Category Archives: Transhuman News

A recent overview in Publishers Weekly about the state of free expression in the industry noted, Many longtime book people have said what makes the present unprecedented is a new impetus to censor and self-censor coming from the left. When the reporter asked a half dozen influential figures at the largest publishing houses to comment, only one would talk and only on condition of anonymity. This is the censorship that, as the phrase goes, dare not speak its name, the reporter wrote.

The caution is born of recent experience. No publisher wants another American Dirt imbroglio, in which a highly anticipated novel was accused of capitalizing on the migrant experience, no matter how well the book sells. No publisher wants the kind of staff walkout that took place in 2020 at Hachette Book Group when the journalist Ronan Farrow protested its plan to publish a memoir by his father, Woody Allen.

It is certainly true that not every book deserves to be published. But those decisions should be based on the quality of a book as judged by editors and publishers, not in response to a threatened, perceived or real political litmus test. The heart of publishing lies in taking risks, not avoiding them.

You can understand why the publishing world gets nervous. Consider what has happened to books that have gotten on the wrong side of illiberal scolds. On Goodreads, for example, vicious campaigns have circulated against authors for inadvertent offenses in novels that havent even been published yet. Sometimes the outcry doesnt take place until after a book is in stores. Last year, a bunny in a childrens picture book got soot on his face by sticking his head into an oven to clean it and the book was deemed racially insensitive by a single blogger. It was reprinted with the illustration redrawn. All this after the book received rave reviews and a New York Times/New York Public Library Best Illustrated Childrens Book Award.

In another instance, a white academic was denounced for cultural appropriation because trap feminism, the subject of her book Bad and Boujee, lay outside her own racial experience. The publisher subsequently withdrew the book. PEN America rightfully denounced the publishers decision, noting that it detracts from public discourse and feeds into a climate where authors, editors and publishers are disincentivized to take risks.

Books have always contained delicate and challenging material that rubs up against some readers sensitivities or deeply held beliefs. But which material upsets which people changes over time; many stories about interracial cooperation that were once hailed for their progressive values (To Kill a Mockingbird, The Help) are now criticized as white savior narratives. Yet these books can still be read, appreciated and debated not only despite but also because of the offending material. Even if only to better understand where we started and how far weve come.

See the article here:
Opinion | Theres More Than One Way to Ban a Book - The New York Times

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Media Research Center found that "secondhand censorship" is allowing big tech platforms to shield Americans from content that would otherwise come across on social media.

MRC founder Brent Bozell oversees the organizations Free Speech America CensorTrack database, which tracks the effects of secondhand censorship. It found that seven big tech platforms Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn and Spotify kept information from users a staggering 144,301,713 times during the first quarter of 2022 alone.

The study defined secondhand censorship as "the number of times that users on social media had information kept from them" by big tech. The group "calculated the secondhand censorship effect by adding the number of followers each account had at the time of each censorship case recorded during the quarter," according to Brian Bradley and Gabriela Pariseau of Free Speech America.

GOP LAWMAKERS LAUNCH PROBE OF TIKTOK'S SHARING OF USER DATA WITH CHINESE PARENT COMPANY

TFacebook is among the seven big tech giants accused of secondhand censorship. (AP Photo/The Des Moines Register, Charlie Litchfield)

"The secondhand censorship effect for the first quarter of 2022 includes only the censorship cases we found or were informed about. Because of this, it represents a mere fraction of the total scale of secondhand censorship taking place," Bradley and Pariseau added. "Big Techs lack of transparency means that an incalculable amount of censorship beyond what is shown in this report takes place every day."

Bozell joined "Fox News @ Night" with Shannon Bream on Wednesday to discuss the findings.

"Social media is the communications vehicle of the future whether we like it or not. The censorship of conservatives and Christians, and most especially conservative Christians, by big tech is a huge problem," Bozell said.

"It is enormous because it is affecting the public square in ways that has never happened in American history. So, how important is this? Those of us who have been looking at censorship have been looking at it from the standpoint of the producers. Weve logged, weve verified about 4,000 cases that are confirmed examples of censorship," he continued. "But we havent looked at it from the standpoint of the consumer. Whats the effect of that censorship?"

U.S. MOVINGSOME SAY TOO SLOWLYTO ADDRESS TIKTOK SECURITY RISK

The Media Research Center found that "secondhand censorship" is allowing big tech platforms to shield Americans from content that would otherwise come across on social media. (Muhammed Selim Korkutata/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

"For the first three months of this year, we looked at 172 cases, just 172 cases of confirmed, verified censorship, we then looked at how many times that information was withheld from the American people through those 172 acts, 140 million times information didnt reach the American people because of 172 acts of censorship," Bozell said.

Bream then pointed out that many liberals deny censorship is happening, pointing to a poll of Facebooks top performing posts that indicates conservatives are "doing very well" on the platform as evidence liberals could use to make their case. However, Bozell disagreed with the notion.

"In fact, the worst case came from Facebook," he said. "Facebook has over 80 these instances."

TWITTER ALLOWS SOME THREATS AGAINST CONSERVATIVE SCOTUS JUSTICES, PRO-LIFE PREGNANCY CENTERS TO FLOURISH

Media Research Center president Brent Bozell asked, "When was the last time you heard a liberal complain about being censored?"

Bozell then said made it clear that he believes this is a partisan issue.

"When was the last time you heard a liberal complain about being censored? It just doesnt happen. But conservatives across the spectrum are now being censored. Heres the important thing, that number is minuscule, it just scratches the surface," he said. "We only looked at three months we didnt look at people whove already been censored had we looked at cases of censorship before that three-month period, it would have been billons of pieces of information that have never reached the American people because of the censorship."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Brian Flood is a media reporter for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent tobrian.flood@fox.comand on Twitter: @briansflood.

Original post:
Big techs secondhand censorship shields conservatives from information at alarming rate, study shows - Fox News

More than two days since it was first imposed, a lock on the Twitter account of the Socialist Equality Party (Australia) remains in place, effectively disabling it. The protracted character of the measure, and the absence of any credible explanation from the social media company, brands its actions as political censorship.

Posts demanding the full reinstatement of the SEP account and an explanation from Twitters page have been shared hundreds of times and have reached thousands of users. Many have drawn a connection between the lock on the SEP account, and a broader campaign to silence those critical of official policies, including militarism, war and the herd immunity COVID policies.

As the WSWS reported previously, the lock was first imposed on Thursday, Australian (AEST) time no later than 10:50am.

Only a couple of minutes earlier, the SEP account had published a video.

It defended Dr David Berger, a well-known general practitioner, under sanction from Australias medical authorities for his consistent opposition to the let it rip COVID policies and advocacy of an elimination strategy aimed at ending the pandemic. The video drew attention to the parallel between the attacks on Berger and other fighters for social and democratic rights, including WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.

The video can be viewed below.

When the lock was imposed, that video was removed by Twitter and replaced with a label claiming that it had violated unspecified rules.

The initial lock was to be for 12 hours, gave no information about the supposed infractions of the page, could not be reviewed and provided no means of communication or redress. After the 12 hours had elapsed, the SEP received notification that its account remained locked.

The video supposedly had Violat[ed] our rules against posting or sharing privately produced/distributed intimate media of someone without their express consent. The lock would remain in place until and unless the video was deleted entirely.

On Friday morning, at roughly 9:30am (AEST), the SEP filed an appeal. It noted that the stated grounds for the censorship of the video were bogus. It contained no intimate content. All the images were in the public domain or had been provided to the WSWS by those depicted.

Three hours later, at 12:30pm (AEST), the SEP received confirmation that its appeal had been received. More than 24 hours since then, Twitter has not answered the appeal in any way.

The timeline raises concerning questions:

Was the initial unexplained lock of 12 hours merely to provide administrators with time to concoct a pretext for the censorship?

Why was the SEP account disabled entirely, rather than given some sort of warning? It is associated with a well-known and longstanding political organisation, has more than 2,000 followers and has operated on Twitter since 2010 without any accusations of rule infringements.

Have any human evaluators been involved in the censorship of the SEP account? If so, how could they possibly be under the misapprehension that the video contains intimate images, when it clearly does not? If they were so mistaken, why didnt they contact the SEP to clarify the issue?

If Twitters actions to this point are purely the result of algorithms and automated processes, why did it take three hours for receipt of the SEPs appeal to be acknowledged? This clearly indicates the involvement of human moderators.

If the SEP video was the subject of a false complaint in the few minutes that it was visible, why has this malicious report been taken at face value and acted upon so drastically? Anyone who has been on Twitter for some time knows that such false reports are a common occurrence. Generally they are investigated before any action is taken.

Why has the report, if one were made, seemingly been treated by Twitter as an unchallengeable and semi-official edict?

This raises the obvious question: If there was a false report in relation to the SEP video, did it come from a prominent political figure or any individual associated with government and state agencies?

In regard to the last question, it is notable that Bergers personal Twitter account has repeatedly been subjected to comments from right-wing trolls, defending the government policies of mass infection and death.

There is also an ecosystem of anti-Assange accounts, which feed off and promote the decade-long campaign of the intelligence apparatuses to destroy the courageous journalist. One of the most persistent of those accounts has repeatedly gloated about the SEP Twitter lock.

Twitters silence is all the more striking, given the substantial support that has been voiced for the full reinstatement of the SEP account.

On Thursday afternoon, SEP National Secretary Cheryl Crisp posted a Tweet reporting the lock. As of this writing, Crisps post has been retweeted, or shared, more than 240 times and liked by almost 500. It has received over 35,000 impressions, a measure of how many times the post appeared in Twitter feeds of unique individual users.

Loading Tweet ...

Many others have posted strong comments. Chris Turnbull, an independent journalist, retweeted Crisps post, with the comment: The attack on Dr Berger continues: now extended to those who defend him: Twitter suspending groups who are not in violation of their own rules.

Loading Tweet ...

Another user wrote: It is unconscionable but unsurprising to find Twitter solidarizing itself with the state in suppressing a major physician-journalist like Dr David Berger from telling the truth about the pandemic.

Loading Tweet ...

A longstanding supporter of Assange wrote: . @TwitterSupport unlock the @SEP_Australia acct - reinstate it fully! @Twitter users need reliable accts! SEP reports on & defends workers around the world! For yrs they have defended #JulianAssange bringing light to a blacked-out story. 7 articles on #AssangeCase in July alone!

Loading Tweet ...

One user cut to the heart of the issue, posting: Irony? Someone tweets about the free speech of *others* on *various* topics. Twitter responds by removing their tweet and locking their account?! The tweet was maliciously reported as [containing intimate] content @TwitterSupport

Loading Tweet ...

The SEP will continue to demand the complete reinstatement of its account and a full explanation of how and why the censorship was imposed. This is critical to defeating a precedent for further attacks on anti-war, left-wing and socialist posts on the platform.

We urge all other Twitter users committed to democratic rights to aid this campaign. Tweet your opposition to the lock, direct it to @TwitterSupport and include the hashtag #OpposeSEPTwitterLock.

Join the SEP campaign against anti-democratic electoral laws!

The working class must have a political voice, which the Australian ruling class is seeking to stifle with this legislation.

Original post:
Growing opposition to Twitter censorship of Socialist Equality Party (Australia) - WSWS

A look at the latest in censorship attempts around the country spotlights actions in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Missouri.

District Attorney Ben David of New Hanover and Pender Counties (NC) found no criminality in having nine books in libraries at the countys middle and high schools. The titles, which were challenged by parents and investigated by members of the New Hanover County (NHC) Sheriffs Office, will remain available in the libraries, according to WHQR Public Media.

NHC Sheriffs Office officers met with David in May, providing him with the list of offensive books, which schools made the titles available, and which passages they deemed offensive. They asked David to investigate if the books violated any criminal laws. David found that the law protected the schools and teachers for making these books available, adding that the obscenity test is high in order to protect First Amendment rights, according to the story.

The books were: All Boys Arent Blue by George M. Johnson, Out of Darkness by Ashley Hope Prez, The Glass Arrow by Kristen Simmons, Forged by Fire by Sharon M. Draper, Melissa (formerly George) by Alex Gino, Stamped byIbram X. Kendi and Jason Reynolds, A Good Kind of Trouble by Lisa Moore Rame, The 57 Bus by Dashka Slater, and Queer, There and Everywhere by Sarah Prager.

The Miami-Dade (FL) School Board voted 5-4 to remove two textbooks on sex educationComprehensive Health Skills for Middle School and Comprehensive Health Skills for High Schoolfrom middle and high school curricula, according to Local10.

The board previously voted 5-4 in favor of keeping the books when objections were raised. A subsequent hearing was held to evaluate them. Age-appropriateness and references to sensitive subjects such as abortion, emergency contraception, gender identity, and sexual orientation were cited as reasons to remove them.

A local chapter of Moms for Liberty in Fauquier County (VA) formally requested the removal of 50 books from public school libraries during a school board meeting, according to FauquierNow. A member of the group is quoted as claiming that access to these books causes long-term sex-related behavioral problems. Parents from the community spoke up in opposition to removing the books, including the recently retired supervisor of Library and Media Services for Fauquier County Public Schools, who noted that there is a formal reconsideration process that should be followed.

While a specific list of books to be censored was not given, FauquierNow compiled a list after reviewing parent comments and found that titles include A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah Maas,Dress Codes for Small Towns by Courtney Stevens, and Ace of Spades by Faridah bk-ymd.

Independence School District (MO) Board of Education voted 6-1 to remove the book Cats vs. Robots Volume 1: This is War by Margaret Stohl from elementary school libraries because of nonbinary character and references to gender identity, according to KCUR and the Kansas City Star.

One member of the nine-person committee convened to review the book cited concerns that the title and cover do not indicate that gender identity is mentioned in the book, as well as examples of young characters being skeptical of and mistrusting adults, which he said was not appropriate and deeply concerning. Parents and students came to a school board meeting to object to the removal and explain the importance of having books with LGBTQIA+ characters.

Libraries are always evolving. Stay ahead. Log In.

Read the original:
Some Wins, Some Losses in Fight to Keep Books on the Shelves | Censorship Roundup - School Library Journal

As is the case with most solutions in search of a problem,Ohio House Bill 327currently winding its way through the legislative process is an attempt to control the teaching of what its authors considers "divisive" subjects.

If approved, the Promoting Education, Not Indoctrination Act (which initselfis propaganda)would "Prohibit teaching, advocating, or promoting divisive concepts."

The billoffers such examples as:

Teachers are already juggling with knives. Who has time to court this kind of trouble?

The proposed law would permit:

How does one conveyobjectivityregarding such clear moralwrongs as slavery,Native American genocide,or why mostwomen couldn't vote until 1920?

Who gets to selectthe textbooks and materials which would offer theseimpartial lessons?

More Charita Goshay: Book banning is an old, dangerous trick

In March, bill cosponsor state Rep. Sarah Fowler Arthur, R-Ashtabula, offeredWEWS(Channel 5) an example of how teaching about the Holocaust could offer both sides of the storyby including, say, a perspective from a German soldier.

Eleven million innocent civilians,including 6 million Jews,1 million children, people with physical andintellectualdisabilities, gays,and outspoken Christians, were systematically murdered by the Nazis in concentration camps spread across Europe.

There are lines in history which are clear. There is no counterargumentforwhy the Nazis and the Axis powers did what they did none.

Now, no serious scholarwould be opposed to an examination of the Third Reich'smasterful misuse of racism,lies and propaganda;how Adolf Hitler was able to seduce an entire nation into abandoning its ownhumanity,replacingit with a depravitythe likes of which the modern world had never seen.

But there is no, "Yeah, but ..."

The billalso would allow parents, students and colleagues to report schools and personnel suspected of violating the standards, which could result in a loss of fundingor individual punishment, such as a teacher losing his or her license.

Schools and teachers are already underconstant scrutiny. What ifa complaint is baseless? It has all the elements of Fascism 101.

It strips away opportunities for critical thinking and writing. Without such skills, education simply becomes regurgitation.

It undercuts the local control people claim they want.Either we trust local school boards, or we do not.

It goes without saying that school libraries wouldbe subject to even more scrutiny and censorship.

It's clear that some in Columbus are taking their cues from other state legislatures who have already waded into thewater; among themTexas and Florida.

A strongnation canbearthe truthabout itself. America's storyis unique, one of freedom, ingenuityand limitless promise. It's also a tale ofinjustice,materialismand hubris.

As it stands, Americansavoid history like it wasthe Ebola virus. We don'tneedskewedinformation, which will only deepen thedeficit.

Wemusthave more faith in our children,whohave a right to learn the full story of who we are, where we've been, and where we may be headed.

Charita M. Goshay is a Canton Repository staff writer and member of the editorial board. Reach herat 330-580-8313 or charita.goshay@cantonrep.com. On Twitter: @cgoshayREP

Link:
Ohio's divisive subjects bill is rooted in denial and avoidance - Canton Repository

South Carolina lawmakers have proposed a bill called the Equal Protection at ConceptionNo ExceptionsAct that would prevent websites from publishing abortion-related information.

The state made abortion illegal after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June. This new bill(Opens in a new window) also seeks to prohibit "hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing access to an internet website, or providing an internet service purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion."

The bill also prohibits "providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an abortion" as well as providing info about abortion doula services or referring visitors to abortion providers.

The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has demonstrated how abortion rights are intertwined with privacy rightswhich President Joe Biden acknowledged with the Executive Order Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Servicesacross the US. Ars Technica notes(Opens in a new window) that this bill (and others like it) show that states' efforts to limit access to information about obtaining or performing abortions could also threaten the First Amendment right to free speech.

On a practical level, even if the bill is passed, it's unlikely to prevent someone from accessing information related to abortion. Location-based restrictions are relatively easy to bypass. The problem is accessing that information without leaving evidence that could later be used by prosecutors. It seems more likely that the Equal Protection at ConceptionNo ExceptionsAct will be punitive rather than preventative.

Sign up for What's New Now to get our top stories delivered to your inbox every morning.

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletters at any time.

Originally posted here:
South Carolina Bill Would Censor Abortion Information Online - PCMag

The house where I was raised had an open shelf rule. This meant my brother and I were allowed to read anything, no matter how inappropriate or beyond our years. We never had to ask.

I spent hours of my childhood perusing the volumes on my fathers bookcases at will, trial and error. Histories, thrillers, science fiction, books on politics and culture all of it was available to me.

I keep thinking about this as more and more school districts participate in what is shaping up to look like an open war against reading. According to Banned in the USA, a report issued by the writers organization PEN America in April, nearly 1,600 individual books were banned in 26 states between July 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022.

Among the titles challenged or removed are Ta-Nehisi Coates Between the World and Me, Elizabeth Acevedos The Poet X, Roxane Gays Hunger: A Memoir of (My) Body and Robin Benways Far From the Tree. All are works of abiding literary merit that address issues of identity and race and family in other words, exactly the kinds of books students should be reading now.

Although the challenging of books and curriculum is hardly new in the United States, what were facing now is somewhat different. Of the current bans, PEN notes, 41% (644 individual bans) are tied to directives from state officials or elected lawmakers to investigate or remove books in schools. It is not parents or even school boards driving many of these challenges. It is the power of the state.

That represents, says PEN, an unprecedented shift.

I take it for granted that books are good for us. Countless studies have reinforced what many recognize from experience: Literature encourages compassion. As Jane Smiley wrote a decade ago in the New York Times: Reading fiction is and always was practice in empathy learning to see the world through often quite alien perspectives, learning to understand how other peoples points of view reflect their experiences.

At the same time, theres more to reading than learning to be a better person. Books are not vegetables, after all. We dont read them for the same reasons we take vitamins, or eat healthy meals. Part of the joy of reading its essential fiber, if you will is the way it can disturb us, disrupting our preconceptions and easy pieties. Part of what books do is to show us who we are or might become.

I know this from my open-shelf experiences. Often, the more inappropriate or beyond me a book was, the more intensely I was drawn to it. I count myself lucky that I was surrounded by adults willing to let me find my own level not just at home but also at school. In third grade, the school librarian, who already knew me as a precocious reader, didnt stop me from taking out War and Peace, which I kept for a week before I returned it, unread.

It was not only the reading, in other words, that was important but also the permission to do it widely, indiscriminately. That freedom left me feeling respected, affirmed. And it led me, by my early teens, to inappropriate writers that in the end couldnt have been more appropriate: among them, Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller, Sam Greenlee and Philip Roth.

Vonnegut taught me the universe was absurd; Heller, that authority deserved to be ridiculed. Greenlee, in his novel The Spook Who Sat By the Door, revealed the hypocrisy of race in America. And Roth well, perhaps the best way to explain it is to say that, in Portnoys Complaint, he portrayed male adolescence, which I was then experiencing, in the most visceral and outrageous terms.

Writers like these represented a gateway to other authors and narratives. Vonnegut led me to Samuel Beckett, Greenlee to James Baldwin and Amiri Baraka. From Heller, I moved on to Terry Southern and William Burroughs. And Portnoy prepared me for the magnificent Fear of Flying by Erica Jong.

Reading such books as I found them helped me to reckon with the complexities and contradictions of the adult world. More important, by thinking alongside their authors, I began to think for myself.

This, of course, is what the book banners object to, that readers might be influenced by ideas that legislators, parents, the neighbors down the block dont like.

PEN sees the issue through the lens of the 1st Amendment, which is valid, especially given the actions of so many lawmakers and the effects on so many constituencies. But I dont want to overlook that other lens of curiosity, self-knowledge, possibility, inquiry. Literature gives us language by which to know ourselves.

But in order to do that, it has to be available. It has to remain on the shelves. Where would we be without inappropriate reading? Ask any reader and theyll tell you: We would be lost.

David L. Ulin is a contributing writer to Opinion.

Continue reading here:
Op-Ed: Why inappropriate books are the best kind - Los Angeles Times