primary vote total to more than 2 million and finishing in the top three in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

That was good enough to get other like-minded candidates to run as Republicans on platforms that included opposing the Iraq war, ending the Federal Reserve and making deep cuts to federal spending. Paul's son Rand was first elected to the Senate in the Tea Party wave of 2010. Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., won his House seat that same year. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., joined them in 2012.

Since those quick early victories, the momentum has stalled. The elder Paul retired from Congress. His son was believed to have a legitimate chance of capturing the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, but saw Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and even the populist upstart Trump steal some of his base. The younger Paul dropped out after a disappointing finish in Iowa, a state where his father's supporters briefly captured the party leadership and won him a majority of the unbound delegates four years earlier.

Petersen has picked an easy general election target in McCaskill, who is widely considered to be one of the most vulnerable Democrats up for re-election in 2018. "You could beat her just by calling her Obama's senator or Hillary's senator," said Jeff Roe, a Missouri-based Republican strategist. When one pollster tested several potential GOP candidates against McCaskill, Roe said, "Everyone beat her."

But you can't make it to the general without winning the primary first, which will be no easy feat. Republican insiders consider Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, who opened an exploratory committee earlier this month, the overwhelming favorite. The national party and conservative outside groups are prepared to devote considerable resources to supporting Hawley.

If anyone is able to put a roadblock in the way of Hawley's nomination, Republicans familiar with the race expect it will be Missouri Treasurer Eric Schmitt, who garnered national interest himself. Petersen may not even have the libertarian wing all to himself as state Rep. Paul Curtman, a 2012 Ron Paul endorser, launched an exploratory committee in July.

Petersen sought the Libertarian Party presidential nomination last year, winning praise for his strong stand against abortion from conservatives seeking an alternative to Trump. The eventual nominee, Gary Johnson, and his running mate, William Weld, both former Republican governors, supported abortion rights.

King is at present heavily favored for re-election in Maine. There has been persistent speculation about whether Gov. Paul LePage will enter the race on the Republican side.

"The Rand Pauls of the world, when they come along, great," said Cliff Maloney, president of Young Americans for Liberty. "But we need to start building a bench at the local level."

The focus on national races has obscured some libertarian Republican successes in local contests, Maloney said, such as the mayor's offices in Aberdeen, Md., and Ocean Springs, Mississippi. "There's a big difference in perception between running as local schmuck versus local mayor," he added. "It's really about having credibility."

"Everyone starts as a guy in the community," said Brakey. "But it's a lot easier to run for mayor, or run for state senator and try to prove yourself before you run for Congress. People take you a lot more seriously."

The libertarian message for government may apply to politics too. "It's better," he said, "to start small."

See the original post here:
Libertarian Republicans seek Rand Paul reinforcements - Washington Examiner

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Libertarian Republicans seek Rand Paul reinforcements – Washington Examiner

Page 1,543«..1020..1,5421,5431,5441,545..1,5501,560..»

  1. category
  2. Transhuman News