Mediaboss Marketing

Parenting is hard. There is no other way to describe it. And parenting at a time of social and political turmoil is especially challenging. Old social norms are losing their authority. Social media intrude on the family, often supplanting parental authority. Predators are a concern. Video games are a concern. The music is a concern. The list goes on and on.

As parents, our first instinct is to do everything we can to shield our children from the world around us. And that is a good instinct. But at the same time, it comes with a cost. If we shield them too successfully, do we keep them from preparing to take on the world when they become adults? What are parents to do?

I have thoughts about these things, as you do. I have made my share of mistakes as a parent, and Im sure you would admit you have as well. And there is probably no one answer for every family. Having said this, I would suggest that most parents are trying too hard to protect their children from the world today. I certainly sympathize with this. When I look around, a lot of what I see scares me. But fear shouldnt be our motivation as parents.

We need to find a way to strike a balance between too much fear and too little fear. We must look for ways to keep the pendulum from swinging too far in either direction. Aristotle taught that virtue is a mean between an excess and a defect between too much or too little of something. And courage is a mean between too much fear and too little fear.

Let me ask a question: What do we see as our primary goal as parents? Obviously, we want to provide all the love and support we can for our children. But I suspect that many of us would say that our primary goal is to prepare our children for the future so that they can live successful, independent lives on their own. If that is our goal, then the most important thing is to teach them how to think for themselves. And that means that sheltering them too much is a mistake. They are going to need to know how to respond for themselves to all of the things that we hope wont hurt them.

In other words, our children need to learn how to think critically. That involves weighing and balancing competing arguments. It means developing an ability to confront the harshness and the evil of the world around them. It means our children need to learn their limits. And it means that we need to know our limits as well. We cant do this for them.

Of course, all of this needs to be done in an age-appropriate manner. No sensible person would want a kindergartner to be reading about abortion. But we should even look for age-appropriate ways to challenge kindergartners to think for themselves. If we set the bar too low for them at that age, they may never develop true independence. And by the time our children make it to high school, we shouldnt be trying to shelter them. Its time for them to deal with everything the world brings their way.

Censorship in schools is therefore the worst possible thing for our children. We do them a disservice if we try to keep them from feeling uncomfortable when their beliefs are challenged, even if those are our beliefs as well. And if we keep them from learning about the darkest moments in our nations history, they will not be able to understand todays world. They need to read novels that reveal the beauty in the world around us and the ugliness of which human beings are capable. They must confront racism, sexism, antisemitism and other forms of hatred and prejudice. They need to ask questions about gender.

So the nationwide push by parents and politicians for new forms of censorship in schools harms our children. We are not showing them the respect they deserve if we focus on trying to indoctrinate them rather than inviting them to think for themselves. Laws that prohibit specific topics, books and even discussions from the classroom limit the ability of our children to think. If we want to bless our children by giving them the strength and wisdom they need to be independent, then we have to restrain our desire to always be protecting them.

See the rest here:
Parenting and Censorship in the Schools InsideSources - InsideSources

Twenty-three international media freedom, freedom of expression, and journalists organizations today called for the immediate dismissal of the bill on disinformation and fake news which was submitted to the parliament on May 27 by the governing alliance of Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).

The bill threatens up to three years imprisonment for those found guilty of the deliberate publishing of disinformation and fake news intended to instigate fear or panic, endanger the countrys internal or external security, public order and general health of Turkeys society.

Such a bill, where the definition of disinformation and intent is left so vague, puts millions of Turkeys internet users at risk of criminal action for posting information that the government disagrees with.

Placed in the hands of Turkeys highly politicized judiciary, the law would become another tool for harassing journalists and activists and may cause blanket self-censorship across the internet.

The bill would also increase any sentence by 50 percent where information is published from anonymous user accounts. This severely undermines anonymity on the internet and further intimidates those wanting to publish evidence of corruption and wrongdoing but are afraid of the consequences of being publicly identified.

The governing alliance claim the bill is in line with the European Unions Digital Services Act and General Data Protection Regulation, however there are no such provisions under either of these laws.

The law would also bring news sites under the Press Law (Basin Kanunu). This gives their journalists access to the official press accreditation and also to public advertising funds through the official Press Advertising Agency, Basin Ilan Kurumu (BIK). In practice however this will simply enable the government to fund pro-government news sites while banning critical media deemed to have breached the disinformation law.

In the drafting stage, the government reportedly organized a consultation with international digital platforms yet it failed to hold any meetings with media representatives, editors, journalism associations, or unions, despite these groups, and their members, being the most affected by the legislation.

The draft bill is currently before the Parliament. However the role of parliament has been so heavily undermined by the Presidential system that the bill is being rushed through without proper scrutiny or debate and expected to be passed swiftly into law within days.

Disinformation is an important issue and needs to be combatted but not at the price of restricting journalists rights and the publics rights of freedom of expression. Any such initiatives should be developed in close consultation with media and other stakeholders and include sufficient safeguards for free speech and independent journalism that can prevent their abuse by the government to impose arbitrary censorship.

We, therefore, call on all Turkeys parliamentarians who believe in the parliamentary process and the free flow of ideas and information as central to a democratic society to vote down this bill.

SignatoriesInternational Press Institute (IPI)ARTICLE 19Articolo 21Association of European JournalistsCommittee to Protect JournalistsEnglish PENEuropean Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)Foreign Media Association (FMA)IFEXInternational Federation of Journalists (IFJ)Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)Media Research Association (MEDAR)OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)PEN AmericaPEN InternationalPEN NorwayPlatform for Independent Journalism (P24)Reporters Without Borders (RSF)South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)Swedish PenThe Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ)Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support ProjectWorld Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)

Visit link:
International Groups Call on Turkey's Parliament to Reject the Disinformation Bill as a Tool of Digital Censorship - PEN America

Gangster Gangaraju Censor report and run time

Gangster Gangaraju is an upcoming Telugu movie which is gearing up for the grand release very soon. The movie is directed by Eeshaan Suryaah and will feature Nihar Kapoor, Laksh Chadalavada, Vedieka Dutt, Vennela Kishore and Srikanth Iyyengar as lead characters. The movie also has Goparaju Ramana, Satyakrishan, Raviteja Nannimala, Charan Deep,Srikanth Iyenger, Rajeshwari Nair, Sammeta Gandhi, Rajendra, Anu Manasa, Lavanya Reddy, Annapoorna, and others in the important roles. According to the latest update, Gangster Gangaraju has completed the censor formalities and received U/A certificate from the censor board. The movie has crisp run time of 2Hrs 12Mins.

g-Ad

In the month of August last year, the makers of Gangster Gangaraju , unveiled the first look poster of Laksh Chadalavada who was spotted wearing an under cool outfit. He was seen sipping the coconut water.

The upcoming action entertainer Gangster Gangaraju is funded by well-known producer Padmavathi Chadalavada under the banner of Sri Tirumala Tirupati Venkstwshwara Films while Chadalavada Brothers are presenting this upcoming drama, which has the music by Sai Kartheek. The promotions of the film are going on in full swing. While the first look and songs of Gangster Gangaraju got a wonderful response. Being made with a different and first-of-its-kind storyline, the upcoming drama Gangster Gangaraju has all the thrilling elements for the movie lovers.

Read the original:
Gangster Gangaraju Censor report and run time - Tollywood

What is censorship?

According to Websters Dictionary, to censor means to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. The word censor originated in ancient Rome, where the government appointed officials to take the census and to supervise public morals. Censorship happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their political or moral values on others by suppressing words, images, or ideas that they find offensive.

A censor, traditionally, is an official whose job it is to examine literature, movies, or other forms of creative expression and to remove or ban anything she considers unsuitable. In this definition, censorship is something the government does. But censorship can also be accomplished very effectively by private groups.

Not all forms of censorship are illegal. When private individuals agitate to eliminate TV programs they dislike, or threaten to boycott the companies that support those programs with advertising dollars, they are certainly trying to censor artistic expression and interfere with the free speech of others. But their actions are perfectly legal; in fact, their protests are protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Not even all government censorship is unlawful. For example, we still have laws against obscenity in art and entertainment. These laws allow the government to punish people for producing or disseminating material about sex, if a judge or jury thinks the material is sufficiently offensive and lacks any serious value.

What is the basis for free expression in the United States?The First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances) protects against government restrictions on or interference with the content of speech. The First Amendment applies to Government at the national, state, and local level.

Why should I care about censorship?Understanding of First Amendment freedoms is fragile and imperiled by increasingly effective and sophisticated attacks. In numerous communities, people are determined to impose their own narrow views on everyone else, and censor what they do not approve.The First Amendment exists to protect speech and activities that are unpopularif only those ideas which were popular were protected, it wouldnt be needed. Limiting free speech is unAmericanwithout it, all our rights and liberties quickly disintegrate.Censorship is an assault on the rights of all of us. We must continue to fight for the freedom to read, to see, to know, and to think for ourselves.

How can I fight back against censors in my community?Heres what you can do to organize locally.

Where can I get further information on censorship?For more information about censorship, here is a list of NCACs resources, or drop us an e-mail here.

See the original post here:
What is Censorship? - National Coalition Against Censorship

ZHOU SHENGNI NEEDED a doctor, and fast. The 49-year-old, who was having an asthma attack, was being driven by her family to Shanghai East Hospital, where she worked as a nurse, for urgent treatment. It was March 23, and the Chinese city was under a strict Covid lockdown.

However, when they arrived at the emergency department, Zhous family found that it was closed for disinfection under Shanghais rules to contain the spread of Covid. In urgent need of medical care, they had no choice but to drive to another hospital about 9 kilometers away. Zhou later died.

Zhous death caused outrage on Chinese social media, but it was not an isolated incident. Shanghais citywide lockdown lasted two months, with most restrictions removed on June 1. But, for those two months, almost nothing movedincluding the citys hospitals, which were hit by sudden closures, with many restricting their services to emergencies only. Patients in need of medical help were told to present a negative PCR test to access care.

From February to May, health authorities in Shanghai had reported 588 deaths related to Covid-19, the majority elderly residents. But officials didnt count people like Zhou, who may have died as a result of the citys lockdown restrictions.

Discussions about the collateral damage of Chinas zero-Covid policy are heavily restricted in the country. Censors have blocked comments from people opposing the pandemic strategy, including remarks made by World Health Organization director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. But, as ever in China, censorship has not stopped people from finding technical workarounds to express dissent.

On April 14, a WeChat account called Shi You shared an article entitled Shanghai Deceased, which reported on people in the city who had seemingly died as a result of harsh lockdown restrictions. The articles comment section was quickly flooded with messages from people saying they had also heard of or knew someone who had died during the lockdown.

Capser Yu immediately realized that both the article and its comments were important. A Shanghai native now working in Singapore, Yu had heard stories of people back home who had lost loved ones during lockdown. One of those lost was Chen Xiangru, a 3-year-old girl who was reportedly unable to receive timely treatment when she developed a serious fever in late March. Chen died in hospital while waiting for the result of a PCR test doctors required to provide treatment.

Worried that censors would hide crucial evidence, Yu started taking screenshots of the WeChat article. A few hours later, WeChat scrubbed the article. When people in China tried to open the article again, all that was left was a message saying it violates regulations.

Yu reposted the content on a blog he created, called Real China, to help keep his parents in Shanghai informed about how news in China was being reported overseas. Within hours, Chinese censors blocked the reposted content. Yu says the article, which is still accessible outside China, was read by more than 20,000 people before it was censored. The link has since started working again for unknown reasons and, by the end of June, had become the most-read post on Yus blog.

Continue reading here:
Shanghais Censors Cant Hide Stories of the Dead - WIRED