Category Archives: Transhuman News

Another week, another heretical speaker bullied and physically intimidated on an illiberal college campus.

Last week it was pro-police Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald, who was invited to speak at Claremont McKenna College in California. Hundreds of protesters blocked the entrances to the building where she was scheduled to talk, chanting "Black lives matter," "F -- the police" and "Shut it down." Student journalists who tried to document the protest were swarmed, pushed and verbally threatened.

Mac Donald spoke via live-stream to a mostly empty room, as protesters banged on the windows and shouted; police cut the talk short and escorted her out of the building.

Just a few weeks earlier, conservative political scientist Charles Murray had been hounded by a mob at Middlebury College in Vermont. There, protesters sent his (liberal) faculty escort to the emergency room.

These are but the most recent examples of attempts to suppress speakers, viewpoints, teaching materials and works of art that students usually liberal students find "unsafe."

Each time something like this happens, pundits make impassioned pleas that the solution to speech you abhor should be more speech, not less; that you must be brave enough to face your ideological enemies, not muzzle them; that the free exchange of ideas is critical to scientific and moral progress; that censorship is contrary to American values, included those enshrined in our Constitution.

Clearly, this appeal to high-minded principles and character development isn't working.

So let's try another tack: naked self-interest.

To today's (predominantly liberal) college students, I offer five reasons that granting your ideological enemies a chance to speak benefits you, even perhaps especially when you believe their words are dangerous or hateful.

First, you're giving the speakers you abhor a much bigger platform when you martyr them.

As I've written before, censorship tends to generate more public interest, not less, in whatever message is being censored. This is true for paintings as well as paid lecturers.

Professional troll Milo Yiannopoulos grew especially adept at monetizing this phenomenon. Violent protesters helped him gain attention, speaking gigs and (at least until his comments about sex with underage boys went viral) a book deal. He would never have gained their large followings absent the telegenic hysterics of angry liberals.

Second, suppressing ideas you disagree with dulls your ability to cogently, convincingly rebut them.

If you want to win arguments let alone elections honing your rhetorical chops will be crucial. Asking a tough question at a speech is good practice. Especially for when you're no longer able to call in an in-loco-parentis administrator to punish or expel your adversaries.

Third, and relatedly, you're not actually crushing opposing views by shushing them; you're merely forcing them underground, where they can fester and mutate into more dangerous forms.

It's better to engage, argue and attempt to dissuade your opponents out in the open. As Brookings Institution scholar Jonathan Rauch once put it, "Suppressing speech that's wrong-headed and hateful is like curing global warming by breaking the thermometers. The root problem is fear and ignorance and hatred, and you go for that by correcting people."

Fourth, you may not realize it yet, but you're breeding resentment and reactionaryism and turning potential allies into enemies.

President Trump's jihad against political correctness not only appealed to those who long for the days when they could sexually harass their secretaries with impunity; it also resonated with some less regressive types who have soured on what they see as the left's illiberalism and virtue-signaling. Don't fuel the Trumps of the world by shutting down debate.

Finally, the same censorship tools you've developed to silence your enemies will be used against you.

Right-wing students and allies have already begun adopting tactics to intimidate intellectual enemies and muzzle ideas they dislike, including through trigger warnings, professor "watchlists," proposed ideological litmus tests for college hiring and even speech codes.

Remember, liberal snowflakes. You're playing the long game, which includes the day when you may no longer be in a position of power. Be smart. Before you have that debate tomorrow, from the minority position, set some fair ground rules today.

Catherine Rampell writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.

crampell@washpost.com

Read this article:
Column: College students empower foes with censorship - The Columbus Dispatch

Actor-filmmaker Amol Palekar has reached out to the Supreme Court for directing the government to overhaul the Film Censorship Regime. A petition was filed on behalf of Palekar on Monday regarding this.

The petition points out that pre-censorship serves no useful purpose in the digital age. There are no law or rules to restrain content available on the internet; nor is there any pre-censorship for investigative reports, stings etc., shown over television.

Then, why should a board of censors sit together to decide whether documentaries which are factual depictions of real-life events should be allowed public viewing only with certain modifications or excisions as directed? Since pre-censorship of films and documentaries are anachronistic to the fundamental rights of equality and freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution, shouldnt Indias Board of Censors be disbanded?

These stark questions form the pith and substance of auteur Amol Palekars challenge to the legal regime of censorship. Based on Palekars writ petition, the Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre and the Central Board of Film Certification (the Censor Board), asking for their response to the pleas made in the petition.

On September 24, 1970, in the KA Abbas case, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled that because cinema was a medium which could easily excite the masses and (depending on the contents of the films) had the potential to incite violence, rapacious acts, or other illegal actions, or could corrupt society, there was a legal need to censor films before they were released for public viewing.

This decision is no longer in sync with the times for it infantalises the audience and should be overruled, the writ petition claims.

Palekar has also contended that the film certification or censorship regime unleashed by the Abbas ruling has turned into an uncontrollable behemoth, which willy-nilly pulverises the freedom of expression of some, while giving a free-hand to others.

It has also led to the creation of a parallel censorship regime, he claims, and gives the example of Jolly LLB 2. That film, granted a clearance by the Censor Board, had to suffer four excisions because the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, acting as a predator to artistic freedom, was of the opinion that the scenes were defamatory to the judiciary.

Invoking the fundamental Right to Equality under Article 14, he has asked why documentaries are required to carry disclaimers and implement excisions as directed by the Censor Board, when television programmes which also depict real life events and incidents are not subjected to the same restrictions.

Contending that there should be certification of films, and not censorship, Palekar has challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Guidelines for Film Certification, 1991 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 for violating the fundamental rights to life, equality and freedom of speech and expression.

Taken together, these laws, rules and guidelines mandate that only those films which are granted a viewer certificate should be shown in public. If the CBFC orders that certain scenes be modified or removed, and the director refuses to comply, then the film in question would be stuck. Not only can it not be screened in commercial theatres, it cannot also be shown on television or film exhibitions.

The writ petition also contends that those provisions of law which provide for appointments of members to the CBFC, its Revising Committees and the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) be declared null and void.

Instead, the Shyam Benegal Committees recommendations, which were directed at radically reforming the censorship mechanism, should be implemented at the earliest, the petition contends.

Excerpt from:
Amol Palekar moves SC for an end to film censorship - National Herald

Another week, another heretical speaker bullied and physically intimidated on an illiberal college campus.

Last week it was pro-police Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald, who was invited to speak at Claremont McKenna College in California. Hundreds of protesters blocked the entrances to the building where she was scheduled to talk, chanting "Black lives matter," "F -- the police" and "Shut it down." Student journalists who tried to document the protest were swarmed, pushed and verbally threatened.

Mac Donald spoke via live-stream to a mostly empty room, as protesters banged on the windows and shouted; police cut the talk short and escorted her out of the building.

Just a few weeks earlier, conservative political scientist Charles Murray had been hounded by a mob at Middlebury College in Vermont. There, protesters sent his (liberal) faculty escort to the emergency room.

These are but the most recent examples of attempts to suppress speakers, viewpoints, teaching materials and works of art that students usually liberal students find "unsafe."

Each time something like this happens, pundits make impassioned pleas that the solution to speech you abhor should be more speech, not less; that you must be brave enough to face your ideological enemies, not muzzle them; that the free exchange of ideas is critical to scientific and moral progress; that censorship is contrary to American values, included those enshrined in our Constitution.

Clearly, this appeal to high-minded principles and character development isn't working.

So let's try another tack: naked self-interest.

To today's (predominantly liberal) college students, I offer five reasons that granting your ideological enemies a chance to speak benefits you, even perhaps especially when you believe their words are dangerous or hateful.

First, you're giving the speakers you abhor a much bigger platform when you martyr them.

As I've written before, censorship tends to generate more public interest, not less, in whatever message is being censored. This is true for paintings as well as paid lecturers.

Professional troll Milo Yiannopoulos grew especially adept at monetizing this phenomenon. Violent protesters helped him gain attention, speaking gigs and (at least until his comments about sex with underage boys went viral) a book deal. He would never have gained their large followings absent the telegenic hysterics of angry liberals.

Second, suppressing ideas you disagree with dulls your ability to cogently, convincingly rebut them.

If you want to win arguments let alone elections honing your rhetorical chops will be crucial. Asking a tough question at a speech is good practice. Especially for when you're no longer able to call in an in-loco-parentis administrator to punish or expel your adversaries.

Third, and relatedly, you're not actually crushing opposing views by shushing them; you're merely forcing them underground, where they can fester and mutate into more dangerous forms.

It's better to engage, argue and attempt to dissuade your opponents out in the open. As Brookings Institution scholar Jonathan Rauch once put it, "Suppressing speech that's wrong-headed and hateful is like curing global warming by breaking the thermometers. The root problem is fear and ignorance and hatred, and you go for that by correcting people."

Fourth, you may not realize it yet, but you're breeding resentment and reactionaryism and turning potential allies into enemies.

President Trump's jihad against political correctness not only appealed to those who long for the days when they could sexually harass their secretaries with impunity; it also resonated with some less regressive types who have soured on what they see as the left's illiberalism and virtue-signaling. Don't fuel the Trumps of the world by shutting down debate.

Finally, the same censorship tools you've developed to silence your enemies will be used against you.

Right-wing students and allies have already begun adopting tactics to intimidate intellectual enemies and muzzle ideas they dislike, including through trigger warnings, professor "watchlists," proposed ideological litmus tests for college hiring and even speech codes.

Remember, liberal snowflakes. You're playing the long game, which includes the day when you may no longer be in a position of power. Be smart. Before you have that debate tomorrow, from the minority position, set some fair ground rules today.

Catherine Rampell writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.

crampell@washpost.com

See more here:
Catherine Rampell: College students empower foes with censorship - The Columbus Dispatch

By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi | Published:April 17, 2017 3:30 pm

The Shyam Benegal committee was set upon January 1, 2016to lay down rules and regulations for film certification taking note of best practices in various parts of the world and giving sufficient and adequate space for artistic and creative expression. The committee submitted its report on April 29, 2016 but there has been very little progress on it so far.

What does the report say?

The report says that Central Bureau of Film Certification (CFBC) should primarilybe allowed to issue certificated to the films depending on its content. It lists out that the body should be allowed to cancel certification under following circumstances:

*When a film contains anything that contravenes the provisions of Section 5B (1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

*When content in a film crosses the ceiling laid down in the highest category of certification.

*The applicant must specify the category of certification being sought and the target audience.

What are the objectives?

The committee lists out objectives of these guidelines as it protects children and adultsfrom potentially harmful or unsuitable content. In addition, it helps the audiences to make a better informed decision and the artistic freedom is maintained.

What are the other points?

The committee also made recommendations regarding the size of Board and its functioning. It also mentions that the chairman should only play the role of a guiding mechanism and not involve himself/herself in day to day activities of CFBC.

The size of the Board should be compact with one member representing each Regional Office. Therefore, the total composition of the Board should not be more than nine members and one Chairman, the report states.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Follow this link:
What is Shyam Benegal Committee report on censorship? - The Indian Express

Government approval is required to display art in galleries, so some artists in Ho Chi Minh city are unleashing their expression on the streets for public viewing to bypass what they consider censorship.

Photo by: TRT World

Urban expansion and a development boom also threaten to reduce viable graffiti space.

Artists in Vietnam'sHo Chi Minh city have taken to street art, or graffiti, as the governmenttightens thenoose around what it deems controversialart.

In Vietnam, the government's approval is required before works of art can be displayed in galleries. But many times state censorship forces these artists to paint outside the lines.

AsTRT World'sSarah Jonesreports,artists are not giving up on expanding people's access toart.

Pence says "all options on table" with North Korea

US promises coordinated response to Taliban, Daesh in Afghanistan

North Korea fails missile launch as Pence lands in South Korea

Bangkok's street vendors are being forced off the streets

Death toll rises to 21 in Sri Lanka rubbish landslide

Eight suspects charged with murder of Pakistan university student

See more here:
Vietnam artists find solace in street graffiti amid state censorship ... - TRT World