Mediaboss Marketing

The future of abortion law in the U.S. hinges on the forthcoming ruling in a Supreme Court case, Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, but the pro-life movement must begin gearing up to fight another insidious foeBig Tech censorship.

Organizations standing for the sanctity of life are well aware of the uphill battle they face.

The prominent anti-abortion group Live Action had its content censored online long before the docket put the Supreme Courts 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nationwide in the crosshairs.

In 2019, social media platform Pinterest added Live Actions website to its blacklist of banned sites. The blacklisting meant users were unable to link to Live Actions content or post it on Pinterest.

The Daily Signal reported that after Live Action attempted to appeal the ban, Pinterest took things a step further and permanently banned its account, claiming the organization violated Pinterests misinformation policies.

Andrew Moore, digital and creative director at pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, says his organization also has been hit by Big Tech censorship on several occasions.

In 2017, Twitter prevented SBA List from running an ad featuring a pro-life quote by Mother Teresa, claiming our ad violated their policy on promoting the sale of health and pharmaceutical products, Moore said in a statement to The Daily Signal.

In 2020, citing a factually incorrect fact-check by the Dispatch, Facebook banned our ads stating that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support late-term abortion. Meanwhile, Big Abortion was permitted to run comparable ads without any restrictions.

The examples of Big Tech censorship of pro-life causes are innumerable. But what it all leads back to is that Big Tech is hostile to the anti-abortion movement and has openly thrown its considerable weight behind leftist pro-abortion causes.

That isnt really shocking. Its an open secret that platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter are run by leftists whose sensibilities align more with rabid pro-abortionists.

Where this is likely to become an issue is when pro-abortion activists and their kindred spirits in the Silicon Valley hubs of Big Tech see Roe pared back or even struck down by the high court. A ruling is expected in late June.

The doomsaying surrounding a possible end to Roe already has the far left reeling. Its not hard to imagine a scenario in which the tech titans would push even harder to censor dissenting voices seeking to end or restrict abortion across the country.

Moore says Susan B. Anthony List is expecting a new wave of censorship.

We are prepared for a crackdown on any messaging on abortion that does not fit the narrative of Planned Parenthood and their numerous allies in Silicon Valley, he said, adding:

If the Supreme Court hands the question of abortion back to the people through their legislatures, Big Abortion will stand to have everything to lose. This new reality will motivate their friends in Big Tech to enact even more draconian measures.

As a silver lining, pro-life conservatives are at least aware that censorship will occur and have time to prepare. Pro-abortion forces already have shown their hand, so the pro-life movement knows what to expect if Roe is struck down.

Conservatives should demand transparency and accountability from Big Tech companies thatcensor them. The tech titans shouldnt have the power to hide behind shadowy algorithms and selective enforcement as they repeatedly remove pro-life content.

Recent bills in Georgia and Florida provide a model for consumer protections at the state level. The Georgia legislation has a provision under which Big Tech companies would be forced to provide a report on how frequently they censor content and why they took action. That would give users proof that theyd been censored.

But even if the online gatekeepers prevent pro-life messages from reaching a digital audience, pro-lifers can still take the movement offline.

If Big Tech increases their censorship of pro-life speech in a post-Roe America, pro-life Americans must step up by fostering person-to-person communications, through word of mouth, email, text, and alternative messaging, and social media platforms that have more respect for freedom of speech, Moore said.

The biggest pro-life event each year is the March for Life. Tens of thousands of Americans dedicated to protecting the unborn gather each year in Washington, D.C., to make it clear that life matters.

As it becomes more likely Roe will be struck down, or at least curtailed, the March for Life has begun spinning off marches in states such as Connecticut and California. Pro-life conservatives should attend these marches and organize their own, free from the censoring power of Big Tech.

The radical left will use every trick it has to keep abortion unrestricted, but the pro-life movement ultimately will win. Big Tech can try, but life wont be censored.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Read the original post:
Big Abortion's Big Tech Allies Aim to Censor Pro-Lifers. They Won't Win. - Daily Signal

IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

#VelshiBannedBookClub: Sometimes books are banned because of the words, the idea, or the author. In this case its all 3.04:58

Now Playing

Vladimir Kara-Murza: Every independent television network in Russia has been shut down..this war of censorship is complete07:40

UP NEXT

Former U.N. High Commissioner: I have very little doubt people will be prosecuted for war crimes07:00

U.S. Energy Secretary: Is it worth paying a bit more for your gas to not finance this bloody war in Ukraine?05:47

Velshi: We must not stand by as the people of Ukraine - and their freedom - perish03:23

David Miliband on war crimes in Ukraine: Accountability can be slow but its essential03:54

Young People in Ukraine Open Up about how the War has caused a rift in their families06:36

Russias oil and energy industry will deteriorate without EU support: Daniel Yergin04:31

Velshi: Its not okay to look away. Its not enough to say never again04:52

Jane Harman: I think the UN is feckless, Ill say it04:54

Ukrainian MP reacts to Bucha massacre: I cannot get those images out of my head.07:24

On Assignment: NBC Reporters Talk Challenges of Covering the War in Ukraine07:26

Fmr. Estonian President: If you dont respond now, you will be responding when they attack NATO07:18

The life & dealings of an Oligarch trusted by both Russia & Ukraine05:24

Lt. Col (Ret.) Alexander Vindman: Its a travesty that the U.S. is not doing more for Ukraine05:04

Ali Velshi on Lvivs centuries-long history, drifting through war, conflict and empires05:42

Ukrainian opposition party leader Kira Rudik: We want Putin to be prosecuted in Ukraine05:01

Lviv was once a tourist center, now its a humanitarian hub, says citys deputy mayor04:51

Velshi: For some still holding onto a semblance of normalcy in Ukraine, air raid sirens bring life to a halt05:16

We won this battle for Kyiv, Im sure well win the big battle: Ukrainian MP05:33

Vladimir Kara-Murza is a Russian opposition politician, author, and historian who has twice suffered sudden, severe illnesses he believes were brought on by deliberate poisonings while in Moscow as retribution for his speaking out against Russian human rights abuses and lobbying for U.S. sanctions. He tells Ali Velshi that A false reality has been created by the Putin regime here in Russia and a total blackout on information about the invasion of Ukraine. However, despite knowing the dangers of speaking out, Vladimir Kara-Murza is continuing to voice his opposition. This is where I have to be.April 10, 2022

#VelshiBannedBookClub: Sometimes books are banned because of the words, the idea, or the author. In this case its all 3.04:58

Now Playing

Vladimir Kara-Murza: Every independent television network in Russia has been shut down..this war of censorship is complete07:40

UP NEXT

Former U.N. High Commissioner: I have very little doubt people will be prosecuted for war crimes07:00

U.S. Energy Secretary: Is it worth paying a bit more for your gas to not finance this bloody war in Ukraine?05:47

Velshi: We must not stand by as the people of Ukraine - and their freedom - perish03:23

David Miliband on war crimes in Ukraine: Accountability can be slow but its essential03:54

See the rest here:
Vladimir Kara-Murza: Every independent television network in Russia has been shut down...this war of censorship is complete - MSNBC

A substantial part of the Russia-Ukraine war is being fought in the digital space and it may now take its toll on major online services and platforms. The Russian government has warned Google, Apple, Meta, Twitter, TikTok, and others that they only have till the end of this month to comply with its new landing law. Meanwhile, agencies outside Russia are claiming the law to be just another attempt to increase internet censorship, and are advising tech majors to publicly oppose it.

The new Russian law, first presented in November last year, came into effect on January 1, 2022. It mandates foreign digital entities, including websites and social media platforms, with over 5 lakh daily users, to have a local leader in Russia. It also requires these companies to register as legal entities with Roskomnadzor, the national agency that controls the Russian mass media.

With the landing law, Russia also aims to prevent the practice of big tech firms having a minimal physical presence in the country, while still managing their operations online. It directs the companies to create an electronic form for both Russian citizens and the government authorities so that the companies can be contacted for complaints.

In November, the government had listed a total of 13 companies that must comply with the new landing law. These companies are - Apple, Google, Meta, Twitter, TikTok, Likeme, Pinterest, Viber, Telegram, Discord, Zoom, Spotify, and Twitch. The firms had been given till the end of February 2022 to comply with the law and take the necessary measures. Earlier this month, a Roskomnadzor official reiterated this deadline and warned the companies of penalties and possible shutdowns if these demands were not met.

The companies listed above have responded differently to Russia's demands. Some, like Apple, TikTok, and Spotify, have complied with the landing law. As mentioned by Roskomnadzor, Meta (Facebook's parent firm), and Twitter have only partially complied with the law. Twitch and Telegram have not accepted the terms, The New York Times reports.

On the sidelines, major platforms including Meta and Google have started placing bans on the Russian state media outlets. Blaming them for spreading misinformation around the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, Meta banned four Russian state media firms from running ads on its social networks and started independent fact-checking of their content. Google also placed restrictions on these media outlets, limiting their ability to earn revenue from YouTube advertising.

The Russian agency has responded accordingly. Roskomnadzor restricted access to Facebook in the country on Friday, by slowing down traffic. A similar restriction was also reported for Google services and Twitter.

The law is being enforced on the tech majors at a critical time that sees Russian forces storm Ukraine in the attempt of an invasion. While Russia pushes the companies to comply with the landing law, experts from other parts of the world warn that this is just another attempt by the nation to censor the information on the internet.

They argue that a local presence for the companies will make them vulnerable to intimidation by the government in the future. The state may then threaten the companies into complying with future demands through employee arrests, penalties, and restrictions, legal experts warn.

Simultaneously, the growing anti-Russia sentiment is leading to a widespread appeal to tech majors to limit their services in the country. As reported by The New York Times, officials and lawmakers in the US, Ukraine, and other parts of the world have urged the companies not to let their platforms be misused for spreading Kremlin propaganda.

While the big tech has acted against any such misuse of their services, it remains to be seen how well they can protect this integrity of their products and services in Russia and other parts of the world.

Here is the original post:
Tech majors in a bind as Russia seeks to tighten internet ...

Childrens authors and performers say growing censorship, institutional timidity and online backlash are resulting in stories about diversity, sexuality and even contemporary world events being deemed inappropriate for younger readers.

It feels like were living through a second section 28, but one that the UK government has outsourced to an anonymous Twitter lobby, one performer says.

When acclaimed gay author Simon James Green was banned from school visits in the south of England by the Catholic church last month, it drew attention to what many believe is a developing trend that mirrors the escalating censorship of childrens reading in the US, described by Art Speigelman recently as a culture war thats totally out of control.

Savita Kalhan was expecting to take a school assembly with a group of teenagers for World Book Day recently. She planned to touch on themes of respect and consent that appear in her young adult novels That Asian Kid about institutional racism in schools and The Girl in the Broken Mirror which includes a sexual assault. But the event was cancelled because the deputy head deemed her work inappropriate.

Since then, Ive had lots of school librarians message me to say they believe the situation is getting much worse and more widespread, with a backlash against certain topics from school management and parents, Kalhan says. There seems to be a fear of something that might or might not happen, and its unnecessarily affecting childrens choice of reading.

Young adult books, covering diversity, sexuality, even contemporary world events, are now being deemed unsuitable for teenage readers, she adds. This is completely out of touch with what teenagers are actually reading and watching, and the expertise of librarians themselves is completely overlooked.

Juno Dawson author and former teacher, whose acclaimed sexuality handbook for young people, This Book is Gay, is the subject of removal petitions in the US agrees there is a shift in mood.

Its part of a wider culture war, she suggests, now gaining traction in the UK. You cant stop a kid being trans or LGBT but you can stop a book. A lot of these attempts to have books pulled or readings cancelled feel vexatious, so huge credit to the librarians and teachers who are dealing with irate parents and campaigners.

Elle McNicoll joined Simon James Green on the platform for the Bristol Teen Book Awards the week after his ban, which she describes as sending a painful message to young gay pupils.

Ive seen the absolute force for good that Simon is when he visits a school, and Im just sorry that some children will be denied that joy.

McNicolls latest book, Like a Charm, includes a dyspraxic protagonist; her debut featured a heroine who is autistic, like McNicoll herself.

Diverse authors take on a lot more than questions about plot and story, she argues. Were also often expected to fix societal problems or defend ourselves outside of our work.

Hazel Plowman, head of creative learning at the Bath Childrens Literature festival, says there has been a definite shift towards more inclusive stories in children and young peoples books since she started working there a decade ago.

Were programming our autumn festival, and while theres still work to do, we are getting all kinds of voices pitched as commercial books now, rather than being pigeonholed as an issues book for example. There are LGBTQ+ books for all ages, picture books with two mums, British-Indian detectives and neurodiverse authors and characters.

Jodie Lancet-Grant is one of the authors Plowman lists. Her debut picture book for 37 year olds, The Pirate Mums a swashbuckling adventure about a boy called Billy who happens to have two mothers attracted some trolling earlier this year. The idea that anyone would think this story is not appropriate for children beggars belief. Its just a different family circumstance, but its incredibly important that children see that represented.

There is a worrying trend of censorship of LGBTQ+ authors and books happening as a consequence of the more polarised world we are living in, she says, suggesting that section 28 the legislation enacted in 1988 to prohibit the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities and only abolished in 2003 still has an impact. A lot of adults grew up not reading about these subjects because of clause 28, and now assume they are not acceptable because they accepted that absence as children.

Drag performers have attracted particular controversy, with a number of schools caught out in recent years after booking an act seen as having a non-child friendly name or online presence. Sab Samuel AKA Aida H Dee, childrens author and founder of Drag Queen Story Hour UK, is clear that not all drag acts are suitable for education, but believes that schools and local councils are becoming increasingly aware of the potential for backlash, and consequently steering clear of anything that could be deemed risky.

Adam Carver, whose drag performance for kids Palaver! generated complaints to local authorities and the Arts Council England last year, is blunt: It feels like were living through a second section 28, but one that the UK government has outsourced to an anonymous Twitter lobby.

Carvers company, Fatt Projects, is working on a model to support arts organisations facing similar attacks, offering advice on how best to respond to criticism.

There is a resurgence of the idea that queer people shouldnt be around children, he says. There is a perfect storm now where venues and organisations are so afraid of backlash that they dont take any risks. But there is still demand from children and families for work that explores difference.

Read more from the original source:
Out of touch: childrens authors describe increasing censorship of books on diversity - The Guardian

Activist organizations and families affected by Florida's bill restricting discussions on LGBT issues in public schools have filed suit to stop it, arguing that it violates the First and 14th Amendment rights of students, parents, and teachers in the state.

H.B. 1557, known by its opponents as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, was passed by Florida's Legislature earlier in the year and signed into law by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in March. The bill's supporters insist that its purpose is to stop inappropriate discussions of sex and gender in front of young school children from kindergarten through third grade.

But that's not what the law actually saysit instead bans discussion about "sexual orientation or gender identity" in those grades, not sex. It further bans any discussion about topics that are not "age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students" without identifying what any of that means. It also allows parents of students to take schools to court and seek financial damages for violations of this very vaguely written law.

Nonprofit group Equality Florida filed suit Thursday in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Florida, joined by some gay and trans students in Florida schools, several gay couples with children in public schools, and a teacher.

The lawsuit describes H.B. 1557 as a bill that does not, in fact, stop overly vivid discussions of sex with children but instead attempts to censor speech about LGBT issues, sexual or not:

It offends principles of free speech and equal protection by seeking to censor discussions of sexual orientation or gender identity that recognize and respect LGBTQ people and their families. It offends due process by using broad and vague terms to define its prohibitionsthus inviting discriminatory enforcement and magnifying its chilling effect on speech. And it arises from discriminatory purposes and outdated sex-based stereotypes that offend deeply rooted constitutional and statutory requirements.

The lawsuit explains what people mean when they call it the "Don't Say Gay" bill, even though the text of the bill doesn't technically forbid saying "gay." The bill authorizes families to sue over violations of terms that are never defined by the bill:

H.B. 1557 recruits every parent as a roving censor, armed with a legal warrant to sue schools for damages whenever they believe a teacher, a student, or any "third party" has provided any "classroom instruction" that may be perceived as relating to "sexual orientation" or "gender identity." The potential for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement here is self-evidentand it reflects a choice designed to maximize the law's in terrorem (threatening) effects. H.B. 1557 thus operates in a manner antithetical to reasonable requirements of an age or developmentally appropriate education, instead creating a scheme in which parents can use the threat of litigation over vague statutory terms to menace school boards and intimidate teachers into offering a skewed, discriminatory curriculum.

The lawsuit lists a bunch of potential discussions of LGBT issues that aren't inherently about sex or gender identity and questions whether they run afoul of the law. "Can a student of two gay parents talk about their family during a class debate about civics? Can that student paint a family portrait in art class? Can a lesbian student refer to their own coming out experience while responding to a work of literature? Can a transgender student talk about their gender identity while studying civil rights in history class?"

If you believe people who say that H.B. 1557 is about stopping only sexual discussions around children, you might think that the answer to these questions would be "yes." But that's not what the bill actually says, and this lawsuit is intended to highlight that fundamental flaw. In fact, when one lawmaker attempted to amend the bill to make the language more explicitly about prohibiting discussion of "human sexuality or sexual activity," he was shot down.

The lawsuit lists six counts of potential First and 14th Amendment violations. Plaintiffs argue that the law should be considered "void for vagueness," a judicial principle that requires that laws (particularly criminal laws or laws that have penalties like this one) have clear definitions of their prohibitions. In this case, because all the terms go undefined and the "state standards" the bill refers to do not yet exist, the plaintiffs argue that they are uncertain about what they can legally discuss without violating H.B. 1557.

The lawsuit further claims that the bill violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by targeting LGBT people and treating them differently from other people. (Under the text of the bill, a teacher could quite vividly discuss sexual behavior with school children as long as it's heterosexual behavior.) They argue the law violates the First Amendment rights of students to receive information for reasons unrelated to pedagogical concerns and by creating a chilling effect that censors speech.

The lawsuit asks the court to stop Florida from implementing and enforcing H.B. 1557.

As a reminder, the last big bill Florida passed out of political spite, S.B. 7072, their "anti-Big Tech" bill that attempts to wrest control away from social media platforms, has been blocked by a federal judge for violating the First Amendment rights of the social media companies. The judge further warned that several of the bill's provisions were "especially vague," an issue because the bill also threatened massive fines. Don't be surprised if the exact same thing happens here.

Excerpt from:
Florida Sued by Activists, Students, Parents, and Teachers Over LGBT School Censorship Bill - Reason