Category Archives: Transhuman News

Public libraries in the U.S. are under increasing scrutiny.

Last year, the American Library Association reported a record number of book challenges, topping nearly 1,600 books.

"How a book on a shelf could be a threat to anyone is beyond us. Libraries are for voluntary reading. Libraries are for choice. They're a resource we should fiercely protect and preserve."

Efforts are also more aggressive. Several communities have voted to stop funding their public libraries. In others:

"There's been a few instances where there have been physical threats or, for example, the library in Montana that found books in their book dropped that had been riddled with bullets."

Today, On Point: Protecting America's public libraries.

Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. She works on projects "addressing censorship and privacy in the library."

Patrick Sweeney, political director of EveryLibrary, the first and only national political action committee for libraries. He is also the former Administrative Librarian of the Sunnyvale Public Library in California.

George M. Johnson, author of All Boys Arent Blue. The book is a young adult non-fiction memoir about Johnson's journey growing up as a queer Black man in America. Its the third most challenged book of 2021 out of nearly 1,600 books. It has been targeted for removal in at least 14 states. (@IamGMJohnson)

Kimber Glidden, director of the Boundary County Library in Idaho.

On the climate in American libraries

Deborah Caldwell-Stone: "We're seeing the result of a divisive campaign intended to limit everyone's access to information, to really sanction one viewpoint, one political view, one approach to information, to prevent everyone from having the ability to make choices for themselves.

"We're observing organized advocacy groups try to impose an agenda on libraries to change policies, to ban books, to really limit the ability of the public library to serve as a community resource that meets the information needs of everyone in the community, but instead limits their offerings to what's approved by a few political groups in the community. And this has had very real consequences for libraries across the country.

"We're seeing contentious board meetings. We're seeing librarians actually charged in criminal court with pandering obscenity to minors. And we're also working with libraries, closely monitoring situationslike you've described, where there's been an effort to either defund the library or take over the library board in order to impose a particular agenda."

In Jamestown Township, Michigan, voters voted to defund the Patmos Library.

The library has 67,000 books, videos and other items. There were only about 90 titles voters had a problem with. Why were they willing to risk the whole library over that tiny fraction number of titles?

Deborah Caldwell-Stone: "We're seeing the result of a lot of disinformation and misinformation about libraries, how librarians work and the content of the books. For example, I absolutely reject the idea that books that deal with puberty, human reproduction, sexual health, developing good relationships have anything to do with what's called grooming. That's a falsehood that's spread by a number of advocacy groups that really have an anti-pornography, anti-LGBTQIA agenda.

"And these talking points are picked up. People don't have any basis to question them. And as a result, they are encouraged to act on that false information when they participate in elections. You know, and it's also a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of public libraries as a whole. These are community institutions that are intended to serve everyone in the community. And we know that we live in a rapidly diversifying society, that there are all kinds of people in every community that have different information needs.

"And so the library, by its nature, is going to be acquiring works that represent a variety of ideas, viewpoints, including books you might not agree with. That you might not give to your own child, but another family, another parent would want their child to read. And there's this loss of civic engagement, community feeling where we share a resource. And we understand there's a book on the shelf that is there for me. But by its very nature, the library is also going to have books on the shelf that I don't agree with, but I tolerate that. I understand that, because that means that the library will be there for me, as well, to serve my information needs.

"And we're seeing a real loss of that community, of that understanding of the library as a community institution. And the loss can be so great. A public library is essential for not only for reading books, but, you know, many, many times it's the community's portal to the internet. It supports home schooling. It supports the ability to train for new jobs, to find new jobs. It supports small businesses in the community. It's a real resource. It can help seniors with applying for Social Security.

"You know, the public library has really turned into that place, that third place you go to. Not only to read a murder mystery, but also where you can find support and information to live your best life, to find work to support your family. ... If you're a young adult, it's the place you can go to prepare to go into college, to enter the military, to start a successful career."

On defunding libraries for political leverage

Patrick Sweeney:"I think it is fundraising and getting elected. You know, we are seeing that the governors who we are seeing surfacing themselves to run for president are the ones that are beating the indoctrination and grooming drums the most. Speaking of Idaho, Heather Scott in Idaho had the Panhandle Patriots come to a meeting where she was talking about the grooming indoctrination of children who said that they weren't scared of librarians and they defend against librarians.

"Librarians are average age over 40 and 80% female. So these open carry highly militant organizations are going to shoot a 48 year old female librarian over some books. But what we're seeing is that talk was really about fundraising. It was really about riling her base. It was really about her getting the resources she need to move her personal agenda forward. You know, I think that's the most terrifying thing, how effective these lies have become in order to raise money. And so disconnect and divisiveness in our country simply for short term political gain."

On what we stand to lose when libraries are under threat

George M. Johnson: "We literally just go back to our origins, when we start to deny the ability of reading and writing. And that's what it really is, right? We're trying to literally deny an ability for people to read and people to write. And that is something that my ancestors know about very well, because we were denied that ability to read and write. It was illegal for people like me to be able to read and write in the 1800's and in the 1700's in this country. And so when we are specifically targeting books by Black people, books by queer people, we are going back to this country's origins, which is interesting.

"Because that's the whole tagline, right? Make America Great Again. And it's like, But at what point are you speaking of? Are you speaking before Black people had civil rights? Are you speaking of during slavery? Are you speaking of when the indigenous people? Like what point was it great for the people who you're literally targeting right now? And so even like when we hear those type of statements, we know exactly what the dog whistle is, too. And so when you start to say, Well, we're going to remove these specific books and we're going to start to remove these specific talking points.

"What you are really saying is that there is a second class and a third class of citizen that exists in this country, and we are going to remove the materials that make them powerful, that make other people want to know about these people, and that make other people build those bridges of empathy towards these people. Because the danger is if we lose our power as the majority, oh my God, there might actually be equity and equality. And that's not what we want. We don't want equity inequality. Like who would want that when we've been in power for so long? And so that's really the danger in removing that. It's like the onion and we just keep peeling away layers. First it's books. Then it's our rights. Then what's next?"

Read the original post:
Censorship wars: Why have several communities voted to defund their public libraries? - WBUR News

A century ago, Virginia lawmakers created the Virginia State Board of Censors with the goal of keeping a close eye on what the public saw on the big screen.

The all-white board later renamed the Division of Motion Picture Censorship required edits to more than 2,000 movies between the 1920s and 1960s, and it was especially concerned about depictions of race and sexuality.

The boards targets included:

Melissa Ooten, gender research specialist at the University of Richmond, wrote Race, Gender, and Film Censorship in Virginia, 19221965, a book about the board. She sat down with VPM News Ben Paviour to discuss her research.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Paviour: Youve studied the State Board of Censors. Can you talk a little bit about what that is how it came about?

Ooten: So, the State Board of Censors originated in 1922. And it was in play until 1965. And it was a board of three people who viewed all films before they could be shown in the state of Virginia legally. So, they had the power to determine that a movie cannot be shown, or more commonly, that certain scenes had to be cut out of it before it could be shown in the state.

What were they looking out for? What did they find objectionable?

Especially in the 1920s and 1930s, they were concerned about race relations. So, they looked especially at films in which you saw more equal treatment of people of color. That would be something they did not want shown, to be clear. And then anything dealing with sexuality, women's sexuality, in particular. Some violence, but that was less there were a few states that had these boards. New York's was more concerned with violence, particularly gambling those issues. But Virginia was really looking for things that they thought bordered on obscene in terms of sexuality and then race relations.

Why did they ultimately disband?

Because of Supreme Court decisions giving movies greater and greater freedom of speech rights. And they were never well funded.

When the movies switched from being silent to sound, they went for years without having the equipment to hear the sound. So, they would ask these film distributors to send them the transcript. It's not like it was some well-funded machine, right? It was three people, often loyal to the Democratic Party, which was in control of Virginia at the time. And often older white women. There were some women who served for decades for their 60s, 70s and 80s.

Do you see any parallels to contemporary movements to censor books, to take them out of schools, to restrict the sales of books? Or do you think these are very different issues?

I think they're connected. But I think what is interesting about the censorship board is that most of what they censored was not aimed at children, right? It was movies children really wouldn't be watching, period. And I think what we're talking about today is very much around kids. Or that's how it's being portrayed. But I mean, all these are part of broader culture wars.

What, if anything, do you think the State Board of Censors tells us about the era in which it operated in Virginia?

So, this was passed in 1922. It is around the same time Virginia passes an anti-miscegenation law. It is around the same time other sorts of regulations around race and around sex and sexuality [were passed]. So, it was meant as the cultural arm as they're doing these other regulations. How can we also regulate this medium that they see as potentially problematic? Because who knows what Hollywood is producing?

This at a time when Virginia is primarily rural. There is very much a strain of, The liberal radicals in Hollywood are doing [something objectionable] and now they've come to show their fare in Virginia. But then it also shows how that dissipates over time because most of their power is in the 20s and 30s.

Read the original:
Virginia Board of Censors sought to enforce Jim Crow on the big screen - VPM News

Queen Elizabeths death yesterday spurred a global outpouring of grief from many of her fans, alongside discussion and debate about the complicated history of Englands monarchy. Much of this debate took place on Twitter, which, for better or worse, serves as a modern public square for commentary about current events.

But critics succeeded in at least partially silencing one such commentator: Carnegie Mellon University professor Uju Anya, who wrote on her personal account hours before the Queens death was announced: I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating.

Amid a wave of criticism including from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and calls for CMU to punish Anya, Twitter removed the tweet from its platform, citing a rules violation.

While Twitter censored Anya likely under its murky rule banning wishing, hoping, or calling for serious harm on a person, except where Twitter chooses, in its sole discretion, to make an exception FIRE urged CMU not to do so in a letter late yesterday, reminding the school it promises faculty free expression.

Thousands of critics took to Twitter to express their own opinions of Anyas words. In a follow up tweet, Anya doubled down:

Anyas critics ranged from anonymous Twitter users to Bezos, who said, This is someone supposedly working to make the world better? I dont think so. Wow. Others, however, supported Anyas point of view, with one user tweeting, I dont know why they expect people to be gracious, when the monarchy has gone around ransacking the entire world.

It seems the nays outweighed the yeas if not in number, then in influence because, within hours, Twitter removed Anyas tweet.

By late afternoon, CMU released a statement condemning Anya but stating that free expression is core to the mission of higher education.

In removing Anyas tweet, Twitter cited a rule violation, but did not make publicly clear which rule was violated. Twitters policies prohibit users from wishing death on an individual or group of people, except in limited cases which, of course, Twitter gets to pick. This arbitrary enforcement lends credence to critics who allege Twitter subjectively enforces its rules, favoring the loud and powerful.

Twitter itself claims to serve the public conversation and to represent what people are talking about right now. Anyas voice is part of that conversation and must not be censored.

Although private social media companies like Twitter may have the authority to determine what content is displayed on their platforms, it is unwise for them to use that power to censor speech solely because its unpopular. There is value in viewpoint diversity and in possessing knowledge about others arguments. By shutting down Anyas speech, Twitter not only prevented Anya from expressing her viewpoint, but also prevented the public from learning more about her and hearing a perspective that they may not have considered.

We have urged, and will continue to urge, Twitter to look toward First Amendment standards for guidance specifically standards around viewpoint discrimination when moderating content on its platform. To promote a culture of free expression which FIRE believes should be encouraged across American society Twitter must allow minority and dissenting viewpoints to exist on its platform. After all, Twitter itself claims to serve the public conversation and to represent what people are talking about right now. Anyas voice is part of that conversation and must not be censored regardless of the outroar that followed in its wake.

For good reason, the First Amendment protects most speech and allows diverse and subjectively offensive viewpoints to be expressed free from government censorship. Speech unprotected by the First Amendment is limited to narrow categories with exacting definitions established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The three categories of unprotected speech that Anyas tweets come closest to but still are not are incitement, true threats, and fighting words.

As such, Twitter should have allowed the tweets to live on, subject to debate and scrutiny, to contribute to the conversation surrounding Queen Elizabeths death.

Regardless of public controversy, Anyas tweets remain protected under First Amendment standards. Private institutions like CMU are not bound by the First Amendment to promise free expression, but, laudably, the university has chosen to do so, committing that it values the freedoms of speech, thought, expression and assembly in themselves and as part of our core educational and intellectual mission. CMU goes so far as to say the university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration.

Now that CMU has promised faculty free expression, it cannot backtrack from all ideas may be expressed, to all except this one because people are mad. CMU has not backtracked, but it also has not foreclosed the threat of punishing Anya in its public statement. Thats why FIRE is asking CMU to publicly commit not to investigate or punish Anya for expressing her opinion. As we told CMU:

While some may find the timing or substance of speech about the deceased to be offensive, freedom of expression does not observe a mourning period. It applies whether speech about the recently departed takes the form of a venerating eulogy, scorn, or something in between.

This is far from the first time FIRE has seen faculty criticized for expressing delight at a public figures death. When former First Lady Barbara Bush died in 2018, California State University, Fresno professor Randa Jarrar was promised a long investigation for her tweet celebrating the death and calling Bush a generous and smart and amazing racist who, along with her husband, raised a war criminal. FIRE and the ACLU of Northern California quickly wrote the school, which then dropped the investigation.

Now that CMU has promised faculty free expression, it cannot backtrack from all ideas may be expressed, to all except this one because people are mad.

And just last year, after the death of provocative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, University of Alabama at Birmingham professor Sarah Parcak was investigated after tweeting she had no sympathy and expressing a desire that Limbaugh suffered until [his] last breath. Just days after FIRE wrote a letter advocating for Parcaks rights, the university emailed the student body, saying that it recognizes individuals constitutionally protected rights to free speech.

We hope CMU does those institutions one better by standing up for faculty rights from the outset and refusing to investigate or punish Anya. And though we hope the platform restores Anyas tweet, in the future, we urge Twitter to recognize its essential role as a forum for public debate and stand up for free expression.

FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members no matter their views at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If youre faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533).

View post:
FIRE urges Twitter, Carnegie Mellon not to censor professor who wished Queen Elizabeth 'excruciating' death - Foundation for Individual Rights in...

With Russia increasingly cut off from the world following its 24 February invasion of Ukraine, the countrys remaining contemporary art market, facing evident economic and often unspoken ideological pressures, is increasingly looking inward. The tenth Cosmoscow International Art Fair, which runs from 14 to 17 September, was no exception.

Even before the event began, such ideological pressures had apparently been felt by some of the participating dealers. A Telegram channel called Courier of Culture, run by a contemporary art publicist, reported that three unnamed galleries had complained about censorship by the fair, at the application stage, preventing any political works or anything that could in any way be linked to the current state of affairsmeaning the warfrom being exhibited.

One anonymous dealer tells The Art Newspaper: "Cosmoscow asked that we change the design of the stand, the artists, their work and the hanging of it. There was nothingpolitical in the works, nor in the idea of the stand, but it was as if the board was trying to choose works where in the current context definitely no second hidden meanings would be sensed."

They add: "Every year [at Cosmoscow] we show young artists of roughly the same style, and this year there was a feeling that the objections were at the level of 'degenerate art'."

A law signed by President Vladimir Putin just days after the invasion makes it illegal to call the invasion a war and threatens those who spread fakes about the Russian military with up to 15 years in prison.

In April a criminal case was opened against the artist Oleg Kulik on charges of rehabilitation of Nazism for his sculptural installation Big Mother (2015), which was shown at the Art Moscow fair at the Gostiny Dvor centre, just yards from the Kremlin, which is also the venue for Cosmoscow. The work came under fire for allegedly mocking The Motherland Calls, a monument in Volgograd commemorating the Battle of Stalingrad. Kulik, who grew up in Kyiv, has said it was meant to depict the pain of his divorce.

Margarita Pushkina, fair director

Photo: Alexander Murashkin

Censorship not allowed

Margarita Pushkina, Cosmoscows founder and director, says: We have never allowed and do not allow internal censorship. Meanwhile, the fairs expert committee is working as usual, selecting the best galleries to participate in the fair.

The most important thing right now, Pushkina adds, is not to multiply contradictions and conflicts, but instead to maintain human and professional relations, continue the dialogue and discuss ways to resolve complex issues. The fair and galleries, she points out, are all directly dependent on the state of the economy.

For a long time there was a question mark over whether the fair would go ahead at all. Simon Rees, the artistic director of the fairs previous edition, resigned immediately after the invasion. Pushkina says a successor has not been appointed because the fairs priorities have shifted.

One of the tasks of the artistic director of the fair has always been to develop international cultural dialogue and to attract galleries from other countries, Pushkina says. In the current situation, we understand that there is emotion involved for international galleries, as well as many difficulties and risks. First of all, there are logistical difficulties, so their participation does not seem simple and obvious.

Indeed, there are no longer any direct flights to Moscow from the US, UK and elsewhere in Europe, except for Turkey and Serbia, and leading shipping companies are boycotting Russia over the invasion.

The only solution, Pushkina says, is to now concentrate on working with Russian gallery owners in order to try to stabilise the situation and continue working on the development of the domestic art market.

The vast majority of the more-than 65 participating galleries at Cosmoscow are Russian, compared with 82 galleries in 2021, when the fair had the broadest geography in its history, and on par with the 62 participants in 2020, at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Ukrainian artists were always an organic and integral part of the Russian art scene, but understandably no Ukrainian galleries applied for stands this year, Pushkina says.

In recognition of the present situation, Cosmoscow is not marking its tenth anniversary with any special events, Pushkina says, though she did not directly mention the war.

All of us in one way or another are influenced by current events and react to what is happening in our country and in the world, she says. In the current situation, it is impossible to remain indifferent. Everyone determines for himself which path to follow, to remain silent or to continue the activity in a modified format.

Excerpt from:
First Cosmoscow fair since Russian invasion of Ukraine to open with no foreign galleries and internal complaints of censorship - Art Newspaper

President Joe Bidens Philadelphia speech was certainly something to behold. An orchestrated attack on half the citizens of this country. An attempt to classify an entire political party as extremist. In effect, Biden was calling for a one-party state. Its also worth noting that Bidens speech was written for him, by those who effectively control the Biden regime. And that speech was effectively sanctioned by the White Housebecoming, in a very real sense, the official position of the executive branch of our government. If you doubt this, take a look at some of the tweets that were sent out under Bidens official accountsincluding the White House account. And it was only a week earlier that Biden referred to the MAGA philosophy as semi-fascism.

* Click the Save button below the video to access it later on My List.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/EpochTVusRumble: https://rumble.com/c/EpochTVTruth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@EpochTV

Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/epochtvFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/EpochTVusGab: https://gab.com/EpochTVTelegram: https://t.me/EpochTV

Original post:
Biden's Censorship Enterprise Is an Assault on the First Amendment | Truth Over News - The Epoch Times

Tiago Henriques, a seasoned artificial intelligence expertwho noticed that news of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines were highly censored in the media, decided to create a Facebook group that lets the vaccine-injured and their loved ones share their stories.

Most Facebook pages on the topic of vaccine side effects and adverse events get removed very quickly by the social media platform, managing to get only a few thousand followers. With technical skills and the use of methods that stay within the confines of Facebooks terms of service, Henriques and his team managed to keep their page up much longer, getting over 245,000 followers to date.

The Facebook group Died Suddenly News was created in late June 2021. Members of the private group share personal stories of people they know who have developed serious medical conditions or even died shortly after receiving the COVID-19 shots.

I wanted people to talk to each other. Individuals whove gone through the same experience, they can be there for each other, be compassionate, show some love, and just get a little bit of relief, because a lot of these people live in small communitiesthey have nobody to talk to, said Henriques in an interview on NTDs Evening News aired on Sept. 9.

The physicians wont listen to them, the nurses wont listen to them. And I think this was a great avenue for these people to feel listened to.

Henriques, who resides in Nova Scotia, says that the group started off slowly but that as the months went by, it gained momentum with more and more people signing up. In the last three, four months, its like absolutely exploded, he said.

The AI expert says the heartbeat of the group is those who share their stories.

The stories that you read on there [about] vaccine injuries, vaccine deaths, theyre very visceral, he said. These are real people in your communities, telling you, telling everybody about their story, and I think thats what makes it more real.

Henriques says the page is currently moderated by about 15 to 20 moderators, who remove any trolls attempting to disparage members or be disrespectful to them.

We keep a pretty tight lid on things. We try to make things run like a Swiss watch, but sometimes its challenging. It is a big group, it is growing, so were going to have those growing pains, he said.

Henriques, who programs in languages such as Python, PyTorch, and TensorFlow, says his team has respected Facebooks terms of service but is aware that even then their page may still be targeted and shut down. He is in the process of creating a separate platform that is not prone to censorship by social media companies.

[Its] kind of like Facebook, except with all the statistics from all over the world, he said.

Im going to have the geographical locations, which vaccines they took, what lot number, what happened to them, all the important statistical data. Were also going to have a section there where they can find help.

The programming expert says he will keep the new website open source for anyone, including those from media organizations, who are interested to see what the data is almost in real time of people around the world injured by the vaccines.

To fund the project, Henriques has set up fundraising campaigns in GoFundMe and GiveSendGo, where anyone who is interested in the cause can donate.

My mission is to have our very own platform free from censorship and judgmenta place where caring people can come share their stories free from harassment and feeling safe in a community that truly listens to them, his fundraiser pages say.

The need for the new platform is important as it would allow us to compile statistics and evidence on whats really going on in the world. It will give us autonomy and not have to fear being turned off at any time by the powers that be.

NTDs Jason Perry contributed to this report.

Follow

Isaac Teo is an Epoch Times reporter based in Toronto.

Original post:
Facebook Group Provides a Platform for Vaccine Injured to Share Their Stories - The Epoch Times