Mediaboss Marketing

In early December 2021, Palestinians and Arabs representing a diversity of creative, activist and academic practice approached the board of Sydney festival after it was revealed the board had accepted $20,000 funding from the Israeli embassy for the presentation of Sydney Dance Companys realisation of Decadance, a work created by Israeli choreographer Ohad Naharin of the Batsheva Dance Company of Tel Aviv. The amount gave the embassy star partnership status with Sydney Festival.

We made three requests: divest from the star partnership, end all relations with the State of Israel, and remove any Israeli government emblem from Sydney festivals promotional material.

In arguing our case for divestment, we said Arab and Palestinian communities would not participate in a festival that does business with a state that stands credibly accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, according to crimes defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In 2021, Human Rights Watch found Israel is committing crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.

We made it clear artists and arts organisations fundamental partners in any arts festival felt betrayed by Sydney festival. Finally, we pointed out this partnership denied artists an environment of cultural safety, leaving artists, creatives and companies with no choice but to withdraw.

Our arguments were rejected by the board on the grounds Sydney festival is a non-political organisation. In response, Palestinians and a cross-section of artists, arts organisations and communities publicly called for a boycott of the Sydney festival, inspired and guided by the global Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, founded and led by Palestinian civil society.

The effusive response to the boycott call has been unprecedented, in fact historic. It is being cited as the most effective, creative and impactful campaign targeting complicit Israeli sponsorship of an international arts event in Australia, and indeed one of the most successful in the world.

The backlash to this artist-led cultural boycott has been predictable, indeed recycling arguments used in the 1980s against the boycott of apartheid South Africa.

One criticism in particular exposes how liberalisms conceits of free speech, marketplace of ideas, open debate and dialogue is weaponised against Palestinians to shut down their right to resist and to deny them permission to narrate as renowned Palestinian-American professor Edward Said famously argued in 1984.

According to New South Wales arts minister Ben Franklin, it is the boycott not the actions of Sydney festival which shut down specific creative voices simply on account of their nationality, acting as a kind of censorship.

In an opinion piece published in the Australian, federal arts minister Paul Fletcher described those involved in the boycott as Stalinist censors and Hamas useful idiots. Such contrived hysteria over the boycott stultif[ying] and suppress[ing] artistic and creative excellence, and laughable comparisons with Stalinist Russia, are amusingly desperate claims and demonstrate just how rattled Israels defenders are in the face of incontrovertible daily evidence of that states brutality.

The arguments are embarrassing and spurious. Organisers have repeatedly stated the cultural boycott aims at institutions not individuals, targeting complicity, not identity. There was never any attempt to shut down the actual production of Decadance. The target of the boycott call was Sydney festival as a cultural institution for its refusal to divest from its sponsorship and therefore its complicity with the State of Israel.

That Palestinians and their supporters are being forced to explain and restate the basis and terms of the boycott call, only to be ignored and misrepresented is a form of censorship itself. Whose voices are privileged: those who defend oppression or those resisting it?

Those arguing against the boycott claim boycotts burn rather than build bridges. At the first meeting with the board, artists made the crucial point bridges must be built on ethical and just foundations. A star partnership with the State of Israeli is one way to destroy these foundations and for this reason artists cannot, in good conscience, cross that bridge.

The boards refusal to listen to artists is a form of silencing.

The weaponising of censorship against the boycott is hollow because the ministers conveniently ignore questions of power and privilege. The power dynamics between artists and the board of Sydney festival, between marginalised communities and the monocultural establishment, between individuals and institutions are key critical points of reflection here.

What makes these censorship allegations even more disingenuous is the fact that in the same breath as Palestinians and their allies are accused of being censorious, opposition arts spokesperson, Labors Walt Secord called for legislation to cut off funding to arts organisations that participate in a boycott of Israel. Freedom of expression it seems is only afforded to those in power and with power.

Those who attack cultural boycotts in the name of free speech are invariably missing in action when Palestinians are routinely censored, bullied and cancelled for daring to speak their truth. Certainly they remain silent and indifferent to the violent suppression of Palestinian arts and culture, on the raids, lawfare and intimidation of Palestinian artists and artistic and cultural institutions.

This is precisely why the boycott of Sydney festival has been called and indeed, why it has been so impactful and effective.

More:
Calling the Sydney festival boycott censorship is a disingenuous attempt by those in power to silence Palestinians - The Guardian

Internet access brings a lot of advantages such as enabling people to gain access to information with just a few taps of their finger. Many people are starting to call access to the internet a basic human right because of the fact that this is the sort of thing that could potentially end up allowing people to earn money as well as educate themselves in a manner that just hadnt been all that possible previously in human history due to technological barriers and limitations.

With all of that having been said and now out of the way, it is important to note that a lot of world governments dont really seem to care about that and are trying to block social media access. This can be a really big problem for the world, and a really unfortunate trend that has been noticed is that the level of social media censorship that the world is seeing is on the rise and there is a strong likelihood that it would get a lot worse before it gets any better.

This information comes from SurfShark which has been taking note of social media censorship over the last seven years. This research involved an analysis on the state of internet access and social media in all of the 193 countries that are recognized by the UN, and one thing to note is that this often involves preventing certain information from being spread on social media apart from restricting user access to said social media sites in the first place so this is quite a diverse issue.

The worst offenders when it comes to social media censorship are generally countries that are in Asia and Africa. These countries are somewhat more likely to have authoritarian rulers and dictatorial governmental regimes. Such forms of government give the state leeway to do whatever it would like to do in order to provide or take away internet access as they see fit. Hence, since there are no legal blocks that can prevent governments from censoring social media and blocking access to sites, they often move forward with it without any obstacles.

Another really concerning thing that this data reveals is that there is at least some kind of social media blocking that is occurring in around a third of the countries that exist at present. These blockages often center around things like elections and any type of political upheaval, and there are 71 countries that are either currently blocking some form of social media access or alternatively have done so at some point in the past. Most of these countries are in Asia and Africa, with South America also having a large number of them.

If we were to take a closer look at how these things work, it can be discovered that the vast majority of African countries do not allow unrestricted social media access to their citizens. Sometimes this can be relatively innocuous such as in the case such as Algeria blocking social media access during exam season so that students can focus on their studies. In other cases it can be more serious such as Nigeria completing banning Twitter when the new government came into power.

Asia is also a pretty bad offender in this regard. Perhaps the worst country in the world for social media use is actually China due to the reason that this country has blocked access to virtually all foreign social media platforms. Another example of terrible internet rights violations occurred in India, where the government completely blocked all forms of internet access in the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir after passing a controversial new law that suspended this territorys disputed status which caused widespread protests among the residents of that locale.

The fact that so many governments are adamant about banning social media is a strong indication of how powerful a tool it can be. It allows for the rapid dissemination of all kinds of information, and most governments that rely on the iron fist to maintain power would obviously not be all that happy about that and would want to restrict it whenever they can.

Read the original post:
Social Media Censorship is Getting Worse According to This Study - Digital Information World

Ted Nugent has railed against large social-media companies that block users from their platforms.

The outspoken conservative rocker is an ardent supporter of former U.S. president Donald Trump who was famously suspended from his social accounts in January 2021 over public safety concerns in the wake of the Capitol riot.

During his YouTube livestream on Thursday (January 20), Nugent once again upped his unsubstantiated accusations that tech companies are censoring his speech as Facebook and other tech companies have attempted to limit coronavirus vaccine misinformation.

"Boy, does Big Tech crush the First Amendment, like some kind of devil grease gangbangers," Nugent said (as transcribed by BLABBERMOUTH.NET).

"Hey, Big Tech fact checkers, you're lying scum. And they all have to put up a COVID alert misinformation. No, no, no everything from Big Tech and the media and the government, that's the misinformation.

"When I share [information from physician group] Frontline Doctors and epidemiologists and virologists, experts, lifetime dedicated, professional healthcare specialists, doctors and scientists, when I express their findings, that's not misinformation; that's pertinent information," he continued.

"Big Tech, the media and the government, academia and Hollywood, when they identify stuff coming out of me 'cause I don't have any medical or science hunches; I'm cocky but I'm not that stupid. So I go to the professional healthcare, dedicated Frontline Doctors, and I share truth, logic and medical common sense. And when they identify it as misinformation, that's the misinformation. Okay? So let's be forewarned."

Addressing the fact that he is still able to share his views on most of the major social media networks like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and even YouTube, Ted said: "I can't believe they haven't kicked me off yet. Twitter has kicked off Shemane [Nugent, Ted's wife]. She's like Mother Teresa, Joan Of Arc. She's the greatest, sweetest, harmless woman that ever walked the earth, and she's kicked off Twitter because she said something positive about Donald Trump inconsequential; just a compliment.

"By the way, you know the First Amendment? That was not given to us by the government," Ted added. "That didn't start when they wrote it in the Constitution. Tell me you know that when they wrote down self-evident truth in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights that those rights and those freedoms didn't begin there; they already existed. We didn't need a man to put it to paper. We got 'em from God, from the Creator. We were born with all those freedoms, all those self-evident-truth rights. We just wrote it in the documents in case we experience some prick like King George Joe Biden who's gonna try to play tyrannical emperor kingpunk. We just want it on paper just to reference those punks that would try to pry it from our soul. But we know we have it when we're born, whether it's on paper or not."

Last May, Nugent said that he beat COVID-19 by following "intelligent, professionally guided care from the Frontline Doctors," referring to the aforementioned group of doctors who made a video in July 2020 calling for the use of hydroxychloroquine to battle the novel coronavirus, despite warnings from public health experts.

In the above-mentioned video, a group of people wearing white lab coats calling themselves "America's Frontline Doctors" staged a press conference in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. and made a number of dubious claims, including that "you don't need masks" to prevent spread of the coronavirus, and that studies showing hydroxychloroquine is ineffective for the treatment of COVID-19 are "fake science" sponsored by "fake pharma companies." According to Politifact, many of the doctors' claims contradicted recommendations from public health organizations and experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci. The video quickly went viral on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube before it was taken down for promoting misinformation.

Last month, Nugent told the Des Moines, Iowa radio station Lazer 103.3 that he beat COVID-19 by "listen[ing] to what the government told me to do and [doing] just the opposite. And whatever the government told me not to do, that's exactly what I did do, and I was cured in about two days."

Nugent, an outspoken conspiracy theorist who has refused to take the vaccine, also once again falsely claimed that public health measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic violate the Nuremberg code, a set of medical experimentation guidelines set after World War Two, as the vaccine is experimental.

In April, Nugent talked about the darkest days of his battle with COVID-19, saying that he had "never been so scared" in his entire life. The 73-year-old pro-gun activist, who had previously claimed the virus was "not a real pandemic," said: "It was really scary. I didn't think I was gonna make it. I literally couldn't function for about 20 hours, and then they came and they rescued me The six-foot-two, 225-pound headache [this time] was like nothing I have ever experienced. I mean, from my tip of my toes to the top of my hair, I literally was dizzy and weak and struggled to get up to go to the bathroom. And I would lay in the bathtub a couple of times a day with the water as hot as I could take it just to divert."

In the past, Nugent had referred to the virus as a "leftist scam to destroy" Trump. He had also repeated a narrative pushed by conservative media and disputed by health experts that suggests the official death count from the coronavirus is inflated.

Continue reading here:
TED NUGENT Rails Against Big Tech Censorship: 'I Can't Believe They Haven't Kicked Me Off Yet' - BLABBERMOUTH.NET

School officials from the Canyons School District changed their book review and selection policy and returned nine titles they removed from the shelves a few months ago. These books were first removed after Utah parents asked school officials in various emails and letters to censor the books because they contained pornographic material. (Andrea Zapata)

Canyons School District school officials returned nine titles to bookshelves after removing them last November because of Utah parents denouncing their pornographic and obscene content.

Utah parents sent several emails and letters to the Canyons School District at the end of 2021, asking them to remove from the shelves some books with content parents claimed were explicit.

We do not want explicit pornographic materials in schools, said Nichole Mason, president of Utah Parents United. Sex does not belong in a public school library, she added, referring to the nine titles parents have targeted for displaying illustrations and content they oppose.

Utah Parents United is one of the groups that led this advocacy mission and was vocal about the schools moral obligation to protect children and remove any harmful material school libraries may have, Mason said.

Utah Parents United has a list of books featuring content they label as pornographic and explicit.

We have been on the news with this, and when we show them the images of these books, they need to blur them out, Mason said. Yet this is what is on our public school library shelves.

In response to the large number of requests and emails Canyons School District received from groups like Utah Parents United, school officials decided to remove the nine most controversial titles from public school library shelves. This action violated the content review policy to which Canyons School District was subject.

There was a feeling that we needed a pause, Canyons School District spokesperson Kirsten Stewart said when asked about why books were pulled off the shelves without following the review process stipulated in their policy.

Librarian associations and First Amendment advocacy groups have been outspoken about the seriousness and illegality of Canyons School Districts actions.

We do believe there is a place for a parent to question what books should be in a library, Utah Library Association Executive Director Mindy Hale said. The problem with these recent attacks and book removals is that they are not following the policies.

Katie Wegner, the Intellectual Freedom Committee co-chair at Utah Library Association, said these actions by the Canyons School District would open the schools to possible civil lawsuits.

One of the groups investigating the situation is the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah.

This action violated the rights of students, said John Mejia, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. It gave us great concern, particularly because a lot of these books were about marginalized and oppressed identities, and its important that students with these identities have access to books that relate to them and put them in a positive light.

According to several librarians from the Utah Library Association, the real motivation of the Utah parents is not to remove obscene content, but to target those books dealing with race and LGBT issues. Many books out of the nine titles removed have queer or people-of-color protagonists such as Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe, The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison, Beyond Magenta by Susan Kuklin and Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison.

Mason said these allegations are completely false.

These books clearly violate Utah state code, as they are pornographic in nature, she said. It doesnt matter what race or sexuality it is: That is irrelevant, as those images are still pornography.

The new Canyons School District policy for the School Library Materials Selection and Review was published on Jan. 4, and as of Jan. 20, the books pulled off the shelves have been returned to libraries.

No action has been taken on any title at the moment, Stewart said. Those books are now back on the shelves and will be reviewed by the new policy by the board of education.

She said the new policy is balanced and provides clarity and transparency in how school officials select and review books.

Upon being informed of the action to return the books to the shelves, Mejia said the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah is still in the process of investigating and reaching out to school officials. However, Mejia said since the situation changed and there is a new policy, We will most likely not sue them because our priority is that they reconsider, and although we need to confirm that, it seems like they have by returning the books.

Read the original post:
Pornography and censorship: Controversial books returned to Utah school libraries' shelves - The Daily Universe - Universe.byu.edu

Google has asked the High Court of Australia to overturn a 2020 ruling it warns could have a devastating effect on the wider internet. In a filing the search giant made on Friday, Google claims it will be forced to act as censor if the countrys highest court doesnt overturn a decision that awarded a lawyer $40,000 in defamation damages for an article the company had linked to through its search engine, reports The Guardian.

In 2016, George Defteros, a Victoria state lawyer whose past client list included individuals implicated in Melbourne's notorious gangland killings, contacted Google to ask the company to remove a 2004 article from The Age. The piece featured reporting on murder charges prosecutors filed against Defteros related to the death of three men. Those charges were later dropped in 2005. The company refused to remove the article from its search results as it viewed the publication as a reputable source.

The matter eventually went to court with Defteros successfully arguing the article and Googles search results had defamed him. The judge who oversaw the case ruled The Ages reporting had implied Defteros had been cozy with Melbournes criminal underground. The Victorian Court of Appeals subsequently rejected a bid by Google to overturn the ruling.

From Googles perspective, at issue here is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet. A hyperlink is not, in and of itself, the communication of that to which it links, the company contends in its submission to the High Court. If the 2020 judgment is left to stand, Google claims it will make it liable as the publisher of any matter published on the web to which its search results provide a hyperlink, including news stories that come from reputable sources. In its defense, the company points to a 2011 ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada that held a hyperlink by itself is never a publication of defamatory material.

Weve reached out to Google for comment.

See original here:
Google claims court ruling would force it to 'censor' the internet - Yahoo Tech