Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Podcasts – 331. Chilling Effect of Big Tech Censorship – The Heartland Institute

The Heartland Institute's Donald Kendal, Jim Lakely, Justin Haskins, Chris Talgo, and Samantha Fillmore present episode 331 of the In The Tank Podcast. On this episode, the ITT crew talks about how our previous episode was removed from YouTube, Big Tech censorship, and the chilling effect that type of censorship has for speech and expression.

OPENING CHIT CHAT

Heartland In The Tank (BANNED EPISODE) The COVID Narrative is Collapsinghttps://rumble.com/vtcvsn-in-the-tank-live-ep330-the-covid-narrative-continues-to-collapse.html

JOE ROGAN AND SPOTIFY

Breitbart White House Recommends Spotify Do More to Censor Joe Roganhttps://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2022/02/01/white-house-recommends-spotify-do-more-to-censor-joe-rogan/

THE CHILLING EFFECT

EFF -Right or Left, You Should Be Worried About Big Tech Censorshiphttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/right-or-left-you-should-be-worried-about-big-tech-censorship

Liberties -How Big Tech Censorship Is Harming Free Speechhttps://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/big-tech-censorship/43511

[Please subscribe to theHeartlandDaily Podcast for free on iTunes atthis link.]

Visit link:
Podcasts - 331. Chilling Effect of Big Tech Censorship - The Heartland Institute

Ohio lawmakers pushing bill that would stop censorship of conservative viewpoints on Facebook – WTRF

Individuals could sue social media giants like Facebook and Twitter for allegedly discriminating against a particular viewpoint and collect damages if the charges are upheld, under proposed GOP Ohio legislation.

The measure now in the House Civil Justice Committee targets what backers say is ongoing censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies, according to testimony from sponsoring GOP Reps. Scott Wiggam of Wooster and Rep. Al Cutrona of suburban Youngstown.

They argue the bill will prevent big tech companies from engaging in viewpoint discrimination without violating the First Amendment right to free expression.

The measure is drawing criticism from some conservatives as well as free speech advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union. Bill opponents say conservatives are in fact well-represented on social media. They also argue an easier solution to concerns over viewpoint discrimination is to use sites with an expressed conservative bent.

Forcing social media companies to accept all viewpoints could lead to the protected proliferation of harmful content including pornography, extremist speech, foreign propaganda, conspiracy theories, as well as spam messages currently blocked by sites, bill opponents say.

Federal judgesin Floridaand Texas last year blocked similar laws from taking effect.

View original post here:
Ohio lawmakers pushing bill that would stop censorship of conservative viewpoints on Facebook - WTRF

How the War on Terror paved the way for online censorship of Palestinians – Middle East Institute

In May 2021, the world watched in horror as Israeli police evicted the Palestinian residents of Jerusalems Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood against their fervid resistance. Meanwhile, another fight was raging: that of narrative power. As journalists, citizen activists, and human rights organizations attempted to document Israels brutal crackdown, many found their communications subject to overzealous content moderation. Key social media posts were removed from influential platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, precisely when those posts were most crucial. The effect of this censorship, many contended, was to dramatically stifle the already marginalized voices of Palestinians, who hoped to show a global audience their lived reality under a violent occupation. This censorship followed a familiar pattern; digital rights organizations such as Access Now and 7amleh have, for years, produced reports meticulously documenting suppression of Palestinian content by social media companies. This pattern of targeted censorship mainly traces its roots to the U.S. response to the attacks on 9/11, and the ensuing buildup of the national security state designed to track and flag any potentially dangerous terrorist activity. One outcome of this intensive buildup was to systematize the kind of discrimination that paved the way for todays content moderation dragnet, in which Palestinians often find themselves caught.

With the advent of the War on Terror, the U.S. Treasury Department created the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) list to track global terrorists. Created via executive order by former President George W. Bush, the list was compiled to impede funding for individuals and organizations designated as terrorists by blocking their assets. In 18 U.S Code 2339A - Providing Material Support to Terrorists, material support or services is defined as any property that is tangible or intangible. Since these laws were written before the spread of social media, it is unclear if postings can reasonably be censored for providing intangible material support to terrorists. The vagueness of the material support for terrorism clause and the expansiveness of the SDN list have led Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, and even Zoom to adopt an overly broad definition of terrorist content that censors and discriminates against Palestinians as well as Muslims and Arabic speakers in general.

In October 2021, the Intercept revealed Facebooks list of Dangerous Individuals and Organizations'' (DIO). This list informs Facebooks Community Standards and aims to prevent real world harm by deplatforming organizations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence. According to the Intercept, the list is a clear embodiment of American anxieties, political concerns, and foreign policy values since 9/11. Additionally, Human Rights Watch reports that Facebook relies on the list of organizations that the U.S. has designated as foreign terrorist organizations to inform its DIO list. That list includes political movements that have armed wings, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Hamas. Facebooks policy, however, seems to call for removing praise or support for all major Palestinian political movements, even when those postings do not explicitly advocate violence. This is evidenced by its removal of posts advocating for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The fear of legal liability results in Facebook broadly suppressing Palestinian expression and content, even when it cannot clearly be tied to organizations on the DIO list or violence more generally. In one instance, Facebook removed references to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem because it associated Al-Aqsa with Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which is on Facebooks DIO list. In a similar incident, a post sharing a news article about a recently issued threat by the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades was removed due to the organizations inclusion on the DIO list.

Often, Facebook removes content on the basis of incitement rather than the DIO list. Incitement laws in Israel are vague and often leveled at Palestinian political speech. As of 2015, 470 Palestinians had been arrested for incitement due to their Facebook posts, including poet Dareen Tatour for a poem posted on the platform. While these incitement laws do not exist in the United States, American social media companies comply with 90% of the hundreds of thousands of content removal requests made by the Israeli Cyber Unit. Companies comply for the same reason they are hypervigilant about content that has the faintest connection to the SDN list: They fear legal liability. In 2015, Facebook was hit with a $1 billion lawsuit that claimed the platform facilitated and encouraged violence against Israelis. While the case was dropped in 2017, Facebook has since intensified its relationship with the Israeli government and pledged to tackle Palestinian incitement. Such concerns are not limited to Facebook either: In 2020, Zoom canceled an event hosted by San Francisco State University that featured Palestinian militant Leila Khaled for similar fears of legal liability. The company released the following statement: Zoom is committed to supporting the open exchange of ideas and conversations, subject to certain limitations contained in our Terms of Service, including those related to user compliance with applicable U.S. export control, sanctions, and anti-terrorism laws.

Social media content of Palestinian Americans is also subject to scrutiny by law enforcement on the basis of antiterrorism laws. In 2018, the Intercept reported on how Palestinian Americans were receiving home visitsfrom the FBI because of their social media posts. In one instance, a law student was interviewed by the New Jersey Joint Terrorism Task Force about his pro-Palestinian posts. These posts had been included in a profile about him created by a right wing pro-Israel website, Canary Mission, which has been revealed to be a source for the FBI and other American law enforcement agencies engaged in counter-terrorism. Canary Mission is also utilized by Israel, especially by Israeli border agents, when running checks on Palestinian Americans attempting to visit the occupied territories. These cases only further reveal how Palestinian content is constantly surveilled; if the content is not removed by social media companies, it is documented by far-right organizations and law enforcement and cited as evidence of potential national security risks.

It is clear that a major obstacle to a democratized social media space is the War on Terror framework, which continues to define the Palestinian struggle to engage in free speech online. As long as the SDN list and threat of legal repercussions for vague claims of material support for terrorism continue to exist, tech companies have no incentive to change their moderation policies and make room for Palestinians. Dismantling digital barriers requires critically considering the disastrous legacy of the War on Terror and its legal relics. Yesterday's national security imperatives cannot be the basis for legislating the unpredictable online world of 2022 and beyond; stakeholders should watch carefully to see how governments and other actors grapple with this reality.

Nooran Alhamdan is a graduate research fellow for MEIs Cyber Program for the 2021-22 academic year. She previously served as a graduate research fellow for MEIs Program on Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli Affairs.She is currently pursuing her Masters in Arab Studies at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. The views expressed in this piece are her own.

Photo by AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP via Getty Images

View post:
How the War on Terror paved the way for online censorship of Palestinians - Middle East Institute

Will Cain on Joe Rogan controversy: Mainstream culture is accepting censorship – Fox News

Will Cain, co-host of "Fox & Friends Weekend," praised Dwayne The Rock Johnson for expressing support for Spotify podcaster Joe Rogan on Twitter. On "Fox & Friends First" Wednesday, Cain said it's rare to see people advocate for free speech in the midst of mainstream culture that seems to be accepting censorship.

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

WILL CAIN: It's the pop culture, acceptable thing right now to call for misinformation. I was driving around in Dallas the other day listening to what used to be one of my favorite sports radio stations a host who could have been canceled any of a thousand times over the last 20 years openly say, 'Well, you have a responsibility when you're talking about public health' and call for censorship. I was appalled, but I think that ultimately those sports radio hosts were sheep because mainstream, acceptable culture right now seems to be accepting censorship.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

So here's Dwayne The Rock Johnson swimming the other way, swimming upstream and saying he supports Joe Rogan. I find that very encouraging. Most notably because I think it is rare. Unfortunately, I think it's pretty rare today to be, as you described me, so gratuitously and accurately I might say, as a free speech proponent. Who in the United States of America now truly stands for free speech?

WATCH MORE OF WILL CAIN'S INTERVIEW BELOW:

Link:
Will Cain on Joe Rogan controversy: Mainstream culture is accepting censorship - Fox News

Critical thinking on censorship – The Fulcrum

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Most of us dont know what we think, really. Throughout our lives we encounter so many influential entities from our family, our culture, our schools, by advertising, by the media that we rarely have thoughts that are totally original. Most are variations of what we already know or have been conditioned to think and feel.

How might we learn which thoughts really belong to us, and which are thoughts planted by others? Which shared thoughts are helpful for social cohesion? Do we have curiosity to explore new thoughts, together?

Exploring the concept of thinking is called critical thinking. It may be our path out of the division and turbulence within the United States and lead us to a new social contract. Critical thinking, however, is no easy task. It requires exposure and openness to new ideas, followed by healthily dealing with the discomfort of our new thoughts.

As a result, we often hear calls for censorship because new ideas are considered dangerous. Unknowingly. the thought police are here; and it is us.

Our freedom of speech is paradoxically a tool for authoritarian mindsets to demand censorship. Broadly speaking, there are several main arenas where censorship and freedom of speech are currently debated. As you read the following, what are your thoughts? Do you find yourself celebrating one area of censorship while decrying it in another?

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

This last point about how we tell the story of our shared history has especially captured my attention because I have two friends who hold opposing views, which naturally challenges my own thinking.

One is a friend who saw a tweet claiming that "ethnic studies" was a cover or code for teaching CRT in California schools. She feels national pride is necessary for social cohesion and that CRT will cause students to be ashamed of our nation. In previous conversations, she shared with me her school and home experiences growing up in post-war Germany. When she would ask her mother about World War II, mother wouldnt talk about it, presumably feeling ashamed. National pride was lost and my friend emigrated to Canada and then the United States, where she became a naturalized citizen.

My other friend is concerned about history being erased, and young minds being assimilated into the dominant culture, which would cut off people from their ancestral roots. He drew a similarity to the Babylonians, who attempted to erase the history of the Israelites, as chronicled in the book of Daniel. This friend is a Baptist minister, and discovering his ancestry has taken extra effort, due to our nations history of enslavement. His identity was not connected or represented in American history. His family was not included in the dominant culture, but have shared their stories within their communities that other Americans either dont know or cannot resonate with.

This is the tension that leads to censorship in schools. A fear of shame about our past and/or anger at being left out of the story. An accurate representation of history gives us the opportunity to learn from the past mistakes of others. It helps us understand why people behaved as they did and why they may behave the way they do now, and which in turn helps future generations to become better citizens. This is why the full teaching of history will shape our future. Its one element to build social cohesion.

Its why we fight over censorship, too. Some people like to surround themselves with like-minded people and avoid challenges to their thinking. This is known more scientifically as confirmation bias. They short-hand and denigrate group-think in others with labels like snowflakes and cult members, recognizing tendencies in others but not themselves.

As we hear increasing calls for censorship, how might we engage to think more critically instead? And how might we come to understand that some of those uncomfortable thoughts can help us learn and grow? We need outliers.

Outliers were defined by Malcolm Gladwell when he chronicled people whose achievements fall outside normal experience, and are a fascinating and provocative blueprint for making the most of human potential. Outliers challenge our assumptions and point them out. Outliers can prevent group-think. Outliers are often mistaken as conflict entrepreneurs (or provocateurs) because of the discomfort they create while challenging the status quo as insufficient.

Whereas conflict entrepreneurs exploit our divisions as a way to profit, while claiming outlier status. How might we distinguish between them?

When exposed to an outlier, I will think or feel:

When exposed to a conflict entrepreneur, I will think or feel:

Youll notice that outliers invite curiosity, engaging in a way that allows us to find our own way to agree or dream with them. The exploration is the point. The conflict entrepreneurs speak with certainty and offer answers, so we can bypass the analysis of points of view, the judging based on evidence, and the forming of opinions based on deductive reasoning. This is the essence of critical thinking needed to build social cohesion.

I crave more critical thinking. More connection. More exploration. I dont crave more censorship. What do you think?

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

See the rest here:
Critical thinking on censorship - The Fulcrum