Mediaboss Marketing

(NewsNation) As momentum grows in Congress to ban TikTok, a small but influential group of lawmakers is now speaking up against a ban.

The lawmakers are asking one basic question: Why TikTok?

Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., said a ban on TikTok amounts to censorship, a violation of Americans First Amendment rights.

It would basically be a limitless authority for the president to ban speech, argued Paul.

Paul also said the way TikTok collects American users data is no different from what Facebook or other social media platforms do.

A lawmaker who doesnt often agree with Sen. Paul shared that same view in this case.

Progressive U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., went on TikTok to oppose a ban.

Hey everyone this is congresswoman AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and this is my first TikTok, she posted.

Ocasio-Cortez says the real problem is data collection in general, and banning TikTok does not solve it.

That doesnt address the core of the issue, she said. Which is the fact that major social media companies are allowed to collect troves of deeply personal data about you that you dont know about.

It appears, however, a majority of Congress supports a ban.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., once a CIA intelligence officer, told NewsNation that TikTok is different from other social media platforms.

TikTok poses a very unique threat in that its parent company ByteDance is directly linked, owned by, communicates directly with, the Chinese Communist Party, Spanberger said.

Spanberger says perhaps a bigger threat than data collection is that the Chinese government controls what American users see in their feeds.

According to Spanberger, it could be used as a propaganda tool to spread misleading or false information.

The ability to feed information to them based on what is put in their viewing reel, that is potentially very, very potent and very, very powerful, Spanberger said.

Read more from the original source:
How TikTok is bringing AOC, Sen. Rand Paul together - NewsNation Now

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

See the original post here:
A rally for the Internet Archive is a "Battle for Libraries" - San Francisco Examiner

In a world where extreme violence appears to pass almost unchallenged, our continuing issue with a penis or vulva is mystifying and alarming

March 26, 2023 11:42 am(Updated 6:11 pm)

When were you shocked by a piece of art? Do you find nudity tricky, or does anything go? Why is a penis more offensive than a breast? We may not think much about such matters until were forced to and discover we care. That was me when I read about the poor school principal in Florida who was forced to resign after her sixth-grade (11 to 12-year-old) pupils were shown an image of Michelangelos iconic David statue, without parents being warned in advance. The class also discussed Botticellis equally iconic Birth of Venus. Shocking!

I am reasonably sure that many of you will share my initial mirth. However, I am equally certain that mirth soon gives way to fear over what this story says about the creeping censorship and cancel culture associated with the ultra-conservatism that is now so rooted in the southern United States.

Floridas far-right governor Ron DeSantis, the Republicans chief alternative to Donald Trump for 2024, had just days before signed off on dont say gay legislation, banning the teaching of sex education and gender identity issues to under-12s.

How did principal Hope Carrasquilla of Tallahassee Classical School find herself in this mess? That creeping censorship was insidious. Last year, the school had warned conservative parents that their children might see David in his glory, this year it did not. The exotically named chair of the school board, Barney Bishop III, described this omission as egregious.

David was originally commissioned by the Medicis to be placed in the Renaissance cathedral of Florence. Upon completion in 1504 it was regarded as the greatest work of art ever, so wonderful that it should be exhibited outside in the city. The weather took its toll and David was eventually moved to the Accademia, where it resides today.

Famously, 400-plus years later, a copy was made as a gift to Queen Victoria, who regifted it to the new South Kensington Museum (todays Victoria and Albert). When she saw it, she was so shocked that the museum commissioned a fig leaf sculpture to place strategically on the statue whenever she visited.

Perhaps you have your own trigger points in art. Would you have been outraged by Marcel Duchamps 1917 Fountain, a signed porcelain urinal? Maybe you recall the furore surrounding the infamous 1997 Sensation exhibition which included both Marcus Harveys painting of killer Myra Hindley and Chris Ofilis Holy Virgin Mary made from porn magazines and elephant dung. Shock art in history often involved the female nude, notably when women were portrayed defiantly; gazing shamelessly at the onlooker as in Manets 1865 Olympia: neither passive, nor demure.

When we condemn Florida conservatives as philistines, we must note our own red lines. One persons Michelangelo is anothers Damian Hirst, Picasso or Banksy. But, in a world where extreme violence in art appears to pass almost unchallenged, our continuing issue with a penis or vulva is mystifying and alarming.

Sadly, there appear to be few votes in defending the arts like Winston Churchill, who in 1938 said: The arts are essential to any complete national life. Florida reveals we are not fighting for individual artworks, but defending a belief system against the likes of Barney Bishop III. It really does matter.

@stefanohat

The rest is here:
The ultra-conservative obsession with censoring genitalia in art is creeping across the West - inews

Sign up to our free IndyArts newsletter for all the latest entertainment news and reviewsSign up to our free IndyArts newsletter

Bestselling author Anthony Horowitz has said he is against tampering with the works of dead writers, amid an ongoing row over sensitivity readers.

In recent months, texts by late authors such as Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie and James Bond creator Ian Fleming have been found to have been updated by their publishers and literary estates.

A number of prominent writers and public figures have spoken against the practice, with Sir Philip Pullman suggesting it would be better to let the books go out of print.

Appearing at Oxford Literary Festival, Horowitz, the bestselling author of books including the Alex Rider series as well as three Bond novels, reportedly said he believed it was better for children to read books that might be deemed offensive than none at all.

The Times also claimed he said Dahls publishers had shot themselves in the foot with the updates, which involved removing descriptions of characters as fat and ugly.

They really shot themselves in the foot with their attempts to bowdlerise it, he said, calling the changes sacrilege.

Im basically opposed to tampering with the work of dead writers, he said. They cant defend themselves. It seems to me that you should take the work, judge it and be aware of why we no longer share these opinions, or this view of the world. Rather than censor, cut and take out stuff.

He later added: Whatever your view of the book, even if it is something considered offensive or trivial or trite, it is better than not reading. As long as they read something.

(Getty Images)

Following a backlash, including unprecedented criticism from Queen Consort Camilla, Puffin said it would retain the new versions of Dahls books but also offer original editions.

An earlier statement had said the changes were made to ensure that the books could continue to be enjoyed by all today.

The Independent has contacted Horowitzs representatives and Puffin for comment.

Horowitz has previously complained about sensitivity readings of his own work.

My publishers have been more nervous in the editing of my books, he claimed in an interview last year. Issues of levels of violence, language and attitudes do get more closely examined. Ive had some of my books read for sensitivity. But thats the 21st century. Peoples attitudes have changed and what didnt offend people 40 years ago does now.

Asked about how he approaches the character of 007, he remarked: When Im writing the books I always hear Sean Connery and see Daniel Craig. I am perfectly happy to defend Bond. My Bond is a man of the Fifties and Sixties, so he lives by a different moral code to the one we have now.

I refute the suggestion that he is chauvinistic or sexist or misogynistic. I think he treats women very well in the books and has great respect for them, yet I admit he has some of the attitudes that we now would not celebrate in the 21st century, but thats because the books were written in the 20th century. It was a different time.

See original here:
Anthony Horowitz says Roald Dahl publishers 'shot themselves in the foot' - The Independent

Stop and pray on the street in front of an abortion facility in England or Wales and you could find yourself under arrest. Never mind if your thoughts were lifted to God silently. Clause 11 of the Public Order Bill, recently adopted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, bans influencing of any sort, including prayer, in a 150-meter zone around abortion facilities nationwide. An amendment to exempt silent prayer and consensual conversation from the ban failed, ushering in a new era of modern-day thought crimes in the U.K.

The parliamentary debate played out like a dystopian film script. Concerned Members of Parliament repeatedly raised the question: In a free society, should we really be arresting individuals on the basis of their thoughts? Hell-bent on the introduction of so-called buffer zones, the opposition argued that these zones are essential to protect women seeking an abortion from intimidation. When pushed on the question of thought crimes, Rupa Huq, Member of Parliament from Britains Labour Party, summed up the pro-censorship view: There is a time and a place for everythingincluding, in her estimation, the banning of silent prayer.

In December of last year, the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland dealt the first death blow to free expression on this issue. The court not only ruled in favor of censorship zones, but also went so far as to uphold the legitimacy of prohibiting silent prayer which is unwanted, unwelcome and intrusive. Per the court, behavior deemed silent but reproachful can and should be banned in a censorship zone. This set a grim precedent for what soon would befall England and Wales.

In parliament, the censorship zone provision was first voted through the House of Commons in October, then debated in the House of Lords, and finally adopted by the Commons on March 7. The bill was modified so that the penalty for breach of the zone was reduced from a prison sentence to a fine. While under debate, two individuals were charged and one fined for silent prayer in the English cities of Birmingham and Bournemouth, where censorship zones already are in force. Their stories went viral, showing the world that the U.K. really is weaponizing the law to punish peaceful people for praying on the street.

Pro-life volunteer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested in December for the crime of silent prayer in a Birmingham censorship zone. In February, she was acquitted fully in court, only to be arrested once again for the exact same act on the day before the parliamentary vote that passed Clause 11. The arresting officercommented:You've said you're engaging in prayer, which is the offense. To which Isabel replied: Silent prayer. His answer spoke volumesYou were still engaging in prayer, which is the offense.

Next came Catholic priest Father Sean Gough, who was criminally charged, and likewise acquitted, for praying silently in the same Birmingham zone. In addition, he was charged for having an unborn lives matter bumper sticker on his car, which was parked in the zone. Army veteran Adam Smith-Connor was fined for silent prayerin Bournemouth. The city has in place an absurdly specific ordinance, banning a host of activities ranging from sprinkling holy water, kneeling, reading Scripture, and praying in the vicinity of the local abortion facility.

Despite these egregious, and very real, examples of thought crime prosecution, what happened to Isabel, Father Sean, and Adam is now a nationwide reality in the U.K. Following the adoption of the new law, the potential for infringements on fundamental freedoms is immense. Strikingly, the proposed amendment to exempt silent prayer and consensual conversation from the law lost in parliament with 116 votes in favor and 299 againsta dark day for democracy. Two hundred and ninety-nine British Members of Parliament think prayer in certain public places should be an offense under the law.

Censorship zones generate widespread legal chaos, equipping the state to criminalize peaceful activities on the public street with disastrous consequences for a free society. And yet their proponents claim they are protecting women. While laudable in theory, this goal is but a farce. Harassment is always wrong, which is why it is already a crime under U.K. law. These zones have nothing to do with preventing harassment. You dont need football field-sized silencing zones to accomplish that. This is about stifling a certain point of viewin this case, the view that every unborn child has the right to life.

Every person should have the right to peacefully think, pray, and act in accordance with his or her convictions. Following the introduction of these draconian prohibitions, we can expect severe consequences for fundamental freedoms in the U.K. Today the state is leveraging its silencing power to promote abortion, but tomorrow it could extend similar measures to other issues. It is high time all concerned with the preservation of a free society stand on guard against the thought police.

Elyssa Koren is an international human rights lawyer and director of legal communications forADF International, which supports the defense of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, Father Sean Gough, and Adam Smith-Connor.

First Thingsdepends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.

Clickhereto make a donation.

Clickhereto subscribe toFirst Things.

Image by Justin Brendel.

Excerpt from:
Prayer As Thought Crime | Elyssa Koren - First Things