Mediaboss Marketing

The ACLU of Massachusetts is urging school committee members in Ludlow to reject a proposal that would change how library materials are selected, and who does the selecting.

Elements of the proposed policy raise "numerous legal issues, including free expression, vagueness and discrimination," the group's attorneys said in a letter to the district.

The proposal, first introduced at the school committee meeting on May 9, seeks to weed out "inappropriate materials" from the district's libraries.

"Sexualized content is generally inappropriate and/or unnecessary for minors in school," the proposal says. "However, a school need not show that sexualized content is obscene to show that it is not appropriate or educationally suitable for minor students. Parents/guardians have a wide range of options outside of the District's library system to introduce their child to sexual content they deem age-appropriate for their child."

The proposal, submitted on May 9 by school committee member Jaoa Dias, defines terms including sexual acts, implied sexual acts, intimate parts and implied nudity.

It also gives the school committee decision making powers when acquiring new print and digital materials for the district's libraries.

The ACLU said in its letter to the school committee that the policy, if passed, "would set extremely vague, overbroad and repressive standards for what materials can and cannot be in school libraries, with a particular obsession with any depiction or description of various body parts."

The organization also criticized how the policy would allow for termination of a district employee who fails to follow the policy.

"A kicker in the proposed policy is that apparently people can lose their jobs," the letter said, "not only for not complying with these vague and overbroad terms, they can lose their jobs for not 'prioritiz[ing] the selection of materials which do not contain other sexualized content, even though permitted, such as visual depictions of nude body parts.'"

"How in the world does someone figure out whether or not or the extent to which 'covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state' are or are not encompassed by the ban on 'nude intimate parts?'" the ACLU wrote, quoting the proposal.

The letter included images of male baseball players and ballet dancers, as an example of what could be considered against the policy.

If passed, it could also restrict access to many young adult novels as well as images of religious art.

Ludlow Public Schools already has policies in place that allow parents to challenge materials placed in the district's libraries, and an email system that allows parents to block their children from taking out materials they don't approve.

In the last few years, several Ludlow parents have pushed back on titles in the school library related to puberty. And in 2022, two sets of parents sued the Ludlow School Committee and several school administrators over the districts alleged failure to disclose to parents information about their childrens gender identities.

Dias the school committee member advancing the library proposal appeared to weigh in on the lawsuit last year on Facebook: "Hopefully they named the teacher, administrators, former superintendent and school committee members individually as well. Groomers all!"

Asked over email about this opinion, Dias had no immediate comment.

To the ACLU, the proposed library policy is connected to LGBTQ rights, said Ruth Bourquin, the organization's senior and managing attorney.

"It seems [the policy] may be a not very well-veiled attempt to find a way to suppress literature about LGBTQ experiences and coming of age experiences," Bourquin said. "This policy, we think, is clearly unlawful [and] it's wildly overbroad."

The language of the proposal is almost a verbatim copy of something proposed in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Bourquin said. She said the district is "renowned for anti-LGBTQ+ bias" and is facing litigation by the ACLU.

Dias declined to discuss the proposal at the May 9 meeting. He also declined comment this week.

"I will be happy to discuss the policy after [next week's] meeting," Dias said in an email.

School committee members will vote on the policy June 6, said Ronald Saloio, another member of the Ludlow School Committee.

"Per school committee policy, the first meeting, the new policy is proposed with no discussion," Saloio said in an email.

Next week, at a meeting on May 23, "the policy will be read and discussed," Saloio said. "[T]here might be changes suggested to the proposed policy at this time."

Read the original:
ACLU says proposed Ludlow school library policy is vague, form of ... - Connecticut Public

A couple of weeks back, I shared a roundup of pending legislation across several states and at the national level which would ensure the right to read. There is another bill worth highlighting during this legislative session that is making positive progress in Connecticut.

Senate Bill 2, called the Act Concerning the Mental, Physical, and Emotional Wellness of Children, is wide-ranging one covering everything from childrens mental health coverage to public libraries. Most pertinent to the ongoing removal of books from public and school libraries, though, is the bills creation of sanctuary libraries across the state. The bill would allow every community within Connecticut to designate a public library as a sanctuary library, wherein books which have been banned, challenged, or censored will be readily available to anyone who would like to borrow them.

The bill would open up small grants for libraries which choose to take on the distinction as sanctuary libraries, coming in at about $1,200 annually. The bill has made its way through committees and has been slated for discussion on the Senate floor for this week. You can follow the progress here.

Senate Bill 2 signals to libraries across Connecticut that the legislators find access to information so vital that it belongs under the states child wellness bill. Connecticuts Ferguson Public Library in Stamford was the second library in the country to declare itself sanctuary library in January 2023, following the lead of Chicago Public Library last fall. Under the new bill, any city could designate one library a sanctuary. Those cities with more than one public library may meet criteria to become eligible as sanctuary libraries or may choose to remain nonprinciple libraries; the difference would be in ability to receive the grants earmarked for the purposes of sanctuary libraries.

The bill was a surprise to the Connecticut Library Association and to librarians across the state. It emerged following a meet-and-greet hosted by the Ferguson Library following its designation as a sanctuary library; Senator Cici Maher attended the event, and two weeks later, after hearing from constituents that book bans were among the biggest concerns of library workers, she returned to session and her committee and began drafting the proposal.

Tying state aid to such designations is similar to Illinoiss Right to Read legislation. Every library will be able to choose for themselves how to proceed, but there are benefits from the state to those who stand up for intellectual freedom and the First Amendment Rights of all within these public facilities.

Such bills will not end the onslaught of book bans. What they do, though, is offer opportunities for libraries to protect themselves one step at a time and ensure that the majority of people who time and time again emphasize seeing book bans as inappropriate and unpopular will have their libraries represent them. Moreover, these bills aid in rallying for more legislative action in other states and municipalities to protect the right to read.

See the original post:
A Bill in Connecticut Would Fund Sanctuary Libraries: Book Censorship News, May 19, 2023 - Book Riot

Politics

This latest episode follows the firing of a Florida principal for allowing the nude to be shown in class.

An undisputed classic is fast becoming this years most controversial artwork.

Michelangelos David has spurred another nudity scandalthis time in Glasgow rather than Tallahasseefollowing one restaurants attempts to feature the artwork, phallus and all, in its latest subway spot. Global, the company that oversees advertising across Glasgows public transit, rejected the original design. Now, the family-owned DRG restaurant group is running a censored version and footing the bill for the reprint.

DRG began conceptualizing its latest ad for Glasgows Barolo Italian restaurant in early January. Previous ads featured the Mona Lisa eating spaghetti and God, as depicted in The Creation of Adam (c. 150812),handing off a slice of pizza.

Indeed, we saw the Florida story and genuinely, it didnt even occur that we could have a similar situation in Glasgow, Nadine Carmichael, DRGs head of sales and marketing, told Artnet News. The Florida saga was utterly mind boggling.

The original design. Courtesy of DRG

Their original ad featured David chowing on a slice in the nude, framed by a ribbon of taupe and text reading: It doesnt get more Italian.

Global, which declined to comment, first proposed that DRG amend the original printed ads by affixing stickers of the Italian flag where the good lord split David. Unfortunately, once printed, those stickers proved too small. In the end, DRG and Global compromised on an updated design where the protagonist is cropped above his waist.

Modified, approved design. Courtesy of DRG

The composition just isnt the same for starters, Carmichael said, and it seems odd to have cut out half of an iconic figure, so it slightly jars from our perspective. Others are concerned about the sculptures intensifying notoriety.

Its a silly distraction, remarked Martyn Reed, who oversees Nuart festival in nearby Aberdeen each year. Not sure whats worse: [the sculpture] being used to sell pizza, or the mock outrage being leveraged for column inches.

Read more:
Michelangelos David Is Embroiled in Yet Another Censorship ControversyThis Time For a Pizza Ad in Scotland - artnet News

(NEW YORK) A sweeping legislative proposal in Ohio that takes aim at gender studies, critical race theory, diversity and inclusion initiatives, tenure, and faculty hiring review amounts to the most draconian and censorious restrictions on public colleges and universities in the country, PEN America said today.

The latest version of SB 83 at 94 pages, the longest educational gag order ever proposed contains a dizzying array of censorious restrictions on public universities and their faculty and staff. Among its provisions, the bill would ban universities from taking a position on any of a series of controversial and specified concepts, including diversity, equity and inclusion, foreign policy, climate policies, allyship, social justice, or even marriage. It would forbid professors to inculcate in students any socialpoint of view language far broader and more restrictive than the typical gag order around the country. It would weaken faculty tenure protections and ban trainings on so-called divisive concepts relating to race and gender. It would require broad guarantees of intellectual diversity in all aspects of coursework and curricula, with faculty and staff subject to mandatory discipline if an administrator determines their exercise of professional judgment has been misused to constrict intellectual diversity. And it would impose mandatory discipline on students found to have interfered with intellectual diversity rights.

SB 83 would not only legalize censorship in Ohios public universities, but would mandate it, said Jeremy C. Young, Freedom to Learn program director. SB 83 is the longest and most complicated educational gag order ever proposed, and one of the most censorious. It contains a rogues gallery of censorship aimed at faculty, administrators, and for the first time in an educational gag order explicitly at students. And it represents an extraordinary and unnecessary level of micromanagement of a universitys affairs.

The reach of this proposed legislation is breathtaking. It could be used to punish a university hospitality program for advertising itself as a wedding venue for same-sex couples. A professor could be disciplined for misusing their professional judgment by recommending a course reading an administrator dislikes, or for suggesting to students the point of view that racism is wrong. Even students could be punished for expressing their beliefs in a way that an administrator decides interferes with someone elses view. Such a law would interfere with every aspect of university life and create a pervasive chilling effect across the entire campus community. Ohio legislators rejected two far less draconian educational gag orders last year. They should make it three in a row.

About PEN America

PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide. We champion the freedom to write, recognizing the power of the word to transform the world. Our mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible. Learn more at pen.org.

Contact: Suzanne Trimel, [emailprotected], 201-247-5057

See the rest here:
"Breathtaking" Ohio Bill Would Mandate Censorship in State ... - PEN America

The CRTC has raised some hackles with an innocuous-looking Myths and Facts explainer on the Online Streaming Act (formerly Bill C-11), which recently received Royal Assent after a bumpy two-year road to enactment. The CRTC explainers copy could have been lifted from one of Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguezs press conferences, casually eliding some of the real sticking points of the bill, which even domain experts are confused about.

One allegation that the government still has yet to answer to it is how tasking the CRTC with a mandate to regulate platforms does not amount to regulating the creators who rely on those platforms to disseminate their content. (It doesnt help that an amendment intended to shield user-generated content from regulation proposed by the Senate was promptly scrubbed out when the bill returned to the House of Commons.) Yet, right in the first myth addressed the CRTC repeats this doublespeak: We will only regulate broadcasters, including providers of both traditional broadcasting services and online streaming services. But you cant regulate platforms without also regulating the content creators who publish on them. One way or another, C-11 empowers the government to wield a direct hand in the content we consume.

The future of what life looks like under the Online Streaming Act is a question of how the CRTC will conduct itself since all of the nuts and bolts of implementation have been left to the regulating body and Cabinet, which will create a policy framework to guide it. The bill delegates the ability to define what Canadian and Indigenous content is, conditions of service for online services, and to host consultations on who should contribute, how much, and how. Suffice it to say that there will be a long and tedious path ahead before we have a sense of how C-11 will actually function.

Broadly, there are two possible futures under C-11 that we can imagine, one humdrum and probable and the other disquieting and less likely.

The first is that the CRTCs projected timeline of nine rounds of consultations over the next three years will be dominated by legacy media groups who possess both the budget and organizational heft to dedicate to multiple trips sitting in stuffy committee rooms in Gatineau, with occasional piping-in of smaller creators. They will conclude with milquetoast platitudes about the importance of diversity, representation, and accessibility. Sensitive to the controversy surrounding the bill and accusations of ideological bias, the CRTC will regulate with a light touch.

Still, by 2026 your YouTube home feed will become peppered with glossy yet suspiciously on-the-nose campaigns promoting diversity, intersectionality, and whatever other zeitgeisty terms du jour fit into the Canadian bureaucratic apparatus self-concept. Individual creators will occasionally get some attention for pointing out suspicious irregularities in their stats and views, but because big tech platforms Google and Facebook opt to mostly play ball with the CRTC, C-11 will live as something like maple-leaf red tinted glasses on an otherwise normal digital landscape.

The second, admittedly less likely but certainly not impossible scenario, is more ominous. The same legacy-media-dominated consultations take place. The CRTC is energized and influenced by its expanded mandate as well as the governments clear vendetta against Big Tech and zest for regulation in the name of combatting misinformation. It opts to flex its muscle with a thick conception of Canadian content that clearly prioritizes government-friendly messages and sets out to enhance the discoverability of only that content that fits within its ideological priors. Edgier Canadian creators like Gad Saad and Jordan Peterson are effectively shadow-banned. After all, discoverability is a zero-sum game, and content can only be prioritized at the expense of demoting other content. Even less polarizing figures like Hub Dialogues guest J.J. McCullough become harder and harder for new audiences to find.

Unfortunately, there is some evidence that the CRTC decision-makers bear some heavy-handed impulses, beyond their evasive communiqu.

Take, for example, the CRTCs decision to consider a complaint from EGALE that has asked that Fox News be removed from a list of foreign broadcasters approved for carriage on cable. In its open letter, the LGBTQ advocacy group cited inflammatory and offensive comments made by the now-departed Tucker Carlson on his famously incendiary program.

And since the CRTC takes its directives, formally and informally, from the government, the Liberals posture and increasing proclivity for censorship are relevant to consider as well. On this front, a recent Parliamentary Question asked by Conservative MP Dean Allison reveals a distinctly muzzled modus operandi. Over the last three years, government has made over 200 attempts to silence social media, including one centred on Sun columnist Lorne Gunters reporting on a new proposal at the Immigration and Refugee Board to allow refugee claims based on grounds of intersectionality. Gunter was critical of the proposal, arguing that it would allow a wooly and lax standard for would-be refugees. Whatever you think of that argument, its undeniably creepy to read that as a result of it, the IRB approached Facebook and Twitter, demanding that the column be taken down because it risked undermining public confidence in the independence of the Board.

Neither are concomitant with innovation and growth in the Canadian digital landscape. As we wait and see what C-11 reality we are entering into, be vigilant about what you see in your timelines.

Go here to see the original:
Joanna Baron: More myths than facts: Unpacking the government's ... - The Hub