Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

NCAC Objects to Removal of LGBTQ Artwork in Georgia School – Blogging Censorship

NCAC Objects to Removal of Students LGBTQ Artwork in Georgia School

The National Coalition Against Censorship is deeply concerned that officials at Oglethorpe Avenue Elementary School in Athens, Georgia, removed student artwork celebrating gay rights. Media reports indicate that multiple school officials compared displaying a rainbow flag to displaying a swastika in the classroom after demanding a teacher remove artwork students had created on their own time.

Whether administrators removed the artwork because they disagreed with the particular social views expressed or because they disapprove of any student expression of political or social views, this silencing of student expression is inconsistent with freedom of expression principles and violates the public schools First Amendment obligations. NCAC has written to the Board of Education to urge the district to return the artwork to public display, apologize to the student and take steps to ensure that similar acts of art censorship do not occur in the future.

The removal of the students artwork raises serious First Amendment concerns. More than fifty years ago, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court declared that students have the right to express themselves on school grounds as long as they do not substantially disrupt the activities of the school. The Court reconfirmed that principle just months ago in Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B. L. (2021). Mere disagreement with students points of view obviously doesnt meet that standard. Students must be permitted to express their political and personal beliefs in school, including in their artwork.

To avoid the recurrence of such incidents in the future, NCAC urges the District to instruct its employees on the free expression rights of students and to take further steps to ensure that those rights will be respected in the future.

View NCACs Youth Censorship Database and Map

Read the full letter to the school district below. Click here for a full screen view:

See the rest here:
NCAC Objects to Removal of LGBTQ Artwork in Georgia School - Blogging Censorship

Hyper conservative politicians have hijacked critical race theory to try and censor painful truths | Opinion – Courier Journal

Willie Carver| Opinion Contributor

I have been a public school teacher since 2009, and Ive seen plenty of silencing. Im not proud to say that Ive even partaken in some, when I thought I had to keep quiet myself just to keep my job. But the censorship persists: I have been chastised directly by male colleagues for being too feminine, Ive been pulled aside by a principal who said that if I chose to be open about being gay I would be crucified and undefended, and, most recently, Ive been bluntly told that people felt that my LGBTQ student advocacy lending a listening ear, or sponsoring student-led clubs was being shoved down their throats.

Still, none of this comes close to the silencing we are now experiencing in the Kentucky classroom. It is so bad that the future of free speech and our students empathy and self-image hang in the balance.

Whereas most of my silencing has been behind closed doors, whispered only to me, this new censorship is boldly proclaimed as moral or even best practice. And it goes far beyond squelching LGBTQ experiences: It silences huge swaths of people and entire eras of history by banning discussion of anything related to race.

All of this is framed in the controversy over critical race theory, a term hyper-conservative politicians have hijacked to try and censor the painful truths of our nations history. Although CRT is a concept limited to university-level study, that has not stopped the introduction of legislation that is preventing K-12 educators from teaching honest history or discussing its connection to systemic racism and discrimination today.

Censoring tactics like the Krause list, a list of 850 books Texas state Rep. Matt Krause wants schools to track because of content related to sexuality, race, or anything that may cause discomfort or psychological distress, and Kentucky House Bills 14 and 18, which hope to outright ban certain topics and books from schools under the guise ofavoiding division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social classor class of people are causing major damage to free speech. In the schools themselves, local decrees, made in fear of these proposed bills, are just as damaging, if not more so, due to their vague nature. My schools English department has been instructed by multiple administrators in the last year not to teach anything racial, and our superintendent has requested anything sexual or racial be discussed with administrators before being presented to students.

The people behind this censorship are firmly rooted in the current zeitgeist, and their views are shared by administrators across the country: They believe the presence of race, genderand LGBTQ identities to be potentially problematic or disruptive. That silences teachers who want to be team players or just keep their jobs.

Given these circumstances, how willing is a teacher to read excerpts from The Bluest Eye? Not very. Why? Because Black author Toni Morrison describes racism through the eyes of a little Black girl. Might the same teacher read The Great Gatsby? Yes. Why? Because white author F. Scott Fitzgerald focuses on privileged white people. Herein lies the issue.

The censors say they are offended that race should matter at all. But if we eliminate all discussion of race which censors equate with all discussion of anything Black we whitewash the entire curriculum and erase the students in our classrooms, our own communities, and history itself. We deny our students the tools they need to see the world clearly.

More: Kentucky lawmakers file dozens of education bills each year. Ones to watch in 2022

I worry most about the students. In a system that disincentivizes even references to race, gender, or LGBT identities, in which two-thirds of the books on Krauses list are LGBTQ-centered and one-tenth discusses racism, how can students learn about themselves as part of a system? And how ourwhite, straight, cisgender students to learn about the experiences of people who are different from them experiences that are, essentially, illegalized in schools?

The First Amendment ensures that freedom of speech may not be abridged, and our understanding of speech has evolved tremendously since its writing. Legally, speech has been expanded to mean actions, workand even the free use of money by corporations. Academically, we also understand that speech involves the opportunity to listen: Hearing and reading are essential and fundamental aspects of free speech. Censorship denies students this very right: to hear someone talk about themselves, to know more about the human experience, to better understand their place in relation to each other, to partake in the sharing of the marketplace of ideas.

I urge teachers, administrators and stakeholders to become aware of the extent to which curricula include people of color and LGBTQ people, and I urge them to speak up when voices would silence that inclusion. I fully support legislation and am thankful for advocacy by groups like the American Federation of Teachers that guarantee and fight for students rights to access voices in their classroom regardless of their gender, sexuality, raceor political beliefs and that protect those teachers who share them. I believe strongly that when any of us is not allowed to be heard, all our voices are threatened.

Willie Carver teaches French and English at Montgomery County Schools in Mount Sterling, KY. He is the 2022 Kentucky Teacher of theYear.

Interested in submitting an op-ed or guest column?

Read tips here: How to submit a guest opinion column or op-ed to The Courier Journal

Read this article:
Hyper conservative politicians have hijacked critical race theory to try and censor painful truths | Opinion - Courier Journal

Former Tokyo Governor, Infamous for Manga Censorship, Passes Away – We Got This Covered

Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

Japanese politician, writer, and former Governor of Tokyo Shintaro Ishihara passed away this morning at 89 following a relapse of pancreatic cancer. He is remembered as an extremist, ultranationalist, xenophobe, and censor.

Ishihara was born in 1933 and rose to popularity as an author. While still in college, he was awarded one of the nations most prestigious literary awards, the Akutagawa Prize, for his novel Season of the Sun (published as Season of Violence in English). He entered politics in 1968 following his reporting on the Vietnam War.

Ishihara joined Japans Liberal Democratic Party, which has ruled Japan almost continuously since 1955. The party is broadly conservative and nationalistic, though Ishihara would define his own extremist ideology under no uncertain terms as a rising star in the party and the governor of Tokyo from 1999 to 2012.

As Crunchyroll reports, his views range from xenophobia towards Japans neighbors to war crime denialism to homophobia. He was also closely involved in Tokyos bid to host the Olympic Games as governor and then as Chairman of the Japanese Olympic Committee.

And in his last of four terms as governor, Ishihara infamously stoked tension with China by pushing the LDP to stake claims in the East China Sea and notably amending the Tokyo Metropolitan Ordinance Regarding the Healthy Development of Youths to expand the governments control over the publishing industry. Despite widespread opposition to the bill from publishers and writers, the bill passed and has been enforced since 2011.

While in office, Ishihara split from the LDP, forming a faction of far-right politicians under the banner of the Sunrise Party (named for his novel). After he left office, the party would undergo several splits and mergers, all of which have dissolved in the years since. He retired following a lost election in 2014.

The Japan Times reports former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, another controversial conservative figure, praised the late politician.

He is survived by his four sons.

Read the original:
Former Tokyo Governor, Infamous for Manga Censorship, Passes Away - We Got This Covered

Tucker Carlson: Youre not allowed to use government power to shut down people who criticize you – Fox News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Joe Rogan may be the most popular broadcaster in the English-speaking world right now. Every episode of his podcast "The Joe Rogan Experience" reaches about 11 million people, and some of the episodes get an audience many times that. How many people is that? It's a lot.

For perspective, last night, CNN's highest-rated show had a little over 700,000 viewers total. So Joe Rogan is big, and unlike CNN, he's not especially political. His show covers pretty much everything: comedy, science, nutrition, the paranormal, recreational drug use, exercise, mixed martial arts, music, Hollywood and a huge range of other topics, often with guests you've never heard of.

Rogan is not a reactionary, unlike most people in the media, he doesn't think he already knows everything. He's genuinely curious, and so he lets his guests speak. His longest interview lasted for more than five hours with a standup comedian. When Rogan does talk about politics, it's pretty clear he's not an ideologue. He interviews everybody. Liberals and conservatives, as well as a lot of people like Mike Tyson, who could be either one. And he does it most of the time with respect and self-deprecation.

He's not an expert on politics. He's not pretending to be one. Rogan just asks questions, and he notes the obvious. It's this last quality that makes the people in charge hate and fear Joe Rogan. If you're trying to sell an absurd, obviously untrue idea, it is possible that Joe Rogan is going to call you on it. Not because he's a partisan, he's not. But because he just can't help but notice. That's his secret. A few months ago, Rogan watched the White House press secretary lie about the FDA's approval process for Pfizer's COVID vaccine. So he said something about it. Watch.

ROGAN: Jen Psaki's talking about misinformation online and combating misinformation. She distributed misinformation, because she said that it's approved by the FDA and their gold standard.

JOE ROGAN'S RESPONSE TO CRITICS LEAVES MANY LIBERAL PUNDITS UNSATISFIED

Yeah. What he said was true. Rogan's pretty literal, actually. It's one of the reasons people trust him. And he was right in this case. Jen Psaki was lying to the country, and it wasn't even an especially clever lie. Anyone with internet access could have verified that what Jen Psaki said was a total crock, from the podium, too. But when Joe Rogan points this out, it really stings. A lot of the people listening to him believe him. And the White House took notice. So what happened next? Well, here's Jen Psaki from yesterday calling on Joe Rogan's employer to censor him. Watch.

PSAKI: This disclaimer, it's a positive step, but we want every platform to continue doing more to call out misinformation and disinformation, while also uplifting accurate information. But ultimately, you know, our view is, it's a good step, it's a positive step, but there's more that can be done.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

There's more that can be done? Hey, you little fascist, that's a threat. That's exactly what it is. Politicians and their spokes chicks didn't use to talk this way. They were not allowed to talk this way because the First Amendment explicitly prohibits it. You're not allowed to use government power to shut down broadcasters who criticize you. Period. And now that's exactly what they're trying to do.

So far, Joe Rogan's employer, Spotify, hasn't caved to the pressure. Rogan still has a job, but the company is bending. It's deleted more than 20,000 COVID-related podcast episodes made by other Spotify hosts. Spotify claims they "cause harm." How exactly can a podcast cause harm? Spotify didn't explain, because, of course, they couldn't explain.

HOW JOE ROGAN BECAME PUBLIC ENEMY NO. 1 TO MEDIA LIBERALS IN THE BATTLE OVER COVID MISINFORMATION

Podcasts don't cause harm, weapons cause harm. Anyone who knows anything about American business right now understood what's actually going on. In a moment like this, it is virtually impossible to run a public company, no matter how hard you try. It's not just in podcasting, it's not just Spotify. It's any company with shareholders; from breakfast cereal manufacturers to tennis shoe retailers. The political pressure is coming at these companies from all sides; from activist investors, from the media, from their own employees. Every day is a brand-new crisis. Imagine the emails between the CEO and the PR department. They never stop. And under those circumstances, it's impossible to think clearly, to stand on principle, or even to consider your own best interests long-term. That's what's going on with Spotify. They probably don't want to censor anybody. They're being pushed to. In their case, pressure to censor Joe Rogan over his views is coming from other content providers on the site, and most of them are D-listers, you should know.

The other day, that annoying fake duchess from L.A. and her brain-dead husband threatened to walk if Spotify refused to muzzle Joe Rogan. "Hundreds of millions of people are affected by the serious harms of rampant mis- and disinformation every day," they yelped through a publicist. But of course, they don't mean that, they're not going anywhere. These two grifters have a $25 million podcast deal with Spotify for essentially no work. So far, we believe they produced just over 30 minutes of content. That means these two have been paid about a million dollars for each minute of talking they've done. That's a good gig. It's too good to leave. But their performance does raise the question, what exactly about Joe Rogan's podcast has caused "serious harm?" We're literal, too. So we scoured his archives to find out. And it turns out, as usual, the opposite is true. Joe Rogan is actually a force for safety in this world. Watch this clip in which he warns the public about the dangers of approaching gorillas in the wild. It turns out, sneaking up on a gorilla, as Joe Rogan pointed out, could lead to actual serious harm.

Spotify announced that it will begin to put a disclaimer at the beginning of Joe Rogans show when he discusses COVID. (Photo by: Vivian Zink/Syfy/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images)

ROGAN: We're so soft, we think it's okay to look at a wild animal in its eyes, that's how stupid we are. "Hi, hey, we're cool, man, we're from National Geographic Society, we're just going to make sure your baby's okay." Crazy, 800-pound silverback is bursting through the trees. It's right in your face. He's got fangs and only eats vegetables. The fangs are only designed to f--- you up. And you couldn't even imagine what an 800-pound gorilla strength is like because you would think of it as like an 800-pound man, but it would really be more like a 3,000 pound man.

JOE ROGAN BREAKS SILENCE AFTER NEIL YOUNG'S SPOTIFY CONTROVERSY

He's interested in animals, by the way, and he's curious, that's part of the allure. People in the media are paid to be curious, to ask questions, to wonder about other people. None of them do. They just want to lecture you. This guy actually is interested. But no one who is criticizing him seems to know that, doesn't seem like they have actually listened to his show. Neil Young probably never has. Neil Young is an elderly folk singer from the nation of Canada. Young is already pulled his music from Spotify in protest of Rogan's open-mindedness. Does Neil Young actually own his own music? We don't know. But we know that the gesture received widespread applause from the usual morons who then revealed themselves to be even dumber than you thought they were. Variety Magazine, for example, which still exists, informed us that Neil Young stands against Joe Rogan, makes him "a hero" to the younger generations. Right. Because if there's one person kids of today revere, worship like a god, it's 76-year-old Neil Young. They take Neil Young over Joe Rogan any day because young people everywhere are anxious to side with the Biden administration and demand the firing of any podcast or interviews Kamala Harris disagrees with. It's hilarious. They're more out-of-touch than Neil Young is. But at CNN, they've convinced themselves it's all totally true because Joe Rogan is peddling misinformation. Therefore, he must be stopped.

BRIAN STELTER: You think about major newsrooms like CNN that have health departments and deaths and operations that work hard on verified information on COVID-19. And then you have talk show stars like Joe Rogan who just wing it, who make it up as they go along, and because figures like Rogan are trusted by people that don't trust real newsrooms, we have a tension, a problem that's much bigger than Spotify, much bigger than any single platform.

People are trusting Joe Rogan over eunuchs can you imagine? Damn the people. They should be watching CNN. CNN has departments and desks and entire operations designed to verify information and filter out misinformation. And that's why they described Ivermectin, which in Joe Rogan's case was prescribed by a human doctor as "horse de-wormer" and did on like nine different shows. And those same standards led them to suggest, famously, that a passenger jet must have been sucked into a black hole.

Spotify faces recent backlash over Joe Rogan podcast. REUTERS

DON LEMON: What if it was hijacking or terrorism or mechanical failure or pilot error, but what if them was something fully that we don't really understand? A lot of people have been asking about that, about black holes and on and on and on. Also referencing "The Twilight Zone," which is a very similar plot. That's what people are saying. I know it's preposterous, but is it preposterous you think?

We can't get enough. Yes, that clip was from eight years ago, but we watch it every single morning, along with our pilates and sauna just to get ready for the day. And if you want to watch a lot more like that, CNN has just announced you can subscribe to CNN+, and Don Lemon will be on there constantly, for a small extra fee. So that's their answer to Joe Rogan: more nonsense but the lowest-rated dummies in the entire TV business. Joe Rogan, meanwhile, consistently turns out interesting, informative programing just by being curious, just by asking obvious questions. That's all it takes. Care about what other people are saying. Watch the world around you. Take an interest in something beyond yourself. And when he does that, they don't like it. Watch this exchange with Dr. Robert Malone, who is one of the inventors of mRNA technology.

DR. MALONE: The how question of a third of the population basically being hypnotized, and totally wrapped up in whatever Tony Fauci and the mainstream media feeds them, whatever CNN tells them is true. The answer is mass formation psychosis. When you have a society that has become decoupled from each other and has free-floating anxiety in a sense that things don't make sense. We can't understand it. And then their attention gets focused by a leader or series of events on one small point, just like hypnosis. They literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere.

That was the interview that pushed CNN completely over the edge, not because it was false, but because it was entirely credible. "Hypnotizing the public?" "That's our job", they said. "Mass formation psychosis?" "Yeah, that's us." So of course, they immediately set about encouraging the tech platforms to ban that interview. Dr. Malone, again, one of the inventors of mRNA technology, being used in over a billion doses of vaccine, currently in people's bodies, that's the man who was talking. Credible? Yeah, no one more credible than that. And that's exactly why they hated it. That's exactly what they said you couldn't hear it. Now that same month, it was justthis past December, Rogan spoke to a doctor called Peter McCullough about Ivermectin. Watch

MCCULLOUGH: Sanjay Gupta and the CNN correspondent, there was no fair balance there. He parodied a talking point that our head of the National Allergy and Immunology branch parodied. They said that there was no data for Ivermectin. They said it was a horse de-wormer. Now, either they knew or they should have known the 63 supportive studies and the over 30 randomized trials.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

So those are facts. And if you think they're wrong, tell us how they're wrong. But why shouldn't people hear that? Why shouldn't they be allowed to? Well, because Dr. Peter McCullough, who certainly has the credentials to do it, criticize the people in charge. He mocks CNN for ignoring dozens of clinical trials, making fun of a drug that could have helped a lot of people, possibly saved lives. What do you think of that? Well, that's immoral, of course.

But notice what Joe Rogan didn't do in the face of that information. He didn't call for CNN to be censored because they spread disinformation. He didn't say we have to pull CNN off the air, they're killing people. Because he's not for censorship. You know who is for censorship? Weak people are for censorship. I can't handle what you're throwing at me shut up or else. That's exactly what they're saying. Strong people don't behave that way. Only the weak. Everybody knows that. They can smell it. And the reason Joe Rogan is successful? Because he's not weak. That's the truth.

This article is adapted from Tucker Carlson's opening commentary on the February 2, 2022, edition of "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Read the original:
Tucker Carlson: Youre not allowed to use government power to shut down people who criticize you - Fox News

Calling the Sydney festival boycott censorship is a disingenuous attempt by those in power to silence Palestinians – The Guardian

In early December 2021, Palestinians and Arabs representing a diversity of creative, activist and academic practice approached the board of Sydney festival after it was revealed the board had accepted $20,000 funding from the Israeli embassy for the presentation of Sydney Dance Companys realisation of Decadance, a work created by Israeli choreographer Ohad Naharin of the Batsheva Dance Company of Tel Aviv. The amount gave the embassy star partnership status with Sydney Festival.

We made three requests: divest from the star partnership, end all relations with the State of Israel, and remove any Israeli government emblem from Sydney festivals promotional material.

In arguing our case for divestment, we said Arab and Palestinian communities would not participate in a festival that does business with a state that stands credibly accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, according to crimes defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In 2021, Human Rights Watch found Israel is committing crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.

We made it clear artists and arts organisations fundamental partners in any arts festival felt betrayed by Sydney festival. Finally, we pointed out this partnership denied artists an environment of cultural safety, leaving artists, creatives and companies with no choice but to withdraw.

Our arguments were rejected by the board on the grounds Sydney festival is a non-political organisation. In response, Palestinians and a cross-section of artists, arts organisations and communities publicly called for a boycott of the Sydney festival, inspired and guided by the global Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, founded and led by Palestinian civil society.

The effusive response to the boycott call has been unprecedented, in fact historic. It is being cited as the most effective, creative and impactful campaign targeting complicit Israeli sponsorship of an international arts event in Australia, and indeed one of the most successful in the world.

The backlash to this artist-led cultural boycott has been predictable, indeed recycling arguments used in the 1980s against the boycott of apartheid South Africa.

One criticism in particular exposes how liberalisms conceits of free speech, marketplace of ideas, open debate and dialogue is weaponised against Palestinians to shut down their right to resist and to deny them permission to narrate as renowned Palestinian-American professor Edward Said famously argued in 1984.

According to New South Wales arts minister Ben Franklin, it is the boycott not the actions of Sydney festival which shut down specific creative voices simply on account of their nationality, acting as a kind of censorship.

In an opinion piece published in the Australian, federal arts minister Paul Fletcher described those involved in the boycott as Stalinist censors and Hamas useful idiots. Such contrived hysteria over the boycott stultif[ying] and suppress[ing] artistic and creative excellence, and laughable comparisons with Stalinist Russia, are amusingly desperate claims and demonstrate just how rattled Israels defenders are in the face of incontrovertible daily evidence of that states brutality.

The arguments are embarrassing and spurious. Organisers have repeatedly stated the cultural boycott aims at institutions not individuals, targeting complicity, not identity. There was never any attempt to shut down the actual production of Decadance. The target of the boycott call was Sydney festival as a cultural institution for its refusal to divest from its sponsorship and therefore its complicity with the State of Israel.

That Palestinians and their supporters are being forced to explain and restate the basis and terms of the boycott call, only to be ignored and misrepresented is a form of censorship itself. Whose voices are privileged: those who defend oppression or those resisting it?

Those arguing against the boycott claim boycotts burn rather than build bridges. At the first meeting with the board, artists made the crucial point bridges must be built on ethical and just foundations. A star partnership with the State of Israeli is one way to destroy these foundations and for this reason artists cannot, in good conscience, cross that bridge.

The boards refusal to listen to artists is a form of silencing.

The weaponising of censorship against the boycott is hollow because the ministers conveniently ignore questions of power and privilege. The power dynamics between artists and the board of Sydney festival, between marginalised communities and the monocultural establishment, between individuals and institutions are key critical points of reflection here.

What makes these censorship allegations even more disingenuous is the fact that in the same breath as Palestinians and their allies are accused of being censorious, opposition arts spokesperson, Labors Walt Secord called for legislation to cut off funding to arts organisations that participate in a boycott of Israel. Freedom of expression it seems is only afforded to those in power and with power.

Those who attack cultural boycotts in the name of free speech are invariably missing in action when Palestinians are routinely censored, bullied and cancelled for daring to speak their truth. Certainly they remain silent and indifferent to the violent suppression of Palestinian arts and culture, on the raids, lawfare and intimidation of Palestinian artists and artistic and cultural institutions.

This is precisely why the boycott of Sydney festival has been called and indeed, why it has been so impactful and effective.

More:
Calling the Sydney festival boycott censorship is a disingenuous attempt by those in power to silence Palestinians - The Guardian