Mediaboss Marketing

Kelly is a former librarian and a long-time blogger at STACKED. She's the editor/author of (DON'T) CALL ME CRAZY: 33 VOICES START THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH and the editor/author of HERE WE ARE: FEMINISM FOR THE REAL WORLD. Her next book, BODY TALK, will publish in Fall 2020. Follow her on Instagram @heykellyjensen.

View All posts by Kelly Jensen

Several states nationwide have floated legislation to curtail book bans this year. Some of those bills, like the one proposed in Utah, were not only voted down but were superseded with bills that actually further fuel book bans. Other anti-book ban bills, however, made their way successfully through to law.

Lets take a look at the states that have addressed the right to read and access materials at the library by law. This is as comprehensive as possible, with the acknowledgment that other bills may be pending as of writing or maybe in the works for the next legislative session. It does not include bills that address other library-related issues.

Passed in 2023, the first-in-the-nation anti-book ban bill in Illinois ties funding to intellectual freedom policies in public and public school libraries. Basically, if a library wants access to a pot of state money for their institution, they need to have in their collection policies the American Library Associations Library Bill of Rights and/or a comparable statement upholding the rights of everyone to access materials in the collection. Books and other items in the library cannot be removed for partisan or discriminatory reasons.

This is a great first step, though certainly, it hasnt ended book bans in Illinois over the course of its first year as a law because it is fairly limited in scope (it was easy for a school board to ban an entire book reading program, for example). It also does not apply to prison libraries. But the signal this bill sends to libraries that the state is paying attention cannot be downplayed.

Literary Activism Newsletter

News you can use plus tips and tools for the fight against censorship and other bookish activism!

Thank you for signing up! Keep an eye on your inbox.

Also passed in 2023, the California anti-book ban bill applies to school boards specifically. They are unable to censor or ban books, curricula, textbooks, or other learning materials from the districts they oversee. The bill does not apply to public libraries or prison libraries. It also has not stopped school boards from censorship since implementation (not to mention that its public libraries bearing the brunt of censorship right now), but, like the bill in Illinois, it is at least an acknowledgment of an ongoing reality, even in a blue state like California.

There is a bill still alive in the state (AB 1825) crossed over from the Assembly to the Senate in the past weeks that would ban book bans more akin to how Illinois has.

Passed in early June 2024, Colorado has implemented new laws requiring every public library to have a collection policy and, if they allow for books to be challenged, requiring policies governing the process. One thing this particular bill does that is noteworthy is it requires keeping track of the outcomes of every official book challenge in public libraries. It also makes the names of those seeking to remove books public. Both of these add a crucial layer of transparency to the process. The bill does not, however, codify that books cannot be removed for discriminatory reasons (though that was in the original draft).

Minnesotas governor signed off on Senate File 3567 as part of a robust education bill. The portion related to libraries relates to both public and public school libraries, as well as public colleges and universities. All of these institutions are now required to have collection policies, as well as guidelines for the selection and reconsideration of material. This is similar to that passed in Colorado, though Minnesotas bill makes it clear books cannot be removed on the basis of viewpoint or opinion alone.

Also passed this year is Marylands Freedom to Read Act. In both public libraries and school libraries, the bill protects access to books and other library items by stating they cannot be removed or prohibited from collections because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. Collections seek to serve the research and recreational needs of all, and materials cannot be excluded based on the origin, background, or views of their creator. Both school and public libraries would need to have collection development policies in place, and if a book were to be challenged, the title would remain on shelves and available for use through the reconsideration process.

One of the more robust bills passed in 2024 is Vermonts Protecting Libraries and the Freedom to Read Bill. Among the provisions are requiring libraries to have policies that align with the First Amendment and anti-discrimination laws. Legal protections for libraries and library workers throughout the state have been strengthened as well as more robust opportunities for education around libraries and their role in community and civic life would be created for library workers and trustees.

What makes Vermonts legislation stand out, aside from its clear commitment to upholding and championing libraries, is that its emergence came following a report put together by library workers to give the legislature a real picture of the current state of the states institutions. You can read the full working group report here.

An anti-book banning measure for public schools passed in the state of Washington. HB 2331 is similar to the California bill in that it bars school boards from banning books, curriculum, textbooks, and other materials from use for discriminatory reasons. By the 2025-2026 school year, boards need to have in place policies related to supplemental materials (i.e., library and classroom materials) and how those are reviewed and evaluated were they to be challenged.

These wins matter. Even when the bills initially presented look significantly different by the end, like the one in Colorado, they send an important message. Use these wins to continue fueling your own anti-censorship work and remember, the most important things you can do to fight book bans in 2024 is to vote, show up to board meetings, and get into the ears of those who represent you.

Its worth noting here that several anti-book ban bills are still on the docket in other states. New Jerseys Freedom to Read Act moved forward in the legislature just last week, taking it one step closer to passage. Massachusetts, one of the first states to introduce anti-book ban legislation in 2024, pushed its hearings on the measures to June. The concurrent House and Senate proposals are currently in committee.

You can dive into the states that have attempted successfully or not to criminalize librarians this year, as well as the states which have made it or tried to make it against the law for library workers to join or engage with the American Library Association.

Read more:
States That Have Banned Book Bans: Book Censorship News, June 14, 2024 - Book Riot

Librarian Sabrina Jesram arranges a display of books during Banned Books Week at a public library branch in New York City on Sept. 23, 2022. Ted Shaffrey/AP hide caption

"Book ban" is one of those headline-ready terms often used by the news media, including NPR, for stories about the surge in book challenges across the U.S.

The American Library Association launched its annual Banned Books Week in 1982. There are banned book clubs. States have introduced or passed laws thatve been called bans on book bans. Meanwhile, many people fighting to get books removed from school libraries are not fans of the term book ban.

The practice of censoring books has been around for centuries. But what does it actually mean to ban a book today? The answer depends on who you ask. Here are a handful of definitions from people entrenched in the issue:

Kasey Meehan, program director of PEN Americas Freedom to Read (speaking at a video press conference in April) : We define a book ban as any action taken against a book based on its content that leads to a previously accessible book being completely removed from availability for students or where access to a book is restricted or diminished. PEN is perhaps a bit unique, and that's in contrast to ALA [American Library Association] and some others, in that we do include books that have been removed while awaiting review as a ban. We include that because we know books are undergoing review. As long as they are removed from access for students, those books can be removed for weeks, months, upwards of a year as we've seen in some cases.

NOTE: The American Enterprise Institute took exception to PEN Americas definition. A study AEI conducted for the Educational Freedom Institute looked at PEN Americas 2021-2022 index of banned books and found that 74 percent of the books listed as banned are listed as available in the same districts from which PEN America says those books were banned.

Emily Drabinski, president of the American Library Association: A book ban is the removal of a title from a library because someone considers it harmful or dangerous. A challenge is when someone raises an objection to a library material or a program or a service. Reconsideration is the formal process libraries go through to determine whether a book meets the library's selection criteria. We reserve book ban for a book that meets that criteria when it has been removed from a collection entirely. You often do find that books, they are challenged and then they undergo a review process and sometimes they end up being pulled and banned and other times they end up back on the shelves. I think sometimes our policymakers and many of the people who are active in the pro-censorship movement, they don't fully appreciate or understand the fact that many Americans, lots of them, don't have access to books in any other way except through their library, through their school or public or academic library.

Joe Tier, a self-described concerned grandparent and parent living in Eldersburg, Maryland: I think [the term book ban is] designed to be inflammatory and to obfuscate the constructive dialogue that should occur about age appropriate content. It can be a dog whistle that's used to incite anger against those who are opposed to limiting sexually explicit content in public school libraries. You really cannot ban anything, you know, material-wise these days because you have the Internet and you have PDFs. And so the term book ban is almost obsolete.

Mustafa Akyol, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Islam Without Extremes (banned in Malaysia in 2017): "When [a book] is banned, it's not available, so it's not legal to sell it. That's what a book ban means. I was arrested at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport After 18 hours of detainment by the Malaysian religion police, I was let go Bookstores couldn't sell [Islam Without Extremes] in Malaysia. My book was not available There might be some regimes who are even going after people for possessing a copy of the book I don't think there are literal book bans in the United States. When a book is banned, literally the authority says this book is not legal.Sometimes people use hyperbolic language to express their thoughts about a particular problem, and that might be a problem. And that divisive rhetoric then makes everything worse. So you cannot reasonably agree on some reasonable common ground and everybody becomes more and more strident and angry against each other. That in itself becomes a major problem for a democracy rather than just different opinion that people have on certain things.

Mona Kerby, Masters degree in School Librarianship coordinator at McDaniel College in Westminster, Maryland: To me, banned is the book's not on the shelf. But I could certainly see the different flavors of that word, and thats why a discussion about ideas is always so enriching. The few times I had some question about materials, those moments turned into wonderful opportunities between me and the parent just to discuss. And we both learned. So respecting one another's opinion and listening to another's opinion is not a bad skill to have.

This story was edited for radio and digital byMeghan Collins Sullivan.

Originally posted here:
What's the definition of book ban? Librarians, authors, others weigh in - NPR

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi readies for his third term, he formally took the oath of office on Sunday, casting a shadow over the nations landscape of free speech and press freedom. With each successive term, Modis administration has faced criticism for tightening control over the media and curbing dissenting voices, with instances of journalists and activists facing harassment, intimidation, and even legal action for criticisng the government or expressing views contrary to the official narrative.

Indias extensive six-week election period concluded with a tally of 640 million votes on 4 June. In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP-led NDA (National Democratic Alliance) secured an outright majority by winning 292 seats out of the 543 seats, surpassing the 272 seats required for a clear majority in Indias lower house of Parliament.

Meer Faisal, a 23-year-old journalist and the founder of The Observer Post, an online news portal based in Delhi, holds little optimism regarding Modis government when it comes to censorship and freedom of expression in India. He has faced significant censorship in the past during Modis tenure for his coverage on atrocities against Muslims in India. In October last year, his Twitter account faced restrictions in India due to his reporting.

As a journalist, especially being a Muslim, it invites more censorship and trouble. The Modi government aims to silence every voice that speaks against them. They want to build a narrative in the country and label everyone who criticises government policies as anti-national, said Faisal.

Faisal is among many in India who express fear concerning Modis third term, citing concerns beyond censorship to include threats to freedom of speech.

Since August 2019, the Modi government has also barred many Kashmiri journalists from travelling abroad, offering no explanation for restricting their fundamental rights.

In Modis third term, I fear that there will be more harsh policies against journalists and more tactics will be employed to intimidate us. This will directly impact our reporting abilities and help authorities in curbing the voice of people, said Faisal.

In the 2024 edition of the Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, India is ranked 159th out of the 180 nations considered. With violenceagainst journalists, highly concentratedmedia ownership, andpoliticalalignment,press freedom is in crisis in the worldslargest democracy, ruled since 2014 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi,leaderof the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) andembodimentof the Hindu nationalist right, RSF stated while releasing the data.

Asif Mujtaba, 34, an advocate for peoples rights and director of the Miles2smile Foundationwhich works with survivors of mob lynching, communal violence, and selective communal demolitionbelieves that the space for dissent has significantly decreased since Modi came to power, and public participation in protests has also diminished.

Its become a tough task for social and political activists, regardless of any religion, to work for peoples rights under Modis regime. The government can use any stringent law to frame you and silence your voice, saidMujtaba.

According to Mujtaba, many people in India are apprehensive about openly criticising Modi because they are aware of the potential repercussions. A significant number of individuals who were once vocal against the regime have now become quiet..

Modis administration is aware of the escalating dissent and the potential for increased protests against their policies in the third term. The growing public dissent will force Modi to resort to heavy-handed tactics to silence the people, said Mujtaba.

In the first four months of 2024, India has experienced at least 134 instances of free speech violation, impacting journalists, academics, YouTubers, and students, according to a report published by the Free Speech Collective in early May. The organisation tracks and categorises free speech violations and offers support to those affected.

Niranjan K S, 22, a fourth-year law student at Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi, and a member of the All India Revolutionary Students Organisation (AIRSO), argues that the suppression of dissent is driven by the corporate-Hindutva fascist nexus, which aims to transform the country into a fascist dictatorship. As a result, free speech will be stifled, and only those who support the ruling forces will retain their right to free expression.

The surge in the enforcement of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the uptick in political detentions, particularly aimed at students and activists like Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, who were involved in the anti-CAA protests of 2019, demonstrate a systematic use of these draconian laws to quash all forms of dissent, said Niranjan.

During the protests, students played an active role in amplifying the voices of the oppressed within the country. However, the BJP regime labeled these students as anti-national and terrorists, attempting to delegitimise their activism and dissent.

Niranjan emphasised that secularism and communal harmony are already under significant threat due to the Hindutva ideology of the current regime, which could further hinder free speech. In this third term of the Modi government, the non-state elements of fascism will be more utilised to advance their offensive than the state elements, said Niranjan.

Index on Censorship sought a response from a BJP spokesperson regarding censorship as Modi embarks on his historic third term. Answer came there none.

More:
Fears of censorship grow as Modi begins third term - Index on Censorship

The House Oversight Committee is probing whether a firm that purports to rate which news outlets are trustworthy is using federal funds to try to put conservative news outlets out of business.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY) said the committee he chairs has opened an investigation into NewsGuard, a for-profit business with multiple ties to the federal government that makes lists of which news outlets it deems trustworthy, then sells those lists to advertisers.

NewsGuard has received nearly a million dollars from the federal government, largely from the Department of Defense. The State Department also co-sponsored a COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation tech challenge that gave a prize to NewsGuard.

Advertisers often use the lists from NewsGuard to avoid doing business with companies that supposedly peddle in misinformation, under the implied threat that liberals will boycott their products if they do.

This appears to be a very biased, very unfair service thats getting federal funds. It could be another backdoor attempt at censoring conservative media outlets, Comer told One America News. Whats their criteria that just happen to give networks like MSNBC and CNN tremendous grades, and then networks like OAN, Newsmax and Fox very poor grades?

We want to know why theyre doing this, what the basis is for the criteria that they use to determine these grades. Because then they turn around and they offer their grades to advertisers, and this is a form of, I believe, trying to discourage advertisers from advertising on conservative networks, he said.

Theres a concerted effort by the federal government to censor conservative media outlets, he added, saying the probe into NewsGuard would determine whether theres been any criminal laws broken.

Gordon Crovitz, the companys co-CEO, told The Daily Wire in an email that the investigation is based on a misunderstanding.

We look forward to clarifying the misunderstanding by the committee about our work for the Defense Department, Crovitz said. Our work for the Pentagon has been solely related to hostile disinformation efforts by Russian, Chinese and Iranian government-linked operations targeting Americans and our allies. We also look forward to explaining that NewsGuard is the apolitical service rating news sources the others are either digital platforms with their secret ratings or a left-wing partisan advocacy group. As a result, the Daily Caller outscores The Daily Beast, the Daily Wire outscores the Daily Kos, Fox News outscores MSNBC and The Wall Street Journal outscores the New York Times.

Despite saying its mission is to provide transparent tools to counter misinformation for readers, the company previously refused to allow The Daily Wire to view the data it sells to advertisers, even for a fee.

NewsGuard said in a press release that it planned to help the State Department by flagging COVID hoaxes. One of the hoaxes flagged by NewsGuard was that COVID might have come from a Chinese lab, a scenario now viewed by U.S. agencies to be likely.

Its mission to have a small staff fact-check independently-reported stories on a wide variety of topics hours after their publication inherently requires essentially enforcing conformity with authorities previous statements, since it is not equipped to re-report every news story or match confidential sourcing.

NewsGuard also has a partnership with a teachers union aimed at getting its public tool onto school computers. That browser plugin annotates search pages to flag news stories which should be avoided.

The Daily Wire and the Federalist are suing the State Department for backing NewsGuard and other similar entities, alleging that it is promoting censorship technology designed to bankrupt domestic media outlets with disfavored political opinions.

The State Department responded by trying to have the federal lawsuit moved from Texas to the District of Columbia. But Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle denied the motion and recalled that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

The investigation represents mounting danger for the media censorship industry, which has sought captive markets via legislation and through advertising associations like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), which forces advertisers to avoid outlets that promote misinformation, creating a demand for someone to make that determination.

The House Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), is investigating GARM for potentially violating anti-trust laws. The controversy has led mainstream consumer brands, selling the likes of candies, to second-guess whether their advertising departments roped them into divisive conduct, with one insider squirming that the companies want to avoid any kind of public qualm that has a partisan signature like the plague.

Read the original post:
Congress To Probe Media Rating Firm NewsGuard For Possible Taxpayer-Funded Censorship - The Daily Wire

Today's guest isJay Bhattacharya, a co-author of theGreat Barrington Declarationand one of the plaintiffs inMurthy v. Missouri, the Supreme Court case charging that the Biden administration and other parts of the federal government illegally colluded "with social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content." A decision in that case is imminent, and a victory for Bhattacharya's side would make it impossible for the government to pressure X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and other platforms to ban or squelch legal speech. A professor of medicine at Stanford University and a Ph.D. economist, Bhattacharya talks about his experience being blacklisted online because of his criticisms of lockdowns and other COVID policies, the ways in which both Donald Trump and Joe Biden fumbled their responses to the pandemic, and what the public health establishment must do to regain the trust and confidence of the Americanpublic.

00:00 Introduction 01:12 Murthy vs. Missouri 17:05 Politicization of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) 20:45 Loss of trust in public health 25:45 Biden vs. Trump on COVID 27:49 What Bhattacharya got wrong 29:35 COVID-19 vaccines mistakes 34:53 RFK Jr. and other vaccine skeptics 39:44 What would Bhattacharya revise? 42:17 How Bhattacharya's politics changed 44:20 How do we restore trust in public health?

Previous appearance:

Excerpt from:
Jay Bhattacharya: 'I Sued the Biden Administration for COVID Censorship' - Reason