Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Censorship has never been so democratic – Rest of World

Last summer, as protests gathered steam in Cuba, the internet shut down. The general consensus was that the government had instituted the blackout to smother protests. Whether it worked or not is still under question, but that hasnt stopped internet censorship from spreading and not just among undemocratic governments.

Even some of the purportedly freest countries on Earth are increasingly being tempted to use censorship, especially as a blunt tool for unplugging the internet for all. And increasingly, this is now giving way to the surgical precision of specialized, cheap, off-the-shelf products that can help trace and silence specific groups, messages, or individuals.

In this sense, Latin America is a perfect testing ground. Its a region where the majority of states are technically democracies, but where governments slip towards authoritarian methods to get things done from time to time. Governments are using facial recognition technology that disproportionately hurts Black citizens or spying on opposition journalists, sometimes with the broad support of their own citizens.

But, as a global investigation undertaken by Rest of World revealed this week, the silencing goes beyond disruptive internet kill switches or the infamous, and expensive, Pegasus software used for years by governments across the world and Latin America. Today, far more sophisticated and affordable tools exist. These include deep packet inspection, known as DPI, which allows data and the way it moves on the internet to be read by an outside entity.

These rather shady-sounding tools often have legal and legitimate uses, either because of security concerns or because they can help ameliorate the efficiency of traffic. Its what makes this sort of software so problematic; it is a neutral tool that could prevent child pornography or make your Netflix run faster. It can also shut down and silence a governments political opposition.

The concern around these tools also goes beyond the usual suspects (like Cuba or Venezuela). As digital censorship becomes more accessible, more seemingly benign democracies with easy access to this software and with legal measures to use them may be tempted to deploy them improperly. Over the past three years, Brazil, Cuba, Mexico, and Nicaragua have all passed laws that allow for digital censorship and surveillance in one form or another. It takes just one government official with an authoritarian bent to turn these systems into tools of censorship and repression.

It is not only the governed that are worried though. As government institutions like Mexicos Secretariat of the Economy to Argentinas Senate know, non-state actors are also showing how vulnerable even the most powerful states can be on the internet. In Brazil, a famous group of hackers worked their way into the Ministry of Healths website a number of times. The Brazilian government was lucky; the groups intent was simply to make a point about how vulnerable everybody really is on the internet:

This site remains absolutely shit and nothing has been done to correct it, the hackers wrote on the Ministry of Healths site.

Go here to read the rest:
Censorship has never been so democratic - Rest of World

Censorship: The child of fear and the father of ignorance – Gettysburg Times

Silencing dissent has an ignoble and inglorious history reaching far back to ancient times. Socrates was made to pay the ultimate price for corrupting the minds of youth in fourth century BC Athens. According to the American Library Association (ALA) Office of Intellectual Freedom, there has been a 60% increase in book challenges in 2021 compared to 2020. The office tracked 729 challenges to library, school, and university materials in 2021, resulting in more than 1,597 individual book challenges or removals. According to the ALA most targeted books were by or about Black or LGBQ+ persons. Over the same period, a total of 26 states have banned books. Texas leads but sadly PA ranks second behind Texas in banned books 456 bans in 16 school districts.

In 1982, the Supreme Court provided clear guidance regarding censorship. It upheld First Amendment rights of students including the right to access information and ideas and affirmed that school boards cannot remove books simply because it or someone doesnt like its ideas, and, in this way, attempt to establish what is orthodox teaching. It also focused on the need for adherence to procedures to removing books. And to ensure First Amendment Rights, formal procedures have developed for parents and school boards to use when the need arises. Unfortunately, over the past year 98% of efforts to remove books violated these procedures.

It is of interest to note that authoritarian regimes tend to suppress politically unwelcome books while democratic countries are obsessed with problems of decency and immorality. (Harris, B; Banning Books: Media Law and Practice, June 1988.) While todays ban the books fever is as fierce and destructive as in years past, it is also cynically deceptive. Over the past year, book banning is characterized by an effort to stop students from learning while using the foil of restoring parental control.

Disruptions in the wake of the Trump administration, the arrival and lingering persistence of the pandemic together with cancelled school days, and heightened fears following the murder of George Floyd have all created a cauldron of bewilderment, belligerence, and violence. According to the Gettysburg Times, at a July 31, 2021, meeting of the Gettysburg Area School District Board, a member of a national organization known as Moms for Liberty accused the board of instructing students in CRT, i.e., Critical Race Theory. Republican Glenn Youngkin successfully used the foil of parental control to subvert instruction in CRT and won election as governor. Youngkins victory resonated widely among Republicans and resulted in calls by people like Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to create a Parents Bill of Rights. An examination of claims suggests that most people who try to ban books dont even read the literature they hope to ban (Banned Books, a Study of Censorship: Banned Books Literature and Digital Diversity, northeastern.edu). Importantly neither Virginia nor Pennsylvania mandate instruction in CRT!

The pandemic has been hard on teachers, school boards, and parents. Is it not time for all to take stock and refocus on the needs of our children? Recent polling shows that a vast majority of voters, Democrats (70%), Independents (58%), Republican (70%), oppose removing books from public libraries while 74% of polled parents express a high degree of confidence in the decisions made by school libraries (Hart Research Associates and North Star Opinion Research on behalf of the American Library Association). The recent uptake to ban or remove books from school libraries is the result of a small cohort of parents funded and supported by far-right organizations who are driven to full-throated public displays before school boards while bypassing the classroom teacher.

Teachers know how important parental involvement is and perhaps, if there were more systematic avenues for parents to become involved, we would not see a drop in public-school enrollment PA saw a drop of 5.3%. (Digest of Educational Statistics) Few if any schools provide funding for parental involvement strategies, leaving it up to individual teachers to carry the burden. At the same time, if parents would rely upon the proven goodwill of teachers and their commitment to their students, we would not be witnessing the very tragic loss of teachers across the country. In PA, there has been a 66% drop in new teaching certificates over the past 11 years. (Testimony by PA Deputy Sec. of Ed.)

No one suggests that engaging parents is an easy job, yet everyone knows how critical their involvement is for the academic success of their children. If parents had a better understanding of the challenges facing school administrators and teachers, fewer would listen to the far-right messaging. Our future and indeed the future of democracy depends upon success in our classrooms. If anger and belligerence are the only things we bring to school board meetings, our future is in question.

Tony McNevin is a member of the Democracy for America Education Task Force. He resides in Gettysburg.

More:
Censorship: The child of fear and the father of ignorance - Gettysburg Times

The New Censorship Wars – Progressive.org – Progressive.org

In mid-April, Florida rejected fifty-four math books for classroom use, claiming they made reference to critical race theory and other prohibited topics.

What is novel for people to understand is that this is being organized and perpetrated at a level weve not seen before.

It seems that some publishers attempted to slap a coat of paint on an old house built on the foundation of Common Core and indoctrinating concepts like race essentialism, especially, bizarrely, for elementary school students, asserted Floridas Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. The rejected textbooks were not named and no examples of how they managed to run afoul of state educational standards were given.

The episode, which brought national ridicule to DeSantis and Floridas increasingly right-wing politics, is just one of a rapidly growing number of censorship actions being taken by local and state officials across the country.

PEN America, a nonprofit that works to defend freedom of expression, reported that during a recent nine-month period there were 1,586 instances of books being banned, involving 1,145 unique titles. According to the report, these bannings took place in eighty-six school districts in twenty-six states, representing 2,899 schools with a combined enrollment of more than two million students.

What is novel for people to understand is that this is being organized and perpetrated at a level weve not seen before, Jonathan Friedman, director of free expression and education at PEN America, tells The Progressive. Its part of a movement adjacent to politics but very much part of an effort to gin-up outrage over books in schools in an election year.

Whether the books deal with race, sex, or gender, Friedman notes, the same lines or images are being used to remove those books, and [they] are being targeted across state lines.

Right-wing censorship efforts are focusing on classic works such as Harper Lees To Kill A Mockingbird, John Steinbecks Of Mice and Men, and Art Spieglmans Maus, and Ruby BridgessRuby Bridges Goes to School. Many others deal with LGBTQ+ and gender identity issues, including Maia Kobabes Gender Queer, and Justin Richardsons And Tango Makes Three. The New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning 1619 Project has also come under widespread critical attack because of its alleged reliance on critical race theory, as have books by anti-racism writers and activists Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi. Even Toni Morrissons classic book Beloved has been pulled from the shelves.

Most distressing, according to PEN America , is that it is not just the number of books removed that is disturbing, but the processesor lack thereofthrough which such removals are being carried out. Two-fifths of the bans are tied to orders from state officials or elected lawmakers to investigate or remove books in schools, while nearly all (98 percent) of the 1,586 instances of banned books identified by PEN America involved departures of best practice guidelines designed toprotect students First Amendment rights.

Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who now teaches at New York Law School, tells The Progressive that many of these actions likely violate the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that governs expression in schools and libraries.

Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas, the court ruled in that case, Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico. Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those booksand seek by their removal to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.

Texas, with 712 instances of book censorship, is the number-one state in which these bans have occurred, followed by Pennsylvania and Florida with 456 and 204, respectively.

Last December, Representative Matt Krause, Republican of Texas, sent every school district in the state a list of 850 books he believes should be removed from libraries for allegedly containing material that might make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex.

Strossen sees this as evidence of a coordinated campaign: They are armed with a playbook and say, heres what you can do to challenge decisions that are being made about the curriculum, about library books, she says. And they get people, usually a relatively small number or percentage of the community, who are disproportionately active.

Strossen notes that Jerry Falwells Moral Majority was one of the groups that played this role in the 1980s. Todays book censorship campaign is being promoted by groups including Moms for Liberty, No Left Turn in Education, and Parents Defending Education.

Censorship battles have long been a feature of U.S. political life.

In the late nineteenth century, Anthony Comstocks anti-obscenity campaign culminated with the U.S. Congress adopting the 1873 Comstock Act, the federal laws that banned illicit materials distributed through the mail. In the 1910s, near the end of his life, Comstock claimed that he had destroyed 3,984,063 photographs and 160 tons of obscene literature. These laws would remain in force until the 1950s.

The 1920s were marked not only by the Palmer Raids and the deportation of anarchists, but also by the banning in New York of James Joyces Ulysses, and D.H. Lawrences Lady Chatterleys Lover, and of Sinclair Lewiss Elmer Gantry in Boston, among other titles. It also saw Catholic leaders promote state censorship bills in an effort to clean up Hollywood movies.

In the post-World War II era, the United States has faced two perceived enemies: communism and obscenity. The U.S. Congress, both the Senate and House, led the nations battle against sin, sex, and subversion. Federal efforts against alleged immorality involved pocket-book pulp fiction as well as comic books, Bettie Page photos, and depictions of homosexuality. It was an era that saw schools host comic book burnings.

In 1979, Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority, which joined the American Family Association and Morality in Media (a.k.a. the National Center on Sexual Exploitation) in a campaign against obscenity in books and other media. Among the books banned during the 1980s were F. Scott FitzgeraldsThe Great Gatsby, Alice WalkersThe Color Purple, and John Steinbecks Of Mice and Men. In addition, the FBI initiated a program of library surveillance to check on the identities of people examining potentially controversial materials.

There were also campaigns to block exhibitions of artistic works by Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano (i.e. his work Piss Christ) as well as the theatrical screening of Martin Scorseses The Last Temptation of Christ.

Todays censorship wars are part of the larger culture wars driven by white evangelical Christians. Members of this group, in large part members of the Republican activist base, are waging an apparently coordinated campaign against reproductive choice, LGBTQ+ rights, and the teaching of what is falsely labeled critical race theory.

Whats key right now is engagement, PEN Americas Friedman says, when asked what people can do to resist this censorship wave. It comes down to affirming a simple message: We dont believe in banning books. We believe in freedom of speech. We believe in freedom of access to information. How this is regulated in schools needs to reflect those principles.

This is a very simple, non-partisan message, he adds. Its not a message about left or right or LBGTQ+ or race, but rather a fundamental belief that we shouldnt be banning books in this country.

Read the rest here:
The New Censorship Wars - Progressive.org - Progressive.org

Library opens digital collection to teens, young adults nationwide to combat censorship – KIRO Seattle

The Brooklyn Public Library is challenging censorship and book bans head-on by opening its collection to readers nationwide.

>> Read more trending news

The BPL launched a new initiative called Books UnBanned, library officials announced earlier this month.

Teens and young adults, no matter where they live in the U.S., can apply for a free eCard from the Brooklyn Public Library to access its collection of e-books.

Normally, an eCard comes with a $50 charge for out-of-state applicants. That fee will be waived. Several books will be available with no holds or wait times for cardholders.

We cannot sit idly by while books rejected by a few are removed from the library shelves for all. Books UnBanned will act as an antidote to censorship, offering teens and young adults across the country unlimited access to our extensive collection of ebooks and audiobooks, including those which may be banned in their home libraries, Linda Johnson, library president and CEO, said in a news release.

The digital library card will be good for one year and allow users to access 350,000 e-books, 200,00 audiobooks and more than 100 databases.

It will also allow users to connect with peers to help fight censorship, discover book recommendations and defend the freedom to read.

To apply for the eCard, email the library at BooksUnbanned@bklynlibrary.org or visit its teen-run Instagram account.

Several school districts around the country have been reevaluating book selections in their school libraries and removing books they deem inappropriate for students. Books that tackle racial and LGBTQ topics are frequently the ones being pulled, The Washington Post reported.

PEN America said earlier this month that there had been 1,586 book bans in schools over the past nine months. PEN America is a nonprofit that advocates freedom of expression.

The American Library Association said that there had been 1,597 book titles challenged or removed in 2021, the Post reported.

Recently, the Florida Citizens Alliance published its Porn in Schools Report, which included 58 books that the group said had inappropriate content, USA Today reported.

2022 Cox Media Group

Read the original post:
Library opens digital collection to teens, young adults nationwide to combat censorship - KIRO Seattle

How Chinas Response to COVID-19 Set the Stage for a Worldwide Wave of Censorship – The New Yorker

Chen Qiushi was born in Chinas remote, frigid north near the countrys border with Russia. An only child, he loved to tell stories and jokes to his family and classmates and dreamed of being an actor or a television journalist. But his mother objected, and Chen got a law degree from a local university and moved to Beijing, where he later took a job at a prestigious legal firm.

In off-hours, Chen continued to pursue his passion for performing. He dabbled in standup comedy at local bars and did voice acting. He became a contestant on I Am a Speaker, a talent show for orators modelled on The Voice. In his final performance, he expounded on the importance of free speech. A country can only grow stronger when it is accompanied by critics, Chen said. Only freedom of expression and the freedom of press can protect a country from descending into a place where the weak are preyed upon by the strong.

Chen won second place and used his newfound fame to build a large social-media following. In 2018, he uploaded more than four hundred short videos that provided basic tutorials on Chinese law on Douyin, a platform similar to TikTok, but only available for users in China. He gained more than 1.5 million followers, making him the most popular legal personality on the entire platform.

In the next year, Chen began providing independent journalism to his followers on social-media. In the summer of 2019, he travelled to Hong Kong to report firsthand on the pro-democracy street protests that had erupted in the city. Why am I in Hong Kong? Chen asked, in a video posted on August 17th. Because a lot is happening in Hong Kong right now.

Chen interviewed protesters and spoke with those who supported the police. He waded into simmering controversies, such as the use of violence by some demonstrators. He acknowledged that journalism was a hobby of sorts, but said that he still had an obligation to be present when and where news unfolded. He also pledged to be objective. I wont express my opinion carelessly, Chen promised. I wont say whom I support or whom I disagree with. Everyone has their own subjective prejudice. I wish to leave behind my own prejudice and treat everything with neutrality as much as I can . . . because I am not satisfied with public opinion and the media environment in China, I decided to come to Hong Kong and become the media myself.

Alarmed by the reach of Chens social-media posts, Chinese officials pressured Chens law firm to get him to leave Hong Kong. The firm told Chen that, if he did not return to Beijing immediately, he would be in grave danger. Four days after he posted his first video from Hong Kong, Chen flew home to Beijing. All of his public Chinese social-media accounts, including Weibo, WeChat, and Douyin, no longer worked. When he tried to open a new Douyin account a few weeks later, the account was deleted as soon as his face appeared in a video. He posted messages on his YouTube and Twitter, which are banned in China. After Chinese police interrogated Chen and demanded to know what he thought of the Hong Kong protests, he expressed frustration. No one cares about the truthall they care about is my stance, Chen complained in a YouTube video. This is the problem we face right now. It seems that truth does not matter at all.

[Support The New Yorkers award-winning journalism. Subscribe today ]

Six months later, on January 23, 2020, the city of Wuhan went into lockdown. The next day, Chen boarded the last train from Beijing to Wuhan. When disaster happens, if you dont rush to the front lines as soon as possible, what kind of journalist are you? he asked in a video he posted outside the train station. Chen seemed to believe that informing the public and insuring access to independent reporting was the key to fighting the disease. As long as information travels faster than the virus, we can win this battle, Chen said, in the video. Although I was blocked on the Internet in China for reporting on the events in Hong Kong, I still have a Twitter and a YouTube account. In the next few days, I invite you to find me through these channels. Id be happy to help get the voice of the people of Wuhan to the outside world. Chen apparently believed he could use his skills as an orator and his charisma as a performer to build an audience online, even if it was primarily on YouTube and Twitter and not the Chinese social-media platforms from which he was banned.

Over the next ten days in Wuhan, Chen visited emergency rooms and supermarkets, talked to doctors, nurses, and city residents, and uploaded daily video reports. On January 25th, the beginning of the Chinese New Year, Chen donned improvised personal protective gear, including swimming goggles, and filmed a busy scene outside a local emergency room. The next day, he visited the shuttered Wuhan wet market, where a seafood seller, Wei Guixian, was reportedly the first person to have fallen ill from the virus. Chen described the market as a colorful place that sold foxes, monkeys, and pangolins, and said local rich people do have a habit of eating wild animals to boost their health.

As Chen reported from the city, Chinese officials systematically covered up the outbreak. The National Health Commission ordered institutions not to publish any information related to the unknown disease. Chen feared that such censorship was facilitating the spread of the virus and believed that his daily video reports informed the public. He facilitated donations of supplies and distributed food to hospital workers. He shared with viewers an encouraging note from his parents, who urged him to keep reporting but also to stay safe. He also implicitly criticized the countrys leadership after President Xi Jinping initially did not travel to Wuhan. I dont care where Xi Jinping is, Chen noted, addressing the citys residents. But I, Chen Qiushi, am here.

On March 10, 2020, nearly three months after the presumed first case, the President finally visited Wuhan. He praised the peoples war against the coronavirus, and brought along journalists from state-controlled media outlets. Through its global propaganda network, China told its pandemic narrative to the world. It used crude measuresa video, distributed by the state-run news agency Xinhua, featuring the Statue of Liberty failing to defend the U.S. from the virusand more sophisticated strategies, such as generating media coverage of the Chinese government delivering aid in places such as Pakistan and Italy.

Part of the governments argument is that its system of strict information control has allowed it to suppress misinformation and rumors, while providing the population with reliable health information and protocols to stay safe. A global survey released in June 2020 found that sixty per cent of respondents believed that China had responded effectively to the pandemic, while only a third felt that the U.S. had done so. The Chinese government used its near-total control over domestic news mediaas well as social mediato manage public perceptions of its coronavirus policies and to build popular support for its actions. It blocked or took down online posts that cast doubt on the governments response and, in some cases, arrested and prosecuted dissenters. Taking advantage of deteriorating relations with the Trump Administration, it expelled more than a dozen U.S. foreign correspondents, some of whom were asking uncomfortable questions about Wuhan.

China provided a playbook for information repression that spread around the world alongside the virus. Citing COVID, authoritarian governments in Russia, Iran, Nicaragua, and eighty other nations, according to Human Rights Watch, enacted new restrictions on free speech and political expression that were falsely described as public-health measures. In at least ten countries, protests against the government were also banned or interrupted. Information on the virus that did not come from the government was criminalized as fake news or propaganda.

Authoritarian regimes called the censorship necessary and much of it temporary, but, in reality, the pandemic amplified or accelerated a shift toward authoritarianism that, according to the U.S.-based pro-democracy organization Freedom House, had been under way for fourteen years. At least ninety-one countries that the group monitored restricted news media in response to the virus outbreak in the first months of 2020, including sixty-seven per cent of the states that the nonprofit classifies as not free.

These crackdowns were often fuelled by domestic political considerations, Freedom House found, including a desire to hide the extent of the outbreak from citizens and conceal government incompetence. The repression was facilitated by the narrative, created and spread by China, that authoritarian governments were better equipped to respond to the pandemic, in part, because of their ability to control and manage information. This was in sharp contrast, China argued, to the deficiencies in the democratic world, particularly in the United States, which was mired in division and misinformation and struggled to muster an effective public-health response. Today, as the most recent wave of the pandemic recedes, a post-COVID global political order is emerging where autocracies appear strengthened and democracies seem divided.

During his time in Wuhan, Chen visited the construction site of Huoshenshan Hospital, an enormous emergency medical facility that the Chinese government built, from scratch, in ten days. The hospital was both a response to the overwhelming demand for patient care, and a carefully calibrated propaganda effort intended to highlight the ability of the Chinese government to mobilize state resources and reorganize society in an emergency. During a car ride back with several Wuhan residents, Chen observed empty streets as he searched for a place to eat.

As his time in Wuhan wore on, Chen became increasingly agitated. He uploaded a twenty-seven-minute monologue in which he decried shortages of testing kits and hospital beds, described the exhaustion of doctors and construction workers, and reported that taxi-drivers in the city had figured out that a contagious disease was spreading weeks before the authorities made a public announcement. Despite the governments attempt to control the flow of information, they knew to avoid the Huanan market. Chen described the growing mayhem at hospitals, the lines, the patients being treated in parking lots and waiting rooms, and the body of a dead patient sitting in a wheelchair.

Several days after Chens arrival, someone from the Bureau of Justice called Chen and asked where he was staying in Wuhan. Authorities summoned Chens parents and asked them to pressure Chen to leave Wuhan. I want him to return home more than you do, Chen said his mother retorted. A week later, Chen told his parents he was planning to visit a temporary hospital. After being unable to reach Chen for twelve hours, his friends, following an agreed-upon protocol, logged into his accounts and changed his passwords. Though there has been no official confirmation, they suspected that he had been detained by Chinese authorities and was being secretly imprisoned.

Here is the original post:
How Chinas Response to COVID-19 Set the Stage for a Worldwide Wave of Censorship - The New Yorker