Category Archives: Transhuman News

Key findings

On October 27, 2023, Li Keqiang, the former Premier of China, passed away due to a heart attack. His death invited commentators to compare Lis legacy to that of Xi Jinping, while in China public memorials for Li were alternately permitted and restricted. This report documents our discovery of Li Keqiang-related censorship rules on multiple Chinese platforms introduced in light of Lis death. We found censorship rules relating to speculation over Lis cause of death, aspirations wishing Xi had alternatively died, memorials of Lis death, recognition of Lis already diminished status in the party, and commentary on how Lis death cements Xis political status.

Li Keqiang (19552023) served as the Party Secretary of the provinces of Henan and later Liaoning before being appointed Vice Premier under former General Secretary Hu Jintao in 2007. Following Xi Jinping taking office as General Secretary in 2012, Li was promoted to Premier, a role he held from 2013 to 2023. With a PhD in economics from Peking University, some saw Li as a technocrat and a moderate voice within an otherwise conservative Xi administration. Over his ten years in office, Lis power was circumscribed as Xi removed allies of Jiang Zemin and members of Hu Jintaos Youth League faction and filled the government with loyalists. The replacement of Li Keqiang with former Shanghai Party Secretary and Xi ally Li Qiang at the 20th National Congress in 2023 signaled to some the end of collective leadership under Xis personalistic rule. Following Lis death, obituaries published outside China referred to Li as less influential than his immediate predecessors and the least powerful premier in the history of the Peoples Republic of China.

Following Lis passing on October 27, Xi Jinping and other senior leaders attended Lis funeral at Beijings Babaoshan Revolutionary Cemetery. While Peoples Daily eulogized Li as a time-tested and loyal communist soldier, Lis death came during a period of growing malaise within China. Xi has deepened personal control over the Communist Party of China (CPC) during his third term in office, and high youth unemployment and a declining property sector have contributed to public concern about Chinas economy. Against this backdrop of tightened political control and economic uncertainty, many in China remembered Li as a pragmatic economic planner with a human touch.

In the past, the death of prominent figures like Li Keqiang have provided Chinese people with opportunities for protest and dissent. The death of Premier Zhou Enlai led to a million people gathering in Beijings Tiananmen Square in April 1976 to mark his passing and obliquely criticize Mao Zedong and the Gang of Four. In April 1989, public mourning in Tiananmen for former General Secretary Hu Yaobang grew into a larger protest movement demanding political, economic, and social reform. In February 2020, the death of COVID-19 whistleblower Dr. Li Wenliang produced an outpouring of anger online against authorities who had admonished Dr. Li for spreading false information about the emergence of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan.

Given the potential for public grieving to escalate into political activism, the Chinese government has attempted to manage citizens responses to Li Keqiangs passing. Authorities have closely monitored spontaneous memorials in Lis hometown of Hefei in Anhui Province and universities across China have warned students against gathering to pay respects to the former premier. Controls on public mourning have extended online. State censorship instructions cautioned media platforms against permitting overly effusive comments about Lis death, a potential reference to the satirical use of high-level black praise to mask political criticism. The National Radio and Television Administrations Online Media Department issued similar instructions to online media platforms to promote an affectionate and orderly response to former General Secretary Jiang Zemins death in November 2022. Despite these controls, Chinese social media users have found creative ways to memorialize Li Keqiang, including visiting the late Dr. Li Wenliangs Weibo page to offer condolences for another truth-teller with the surname Li.

In previous work, we designed an ongoing experiment to automatically test for changes in the automated censorship of search queries across seven Internet platforms operating in China: Baidu, Baidu Zhidao, Bilibili, Microsoft Bing, Jingdong, Sogou, and Weibo. To perform this testing, we automatically pull the text of recent news articles from the web, testing these texts on each platform for whether they are censored when searched for and, if so, isolating the exact keyword or combination of keywords in that text that is triggering its censorship. We call the triggering keyword or keywords the censored keyword combination. We found that the presence of some keyword combinations in search queries triggers hard censorship, i.e., the censorship of all results, whereas the presence of other keyboard combinations triggers soft censorship, i.e., the censorship of results from all but whitelisted sources. For web search engines like Baidu or Bing, soft censorship restricts results to only Chinese government websites or state media, whereas for a social media site like Weibo, soft censorship restricts results to being only from those accounts with a sufficient level of verification. Whenever we discover a new censored keyword combination, we record it, the platform on which it was censored, the date and time of discovery, as well as whether it was hard- or soft-censored. For the full details of our methodology, please see our previous work. Our data collection began January 1, 2023, and is ongoing as of the time of this writing.

In this work, we analyze keyword combinations discovered since the announcement of Li Keqiangs death. Specifically, we look at those introduced in a period from midnight October 27 to 5pm October 31, 2023, UTC.

Following Li Keqiangs death on October 27, we found a significant uptick in censorship surrounding Li on most platforms that we monitor. This finding is notable as Lis name was, similar to other senior CPC leaders, already broadly censored on most platforms before his death. For example, Baidu, Bing, and Weibo already broadly soft-censored any search query containing Lis given name, (Keqiang), and Jingdong hard-censored and Sogou soft-censored his full name (Li Keqiang). Therefore, new censorship rules that we discovered on these platforms were necessarily either even broader than the existing rules or targeted content that managed to avoid mentioning, depending on the platforms pre-existing rules, either Lis given or full name.

Below we highlight and categorize many of the new censorship rules that we discovered. While in many cases we can say confidently that the rules were added since Lis passing, since there would be no reason for them to have been censored before, in other cases, it is also possible that we may be unearthing old rules that we had not previously discovered due to never having previously tested content that triggers them.

Much of the censored content concerned Lis cause of death or implicated Xi in Lis death. For instance, Sogou soft-censored + (Keqiang + cause of death), + (prime minister + cause of death), and + (Keqiang + harmed), which concern the cause of Lis death and whether he was killed. Sogous soft censorship of + (General Secretary Xi + get rid of) and Weibos hard censorship of + (Jinping + assassination) target discussion suggesting that Xi had Li killed, although those rules would equally censor conversation calling for Xi to be killed, and therefore we cannot exactly know the rules original motivation.

While much of the censorship targeted the implication of Xi in Lis death, other censorship targeted communication wishing that it were Xi instead of Li who passed. Some censorship targeted direct wishes for Xi to die. For instance, Sogou simply soft-censored (die Xi). Baidu conversely hard-censored + (Xi Jinping + pray Xi dies). While the character literally means jade, its radicals when decomposed form (Xi Xi die) and can therefore be understood as a way to call for Xis death while trying to avoid censorship filters.

Other censorship rules did not target Xi by name, but nevertheless the intention of these rules is understood. For example, Weibo soft-censored (the one who should die isnt dead) as well as (good people dont live long). Many platforms also have censorship rules targeting references to (unfortunately not you), which is also the name of a popular song by Malaysian singer Fish Leong. Weibo soft-censored all references to the song, whereas Sogou only soft-censored search queries if the songs name occurred in the presence of other, related words: + (Keqiang + unfortunately not you), + (why is it so sensitive + unfortunately not you), and + (unfortunately not you + censored). The last two are significant in that content moderators are censoring queries by users attempting to ascertain why the name of the song is censored. Following the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in July 2022, some social media users had also previously used the title of the song to obliquely refer to Xi.

Many place names and references to in-person memorials for Li were censored in response to his death. Weibo soft-censored (Shuguang Hospital) and Sogou soft-censored + (Keqiang + Shuguang Hospital), referring to the hospital in Shanghai in which Li reportedly passed. It is not clear why the name of the hospital would be particularly sensitive. Content moderators may have interpreted queries about the hospital as attempts to ascertain other information about the cause of Lis death, or authorities may have been concerned that the hospital could become a potential place for a memorial. Following the death of Jiang Zemin in November 2022, police reportedly assembled outside the hospital in which the former general secretary had been receiving care.

Other rules targeted memorializing Li. For instance, Sogou soft-censored + (campus + collective mourning). As discussed in the Background section, in the past, collective mourning has provided Chinese citizens with an opportunity to criticize the state. Chinese authorities at the national and subnational level adopt different strategies in response to mass protest, including suppressing dissent and offering concessions. Chinese citizens have continued to engage in public dissent under the Xi administration, despite strong controls on collective action.

Sogou also soft-censored + + (sincerity + tolerance + kindness), targeting a quote from a letter Li wrote in 1982 to a graduate of Peking University: Some people never win with force, but they move people with sincerity, tolerance, and kindness. In fact, these are the real strong people in life. The motivation for censoring this quote could be concerns that Lis words could be interpreted as hinting at Xi, whose conservative leadership is known for broad social controls, strongman rule, and an anti-corruption campaign that has doubled as a purge of his political opponents. Similarly, Weibo soft-censored the aphorism + (what people do + Heaven sees). Because this aphorism is commonly understood to mean that the deeds of both good and bad people will be known, content moderators may interpret the saying as indirectly praising Li and criticizing Xi.

Some of the censorship highlighted Lis already diminished status in the Party even before his death. Baidu hard-censored + (weak prime minister + Xi Jinping), a direct reference to Xi Jinpings reduction of the authority of the office of prime minister during Lis tenure. Sogou soft-censored queries containing + (figurehead + prime minister), another reference to Lis restricted authority as prime minister.

While some censorship targeted queries concerning Lis former status, other censorship targeted how Lis death relates to Xis status as Chinas paramount leader. As an example, Baidu hard-censored + (Xi Jinping + centralization of power), a reference to Xis personalistic rule. Some censorship made reference to Xi as an emperor. As examples, Weibo hard-censored (reigning emperor) and soft-censored (your majesty), the former term being one which prior to Lis death had been used to refer to Xi.

More generally, Sogou soft-censored + (general election + chairman). Although we had already discovered the simplified Chinese version of the rule prior to Lis death, we only discovered the one made up of traditional Chinese characters after. The general secretary of the CPC, the senior most role in the party-state, is not directly elected but is instead elected by the Central Committee. While the Chinese government has promoted whole process democracy as an alternative to liberal democracy, discussion of competitive elections for senior leaders is politically sensitive in China. Sogou also soft-censored + (no change to the CPCs general direction + there will be no way out), a reference to an interview with former Central Party School professor and exiled dissident Cai Xia on the future of China.

As part of our ongoing project monitoring changes to Chinese search censorship across seven Internet platforms, we tracked changes to censorship following Li Keqiangs death. Motivations behind censorship were complex and seemingly paradoxical, as terms both criticizing and memorializing Li were targeted. In China, criticism of senior leaders is prone to censorship. At the same time, out of a general motivation to prevent mass movement and because some senior leaders may be seen as potential rivals to Xi, censors restrict memorializing senior leaders, especially if doing so appears to challenge the legitimacy of Xis rule. Most censorship we discovered was soft censorship, indicating that the censors did not desire to block all results for search queries concerning Li but rather direct users to state-approved content. The hard censorship we documented was often targeting content unconvertible to approved content, such as content calling for Xis death or content implicating Xi in an assassination of Li. Despite monitoring Microsoft Bing, the only non-Chinese-operated platform featured in our study, we did not discover any new notable rules relating to Li on this platform. However, our previous work noted that Bings rules were the most broad and thus were the least reliant on requiring a large number of highly specific rules to capture sensitive queries. This observation may provide an explanation for why we found no notable rules introduced on Bing in the aftermath of Lis death.

Our results demonstrate Chinas ongoing efforts to push CPC-sanctioned narratives concerning politically sensitive topics. Suppressing natural search results on the web and social media when searching for content concerning Lis death presents a distorted narrative for users attempting to discover information pertaining to Li and the CPC more broadly, impacting the integrity of the online information environment.

This work builds on our greater effort to automatically track real-time censorship in response to significant political events in China, including Tibetan Buddhist events, the 709 Crackdown on legal practitioners, the death of Nobel Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, and the initial outbreak of COVID-19 as well as its continuing spread across the globe. Our work makes use of novel automated methods which we use to exactly and efficiently determine which combination of keywords is responsible for triggering the censorship of sensitive text. Our ongoing monitoring can quickly recognize the introduction of new automated Chinese censorship in response to unfolding world events.

We would like to thank a reviewer who wishes to remain anonymous. Research for this project was supervised by Ron Deibert.

We have made all of the data collected from our ongoing measures beginning January 1, 2023, through the end of this reports data collection period available here.

See the rest here:
Chinese censorship following the death of Li Keqiang - Citizen Lab

Here in Alabama, as in other red states, there is a small band of religiously motivated zealots who want to impose their version of morality and decency on the entire population. Their latest effort to reshape society is to force the relocation of certain books from the young adult section to the adult section in public libraries.

They mask this act under the guise of protecting youth from pornographic or inappropriate content, but lets call it what it is: a ban. This tactic is as transparent as it is dishonest, reflecting a worrying trend toward controlling what young people are exposed to in terms of knowledge and perspectives.

The current debate surrounding book bans starkly contrasts with the more pressing issues affecting the states youth. The statistics are telling: Alabamas teen birth rate, as reported by the CDC, stands at 22.9 births per 1,000 females aged 15 to 19 years, which is significantly higher than liberal Californias rate of 9.9 births per 1,000 in the same age group. This places Alabama with the fifth-highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation, according to the World Population Review.

Furthermore, the situation regarding child poverty and food insecurity in Alabama is alarming. Data from the USDA shows that 22.7 percent of children under 17 live in poverty, and 22.3 percent, or 243,880 children, face food insecurity. These figures paint a picture of a state grappling with profound challenges impacting its younger population. But the most pressing issue among these would-be censors is books in a public library.

The targets of this crusade are books discussing Black history, racism in America, and the experiences of transgender youth and the LGBTQ community. Such selective censorship echoes the age-old, yet always defeated, attempts to suppress knowledge and control thought.

Efforts to ban or censor books have always been on the wrong side of history and, are ultimately rejected by societies that value freedom and diversity of thought. History is replete with instances of censorship that are now seen as ignorant and cruel. Consider the Roman Catholic Churchs Index Librorum Prohibitorum, a notorious list of prohibited books.

This censorship, once considered a bulwark of societal values, is now regarded as a dark chapter in the history of intellectual freedom. Similarly, the burning of William Tyndales translation of the New Testament into English, an act that led to his execution, reflects a time when censors were viewed as defenders of societal norms, yet today, they are seen as villains.

Another example is the Roman Emperor Caligula, who in 35 A.D. opposed Homers The Odyssey for its ideas of freedom. His actions, once perhaps seen as maintaining the status quo, are now looked upon as suppressive and regressive.

The most extreme case might be that of the Chinese Emperor Shih Huang Ti. In 212 B.C., in an attempt to redefine history and consolidate his power, he reportedly buried 460 scholars alive and burned countless books. This draconian act, intended to mark the beginning of history with his reign, is now condemned as a heinous crime against humanity.

These historical episodes illustrate a pattern: actions once seen as upholding societal norms or protecting the status quo are often later condemned as acts of savagery and hate. They remind us of the ever-evolving nature of social values and the importance of preserving freedom of thought.

The current situation in Alabama echoes these historical precedents, revealing a fundamental conflict between freedom of expression and attempts to indoctrinate young minds with a particular religious agenda. Removing books from the young adult section of a public library undermines principles of intellectual freedom, educational value, and the developmental benefits for young readers.

Public libraries are a crucial part of every local infrastructure, providing communities with access to diverse viewpoints and ideas. Young Adult (YA) literature, in particular, plays a vital role in addressing social issues and offering insights into experiences different from ones own. This exposure is critical for developing empathy, understanding, and a broader worldview. During adolescence, a period of significant personal and intellectual development, YA books can help young adults navigate complex realities, offering a safe place for exploration and understanding.

Moreover, engaging with challenging or controversial content is essential for fostering critical thinking skills. YA books can stimulate discussion, reflection, and a deeper understanding of complex issues, contributing to the development of informed and literate individuals.

While it is valid for conservatives to champion parental rights and individual choice in guiding their childrens reading, it is not appropriate to impose these preferences on the broader community. Public libraries serve diverse populations with varying values and interests. What one family finds objectionable may be invaluable to another. In a free society, the answer lies in personal choice, not in government-imposed restrictions.

This movement is not about protecting the young but controlling them, shaping their views to fit a narrow narrative. It goes against the very essence of what public libraries represent: freedom of thought, exposure to a multitude of ideas, and the fostering of informed, empathetic citizens. As history has repeatedly shown, efforts to censor and control thought are not only doomed to fail but also counterproductive to the growth of a free and open society.

Gov. Kay Iveys call for Alabama solutions to Alabama problems rings true, but the focus seems misdirected when it comes to banning library books. While efforts intensify to ban and censor books, real and tangible issues like teen pregnancy, child poverty, and food insecurity receive less attention. This discrepancy suggests that the motivation behind the book bans may be less about protecting Alabamas youth and more about advancing a specific religious ideology.

In the heart of Alabama, a debate ragesnot about the pressing issues that grip the state, but about the content of library shelves. This is nothing more than a small band of social crusaders hoping to offer no solutions to a dire problem while inventing a dire solution where no problem exists.

The people of the state and its lawmakers must not be fooled by these charlatans but concentrate on the real challenges facing the states youth.

The situation calls for a reevaluation of priorities. Addressing the root causes of teen pregnancy, poverty, and food insecurity should take precedence over censoring library content. The states children and youth face real problems that need real solutions, not just symbolic gestures that align with certain ideological viewpoints. Redirecting the focus toward these fundamental issues would better serve the needs of Alabamas younger generation.

Read the original:
Opinion | Book censors in history: not heroes, but villains of ... - Alabama Political Reporter

LeVar Burtoncontinues to speak out againstbook censorship. On Wednesday, Burton delivered his opening remarks at the 74th National Book Awards & Benefit Dinner in New York City. Burton specifically called out Moms for Liberty, the conservative organization thats attempting to censor books in schools.

Before we get going, are there any Moms for Liberty in the house? Moms for Liberty? No? Good. Then hands will not need to be thrown tonight, Burton told the audience,Peoplereported.

Moms for Liberty has been leading an effort to block schools from providing books about sexuality and gender in their libraries, according toPeople. The organization is also aiming to ban LGBTQ+ and race discussions from being included in school curriculums.

Burton hosted the event, recognizing outstanding people and works in the literature industry. Drew Barrymore was initially chosen as host of this years event. However, the actress was replaced when she faced public backlash after deciding to keep her talk show going during the SAG-AFTRA strike.

Burton has received numerous accolades for his contribution to literature. Among his many honors, the formerReading Rainbowhost was named the 2023 honorary chair of Banned Books Week. As he spoke out against the effort to ban certain books from schools, Burton said freedom feels especially fraught in this global political moment.

On the home front, we are fighting for control of truth and how we interpret truth in this country, Burton said. Books are being banned, words are being silenced, and writers and others who champion books are under attack.

Burton also paid tribute to his mother, an English teacher. The beloved TV personality said his mother taught him that if you can read in at least one language, you are, by her definition, free.

Giving credit to his sister Letitia as well, Burton said she was the one who taught him how to read. The Roots actor urged the audience to remember that books are under attack because theyre so powerful.

Stories are the tool that enable us to better understand ourselves and, yes, our history, he said. To live over the course of a few pages in the experiences of another and to create a world where we can all be free.

The 2023 National Book Awards ceremony also featured Oprah Winfrey, who appeared as a special guest and spoke out to support literacy. The event included virtual appearances from Julie Andrews, Matthew McConaughey, Samin Nosrat, Trevor Noah and Dua Lipa. The celebrities introduced the various literature categories that were recognized on the evening.

Go here to see the original:
LeVar Burton Slams Book Censorship, Moms For Liberty At The National Book Awards: Writers And Others Who Champion Books Are Under Attack - Yahoo News

Euronews was told that pro-Palestinian views were being suppressed inside schools, with some Jewish pupils in a "dark zone of depression".

Amy* is a teacher at a school in London.

Like many other schools in Britain, a majority of the pupils come from Muslim or Arab backgrounds.

Sympathies for Palestine run high in her classroom, amid the devastating war between Israel and Hamas.

Since the violence erupted on 7 October, younger students have often drawn the Palestinian flag on their hands, doodled it on their books or displayed Palestinian flag pins on their uniform in what she called child-like expressions of solidarity.

Theyre really deeply upset and worried about Palestine, she told Euronews.

Initially, Amy said the school let the pupils express their support for those in Gaza and the West Bank.

But it has since begun cracking down on these acts under the guise of violations against uniform policy, threatening to punish the kids if they refuse. Staff have also been told not to wear the Palestine pin.

There is a double standard, she claimed, pointing out that students were encouraged to support Ukraine when Russia invaded in February 2022 and that staff are still allowed to display symbols and signs of other political causes, like LGBT+ rights or the Black Lives Matter movement.

It's presented as impartially, but in reality is deeply ideological.

Under government rules, schools in the UK are legally bound to prohibit the promotion of partisan political views and should take steps to ensure the balanced presentation of opposing views on political issues when they are brought to the attention of pupils.

In advice issued to schools in October, Education Secretary Gillian Keegan wrote: "We know that young people may have a strong personal interest in these issues, which could lead to political activity.

"Schools and colleges should ensure that any political expression is conducted sensitively, meaning that it is not disruptive and does not create an atmosphere of intimidation or fear for their peers and staff."

Alongside alienating" pupils from the teachers, who often feel insulted when they are told to wash the flag off their hands, Amy claimed impartiality rules were "being used to silence the Palestinian crisis and prevent students from having an opinion about a genocide happening in Gaza.

Hamas deadly assault on southern Israel sparked the current conflict, killing 1,400 people and taking hundreds hostage.

While 2022 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians, according to the UN, 2023 was already set to overtake that record even before Israel began relentlessly bombing Gaza.

Israeli retaliation has killed at least 11,500 people so far, mostly women and children, according to Gaza's Hamas-controlled health ministry.

Teacher Amy placed the school's policy towards the Israel-Hamas war against a broader depoliticisation of teachers and a shift towards focusing on behaviour, rather than provoking critical thinking.

We should be having different conservations about topics related to the conflict, like how criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic, the existence of Jewish peace activists in Israel and understanding war crimes. Theres not much space for the kids to think and be curious," she told Euronews.

Amy added that she felt "nervous about how much more repression the school community may face as the situation [in Israel and Gaza] develops."

Still, the teacher said many students were pushing back against the school's policies which were becoming a point of rebellion.

Things could get a bit lively. Kids are getting told off about things they weren't getting told off about before. They feel it's an injustice."

The bloodshed has sparked a number of issues for Britain's Jewish schools and pupils, too.

David Meyer, CEO of the Partnership for Jewish Schools, told Euronews that a significant challenge was nervousness and discomfort amongst Jewish pupils, especially those in non-Jewish schools.

"The enormity of the attack that took place in Israel, the shock of what happened there, immediately made anybody who's Jewish around the world feel insecure," he said. "That has then been coupled with a tsunami of antisemitism."

Hate crimes against Jewish people in London have risen by 1,350%, the Metropolitan police said in October. Islamophobic offences in the UK capital increased by 140%.

Both Jewish and Muslim communities have previously complained of feeling unprotected by the authorities.

Student wellbeing was also an issue said Meyer, with children exposed to absolutely horrendous footage of the Hamas "terrorist attack".

We are very worried about the impact on childrens mental health. Some are constantly thinking about the hostages, worrying about them. We are trying to help the children understand how to compartmentalise things in their lives so that they are not constantly in this dark zone of depression."

Some 240 people were taken hostage by Hamas and brought to Gaza when it attacked southern Israel in early October, according to Israeli authorities. A few have been freed, while the Palestinian militant group claims several others have been killed in Israeli airstrikes.The fate of the rest is unknown.

Amid a surge of what he called ignorance and misinformation around the conflict, Meyer said it was vital to educate students, especially on the dangers of social media.

For him, it was "vital to ensure children are given a proper informed and balanced education so that they understand actually what is going on."

He said the "history of Israel" and the "different narratives" and "perspectives" within that were "very, very complex".

"Being able to educate children around this and for them to understand the difference between having open and honest conversations, disagreements and a disparity of views, and a recognition of that is healthy.

One obstacle he cited is that schools in England are blocking lessons on the Middle East, such as the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In November, the Observer newspaperreported that fewer than 2% of GCSE history students in England studied a module on the Middle East in 2020, and experts estimate that only 27 schools in England currently teach it.

It claimed schools were concerned about "bad publicity" or afraid of being accused of bias.

"It's absolutely true that the students have [to be] taught different narratives to really try and interrogate those to find sensible solutions," Meyer added.

*The teacher's name has been changed as she was not authorised to talk directly to the media and was concerned about repercussions from her employer.

See the original post here:
Censorship and safety: How the Israel Hamas war is affecting schools - Euronews

Nashville In a world of rampant censorship, we must ask ourselves: How far do we have to go to protect our children? And after what point is overly sheltering hurting our kids?

This is a question being asked in Memphis, Tennessee at this very moment. Following the reverberating pain of the shooting of George Floyd, Pulitzer Prize-winning authors Robert Samuels and Toluse Olorunnipa wrote the book, His Name is George Floyd. It discusses Floyds life and legacy and is essential reading for anti-racists. When Samuels and Olorunnipa arrived at the Whitehaven High School in Memphis last October to speak on their book, they were told to not share any excerpts or delve too deeply into the topic. Students were also not given a copy.

This was a condition required by a Tennessean law, which requires school books to be age-appropriate (which is, of course, a completely subjective and arbitrary requirement, but so is censorship). It is no coincidence that books called out for being not age-appropriate are ones discussing racism. Tennessee, which was one of the first states to restrict classroom conversations on racism, is clearly intent on asserting itself as a state lacking free speech.

Another interesting development is that Whitehaven is a majority Black school, with even the youngest students certainly old enough to fully remember the massive waves of protests in 2020. Why is the state and Memphis-Shelby County so intent on covering up issues of racism and claiming that racism is age-inappropriate for students who have grown up in a system built on racist ideals? The answer lies within the question itself. The state seems to believe that a lack of school education will produce students who do not know racism. This is untrue in two ways.

A system without civics education produces students who grow to be either ill-informed (sometimes, in Tennessee, in damaging ways) or are angry at the politicians. In the age of widespread information on the internet, the number of young people who dont know whats going on is much lower than it used to be. Its no easy feat to be an uninformed, socially active teen these days, especially in a place like Memphis. Unfortunately, disinformation is rampant and is the real enemy of the truth in communities with censorship.

When we think about censorship in the age of the internet, we sometimes believe that people will know nothing without these books and resources. But when we dont provide truthful resources and difficult conversations in the classroom, we fundamentally fail our children. We make it obscenely difficult for them to be able to pick out truth from lies, and accurate graphics from misleading statistics. And, though we have yet to see the consequences truly, we know that when children are incapable of picking out right from wrong on the internet, they go on to propagate misinformation unknowingly. According to TIME Magazine, fewer than 45% of teens say they can tell the difference between real and fake news. Still, a survey done by Common Sense Media said that a whopping 54% of teens get their news from social platforms like Instagram or TikTok.

By continuing the fight for censorship, we have doomed our children to an uphill battle for information.

The next time we ask ourselves how far is too far? We must carefully consider the effects of censorship on young people. These effects lie in a lack of media literacy, one of the cruelest things we can do to our children in the 21st century.

Emmie Wolf-Dubin (she/her) is a high school student in Nashville who covers anything from entertainment to politics. Follow her on Instagram: @redheadwd07.

Edited by Nykeya Woods.

Continue reading here:
Censorship in Memphis: The Real Effects of Withholding Information - YR Media

November 20, 2023 at 10:00 p.m. EST

MUMBAI Over a three-decade career, the filmmaker Anurag Kashyap often trained a critical eye on his native India as he wove tales about rogue cops, rotten ministers and the hypocrisies of the Indian middle class. He garnered standing ovations at Cannes and received fan mail from Martin Scorsese. He landed lucrative deals with Netflix after the American streaming platform entered India in 2016, looking to produce edgy, Hindi-language shows.

But in 2021, Kashyap said, Netflix shelved what would have been his magnum opus: an adaptation of the nonfiction book Maximum City, which explores Hindu bigotry and the extremes of hope and despair in Mumbai.

When the U.S. streaming giants, Netflix and Amazons Prime Video, entered India seven years ago, they promised to shake up one of the worlds most important entertainment markets, a film-obsessed nation with more than 1 billion people and a homegrown moviemaking industry with fans worldwide.

In the last four years, however, a chill has swept through the streaming industry in India as Prime Minister Narendra Modis Bharatiya Janata Party tightened its grip on the countrys political discourse and the American technology platforms that host it. Just as the BJP and its ideological allies have spread propaganda on WhatsApp to advance their Hindu-first agenda and deployed the states coercive muscle to squash dissent on Twitter, they have used the threat of criminal cases and coordinated mass public pressure to shape what Indian content gets produced by Netflix and Prime Video.

Today, a culture of self-censorship pervades the streaming industry here, manifesting in ways both dramatic and subtle. Executives at the India offices of Netflix and Prime Video and their lawyers ask for extensive changes to rework political plots and remove passing references to religion that might offend the Hindu right wing or the BJP, industry insiders say. Projects that deal with Indias political, religious or caste divisions are politely declined when they are proposed, or dropped midway through development. Even completed series and films have been quietly abandoned and withheld by Netflix and Prime Video from their more than 400 million combined viewers worldwide.

Why greenlight it, then change your mind? asked Kashyap, recalling how Netflix walked away from his three-part adaptation of Maximum City, based on the award-winning book by Suketu Mehta. Its invisible censorship.

The Washington Post spoke to more than two dozen filmmakers, writers, producers and executives in India and the United States who shared their experiences and details about projects, many of which have not been previously reported. Many interviewees spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve their relationships with Netflix and Prime Video. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post. The Posts interim CEO, Patty Stonesifer, sits on Amazons board.

The trouble began in 2019, when Hindu-nationalist activists first called for boycotts and filed police complaints against Netflix and Prime Video, seeking to curb content they saw as denigrating Hinduism and India. The pressure campaign peaked in January 2021, when these activists nationwide prompted police across India to investigate Prime Video, ostensibly for mocking a Hindu god in a political series called Tandav. A top Prime Video executive in India was forced to briefly go into hiding and surrender her passport to police, according to people familiar with the matter.

It was a watershed moment. Streaming executives had to review the projects going forward, recalled Parth Arora, a former director of production management for Netflix India. You wanted to make sure that you are not making the same mistakes that happened on Tandav.

Since then, Prime Video has shelved Gormint, a satirical series billed as Indias answer to Veep, because it mocked Indian politics, said the series director. And despite investing more than $1 million to produce Indi (r) as Emergency, a documentary about the 1975-1977 period when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi suspended civil liberties and censored the media, Netflix recently relinquished the rights and will not release the film, which contains veiled commentary about the Modi administration, people familiar with the project said.

Sunil Ambekar, a senior leader and spokesman for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a Hindu-nationalist umbrella organization affiliated with the BJP, said it was the duty of filmmakers to promote a positive image of India and its culture. Movies that celebrate Bharat are more liked by the people, he said, using the Sanskrit name for India. These days we can see pride for nation, and pride for India, more actively expressed.

In early 2021, the Indian government introduced a system of self-regulation in which streaming companies must resolve viewer complaints within 15 days, or else face regulatory scrutiny by an industry body or a government committee staffed by various ministries. A senior official in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the policy candidly, said the goal was not to squash criticism of the government or to ban discussion of Indias social and religious rifts but mostly to curb profanity and sexual content.

He acknowledged, however, that the bureaucracy was often under political pressure from the Hindu right wing and other quarters to censor shows. We had to think of how to discipline these platforms, he said. We want content to be sanitized.

Industry insiders say streaming platforms cannot risk their presence in such a crucial market by defying pressure from the BJP or its supporters. The companies business is thriving with streaming revenues in India projected to grow more than 20 percent a year from $2.6 billion in 2022 to $13 billion in 2030, according to the Confederation of Indian Industry and the Boston Consulting Group.

In a response to questions about political pressure, Prime Video India praised the Indian governments current streaming regulations for allowing creativity in the content we create and said the companys programming decisions are designed to serve our incredibly diverse audiences in India.

A Netflix spokesperson said: We have an incredibly broad range of Indian original films and TV shows, all of which speak to our long standing support for creative expression. This diversity not only reflects our members very different tastes, it also distinguishes our service from the competition.

Neither company addressed specific projects they have dropped.

In many ways, Kashyap, 51, embodied Indias indie spirit and the initial flush of excitement about streaming and how both have since been subdued. In 2018, he co-directed what Reed Hastings, then Netflixs chief executive, touted as the first big, spectacular Netflix series to come out of India, the crime thriller Sacred Games.

But in 2019, still riding high from a string of Netflix projects, Kashyap couldnt resist speaking out against the Modi administration as India became embroiled in nationwide protests over a citizenship bill seen as discriminatory against Muslims. He gave fiery speeches at protests in New Delhi and Mumbai. On Twitter, he called the government fascist and rule by gangsters.

Before long, he came to resemble one of his protagonists. In his films, misfits and troublemakers rise at first by challenging the system. Sooner or later, they stumble.

As a child growing up in Uttar Pradesh state, Kashyap recalled, he wrote short stories so dark, his schoolteacher alerted his parents. In college, he didnt pursue science like his parents wanted, and instead hung out with the leftist street theater troupe, the Jana Natya Manch, and rode a rickety bicycle across New Delhi to watch films by Fritz Lang, Bimal Roy and Tomu Uchida.

The brooding, realist movies made me realize there was nothing wrong with me. These were the kinds of stories in my head, Kashyap said. I never fit in. I never thought cinema should be about hero and heroine, song and dance.

In 1992, Kashyap moved to Mumbai, then called Bombay, to begin his career at the bottom of the film industry. By the mid-2000s, his films were catapulting obscure actors to Bollywood fame but Kashyap eschewed mainstream success, instead becoming a darling of the international film festival circuit.

Kashyap was perfect for Netflix after it launched a multibillion-dollar international expansion in 2016. The company was then facing hurdles with censors in China, and to win India, another massive, tantalizing market, it wanted offbeat content that would create buzz.

In 2018, Hastings joked at a conference in New Delhi that he could acquire 100 million new subscribers in India alone nearly what Netflix had worldwide at the time and would invest heavily in local content like an upcoming crime thriller co-directed by Kashyap and his longtime collaborator Vikramaditya Motwane.

You will see a different side of Mumbai, Hastings promised the audience as a giant screen flashed the promotional poster for Sacred Games. It is not a pretty, happy, dancey one. It is crime and gritty like Narcos.

Sacred Games was indeed provocative. Its antihero was a gangster who mocks his pious Hindu father and instigates religious violence. It showed hard drug use and lots of sex. It was a massive hit.

Soon, the backlash began. In 2019, a Hindu-nationalist activist wrote to police demanding action against Netflix for its deep-rooted Hinduphobia, citing examples such as Sacred Games and Leila, a Handmaids Tale-style series about a future totalitarian Hindu society. The police did not take action. The following year, after a BJP party official complained about a Netflix series showing a Muslim boy kissing a Hindu girl in a Hindu temple, police registered a criminal case against two Netflix executives, but no arrests were made. The hashtag #BoycottNetflix began to trend on Twitter.

Meanwhile, the head of India content at Prime Video, Aparna Purohit, also came under scrutiny. OpIndia, a right-wing news site, dug into her Facebook history, found she had posted political cartoons criticizing the government and accused her of giving space for ultra-left radicals and Islamist elements on the streaming platform.

In January 2021, the campaign against streamers came to a head. After Prime Video released the series Tandav, viewers in nine Indian states filed complaints with police. The coordinated complaints alleged that the cast and crew of Tandav, as well as Prime Videos Purohit, had insulted a Hindu god in one scene. But Tandav riled BJP supporters in other ways: It also depicted police brutality against student leaders and farmer protests, mirroring real-life controversies that had been dogging the Modi administration.

Police from Uttar Pradesh, a BJP-ruled state, descended on Mumbai to interrogate actors and producers. An Uttar Pradesh judge reviewing Purohits plea seeking protection from arrest ruled that she was trying to earn money in the most brazen manner by mocking Hinduism and undermining India as a united force socially, communally and politically.

Facing the threat of arrest, Purohit was whisked by Prime Video into safe houses and went incommunicado, two friends recalled. Today, several cases alleging Purohit hurt Hindu sentiments remain in the courts despite Prime Videos attempts to have them dismissed, and Purohit cannot leave India without seeking permission from the police. Purohit did not respond to requests for comment.

The complaints filed against Prime Video and the social media campaigns were organized behind the scenes by activists like Ramesh Solanki, the Hindu nationalist who filed the first police complaint in 2019.

In an interview, Solanki described the existence of hundreds of WhatsApp and Facebook groups where Hindu nationalists like himself had gathered to discuss how to apply pressure on streaming platforms. The groups members were scattered worldwide, he recalled, and offered financial and legal aid to those who volunteered to file complaints against the foreign companies.

They were always criticizing Bharat and the people of Bharat, always criticizing the army, always making shows that were negative, Solanki said. They were not good for the image of India abroad.

After the successful Tandav campaign, Solanki said, he was flooded with congratulatory messages from BJP leaders and, last year, became a party member himself. Prime Video and Netflix have learned their lesson, Solanki said: They are aware: If we do any mischief, if we cross the line, we will face the music.

Inside Prime Video, the first show to be dropped after the Tandav crisis was Gormint, a satire about the absurdity of Indian politics, recalled series director Ayappa K.M. All nine episodes of the first season had already been shot in India, London and Thailand, and they were publicly scheduled to stream immediately after Tandav. They vanished without a trace.

The director said he didnt begrudge Prime Video executives because they faced enormous personal risks, but he bemoaned the state of the industry. It is creative evolution in reverse, he said. Only passive, thoroughly sanitized content stands a chance on most platforms now.

While Gormint was never put out, Prime Video released what one industry executive called a make-up film, about an Indian archaeologist who discovers a mythical bridge described in the Ramayana Hindu epic, prompting him to reconsider his atheist beliefs.

Prime Video did not answer questions about the Tandav controversy and its repercussions, saying only that the company sought to tell authentic and unique local stories while respecting and embracing the myriad languages and cultures that make up Indias vibrant tapestry.

At Prime Video we take our responsibilities seriously and make our programming decisions thoughtfully, according to a company statement.

Prime Videos travails also stunned its rival. As Purohit faced the threat of arrest in 2021, the Netflix India chief, Monika Shergill, told the companys global leaders that its India office should not take risks or they might also face the possibility of jail, said a former Netflix India executive. Shergill did not respond to requests for comment.

Another former Netflix India employee said the company decided against releasing a film by the director Dibakar Banerjee about generations of an Indian Muslim family experiencing bigotry even though it was completed, but executives signaled to Banerjee that if the BJP left power, the political climate may be more amenable for the films release. Banerjee could not be reached for comment.

This May, a Netflix India team gave a presentation to executives from Europe and Latin America, in which they used India as a case study to illustrate how Netflix needed to be more malleable to local regulation, the former employee recalled. The general line is: Theres no fighting back.

One director who has worked with Netflix and Prime Video said streaming companies didnt just fear antagonizing the Modi government. They were even more concerned about its right-wing supporters, who might launch mass campaigns calling for boycotts and arrests. What the government has done very smartly is they effectively say, You self-censor stuff, the director said. There is a gun to your head because at any point of time, its so easy to mobilize a bunch of people.

Concerns about self-censorship and revisionism are also surfacing elsewhere. A member of a team that made a podcast for Spotify about the history of Indias space program said executives asked to review the script because it hailed the contributions of Indias first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who is often condemned by Hindu nationalists as being too conciliatory toward Muslims and Pakistan. Executives also seemed hesitant about giving credit to Tipu Sultan, an 18th-century Indian Muslim ruler who pioneered the use of rockets, but they ultimately did not push for changes.

I was a bit shocked, the team member recalled. What is wrong with talking about them? These are facts recorded in history.

From the beginning of his career, Kashyap has refused to be disciplined. To get his films released in theaters, Kashyap often fought against government censors who objected to his treatment of historical events and expletive-laden screenplays.

But in 2019, he took on the ruling party itself. He mocked Modi supporters on social media during the national election and became a popular target of troll attacks. After the government passed the bill that critics said disadvantaged Muslims, Kashyap made headlines by joining a massive protest in Mumbai. And after a masked mob attacked anti-government student protesters in January 2020, the director flew to New Delhi, picked up a microphone and exhorted the students to fight on.

Back home in Mumbai, he sat every morning at his dining room table and wrestled with Maximum City. Kashyap wrote feverishly, filling hundreds of pages of blank paper with his expansive Hindi handwriting. It was my best work, he said. Ive never done such honest, important work.

But shortly before preproduction was scheduled to begin, the Tandav saga upended the industry. A few weeks after that, controversy engulfed Kashyap: Tax officials raided 28 locations associated with his former production company and announced they found unreported income equivalent to $90 million.

Under the Modi government, critics say, tax authorities have frequently been deployed to probe political opponents, and opposition parties criticized Kashyaps investigation as politically motivated. The case is ongoing. Kashyap denies any wrongdoing.

After that, Kashyap recalled, Netflix walked away from Maximum City without providing a clear reason, but he believes either the content became too sensitive to touch or he did. Kashyap drank heavily and fell into a lengthy depression. He suffered two heart attacks.

Maximum City was where all my energy went, he said. I was heartbroken. I totally lost it.

Shunned by investors, Kashyap used up his personal savings and borrowed money to finish his next film. He rewrote the drama about an interfaith couple as a more conventional romance. Still, it flopped.

After three decades of bruising fights with government censors, Kashyap said he is now even more frustrated by the streaming industry, which submitted to a kind of censorship that was opaque and impossible to appeal.

Streaming was finally the space I was waiting for, Kashyap said. The disappointment is it was supposed to be a revolution, but it was not. Like social media, it was supposed to empower people, but it became a tool.

Today, along elevated highways, in chic neighborhoods and on the sides of city buses in Mumbai, advertisements for new Prime Video and Netflix shows are ubiquitous, a reminder that the companies continue to bet big on India despite mounting political constraints. But even liberal filmmakers and Kashyaps supporters increasingly acknowledge a simple truth: The animating force of Mumbai isnt art, they say. Its dhandha business.

Netflix and Prime Video are here to capture a market of 1.3 billion people, said Hansal Mehta, a director who has several projects with the platforms. The more we fool ourselves that people are here for something else, the more we will be disillusioned with the system.

On a recent afternoon, Kashyap padded around in purple pajama pants in his apartment. He emerged from his study clutching the 800-page screenplay for Maximum City Part III, flipped through it wistfully, then set it aside.

Kashyap said he was recovering. He was getting back into writing every day on his dining room table, fueled by a steady diet of Kilchoman whisky, hand-rolled cigarettes and takeout biryani. He was even getting work again with Netflix, on a project that didnt directly touch contemporary issues. I know I need to stay away from current politics, he said.

He recently completed Kennedy, a film about an anguished cop turned hit man that wasnt funded by Netflix or Prime Video, but by Zee, an Indian conglomerate. Kashyap shoehorned into the script thinly veiled criticism of Indian politicians coziness with billionaire industrialists and the governments handling of the pandemic. Its not clear if theyll remain intact once the film is reviewed by censors for theatrical release or prepared for streaming.

And Kashyap is still trying to raise funds to get Maximum City made. For inspiration, he said, he often looked to filmmakers who made daring works in Iran and China one a strict theocracy, the other an authoritarian one-party state. India was neither, for now.

They still find ways to do it, he said. So why cant I?

Niha Masih contributed to this report.

Design by Anna Lefkowitz. Visual editing by Chloe Meister, Joe Moore and Jennifer Samuel. Copy editing by Christopher Rickett. Story editing by Alan Sipress. Project editing by Jay Wang.

See more here:
Facing pressure in India, Netflix and Amazon back down on daring ... - The Washington Post

A man who now does "faith" outreach for the homophobic, book-banning Moms for Liberty in Philadelphia was once a familiar sight in Copley Square, where he'd try to convince passersby that Barack Obama was as evil as Hitler and Dick Cheney.

Phillip Fisher Jr. made the news this week when the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that he is not just an organizer for a group that wants to ban books from school shelves, he's also a registered sex offender - following his 2012 conviction involving a 14-year-old in Chicago.

Sonya Dunne recalls:

Oh my God, when Obama was in office this nut was all over Boston with Lyndon LaRouche. Pretty much a constant fixture outside CVS in Copley and the Charles River Plaza.

Fisher didn't stay long into the Obama administration doing street outreach in Boston for the LaRouche movement, though: In 2009, he was photographed in Chicago, outside a meeting about health care called by US Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., holding a poster with a large photo of Obama with a Hitler mustache drawn in.

After seeing that photo, Dunne added:

Yep thats him. He was always accompanied by that poster of Obama as Hitler.

At some point, though, Fisher and the LaRouchies grew disenchanted with each other.

In fact, he claims the LaRouchies concocted "a railroad job" that got him to plead guilty to aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a minor between the ages of 13 and 17 - in exchange for which 11 other charges were dropped - while he was trying to "break free" of the group, the Inquirer reports.

Follow this link:
Rightwing Philadelphia censorship fan who is also a registered sex ... - Universal Hub