Mediaboss Marketing

Youre reading Jennifer Rubins subscriber-only newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox.

This week, I point to Democrats dual tasks in the campaign, pick the distinguished person of the week and share some sports moments.

The more we as a society bow to the pressure and self-censor the dream of autocrats is for you to silence yourself, doing their job for them the more arrogant and lawless the enemies of democracy will become, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a leading expert on fascism, warned on X. It is an important service to the American people to continue to call out the policies relating to Project 2025 that will impact their lives in a negative manner if the Republicans regain the [White House]. And it is a service to the democratic world as a whole to be clear on the consequences of America becoming an authoritarian country allied with Putin and other dictators, she said in a separate post.

During his interview on Monday with NBC Newss Lester Holt, President Biden said much the same thing. Focus on what hes doing. Focus on on his on his policies. Focus on the number of lies he told in the debate, he said. When Holt continued to needle Biden for saying bulls eye, Biden responded: How do you talk about the threat to democracy, which is real, when a president says things like he says? Do you just not say anything cause it may incite somebody?

Both Ben-Ghiat and Biden hit upon a critical point in combating authoritarian ideas and politicians who undermine democratic norms. The pro-democracy message must not be diluted. The choice of words should be precise (threat to democracy). The admonition to resolve differences at the ballot box must be stressed, but the intensity of the argument against authoritarianism cannot let up.

To turn down the temperature, as Margaret Sullivan wrote in the Guardian, shouldnt mean silencing criticism of [Donald] Trump in this extremely consequential election season. It shouldnt mean transforming him into some mythic combination of martyr and hero. And it certainly shouldnt mean that he gets a pass a literal get-out-of-jail-free card for his innumerable past misdeeds.

Democrats, however, cannot prevail solely by pointing to Trumps flaws and the danger of MAGA extremism or even to Bidens record of accomplishment. Democrats need a strategic plan for turning around the campaign in swing states. So far, Trumps unfitness, Bidens legislative record, millions in ad buys and the remarkably strong economy have not done the trick. Insisting that Biden needs to repeat the same message but more loudly! has not assuaged nervous Democrats on the Hill or many activists. Nor should it.

Democrats are not a cult. They want facts and data. How does the Biden campaign plan to turn around swing-state voters? Plainly, the campaign has not provided it.

The result: a planned early roll call vote to nominate Biden was pushed back to August, and prominent Democrats such as Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.) continue to call for Biden to step aside. Plainly, Biden still has some convincing to do. (His public performances seem not to have done the trick. A strong NAACP speech was followed by an interview on BET that was weaker than his Holt interview.)

Is there a way to shake up the race with Biden still at the top of the ticket? One approach would be to focus much more intently on Project 2025, which would undermine professional government, politicize the judiciary, deal a blow to Medicaid, abrogate civil rights, undermine voting rights, render the tax code even more regressive, eliminate Head Start, raise drug prices, recall abortion drugs and largely erase the separation of church (Christian fundamentalism, in particular) and state. If the campaign shifts from Biden-Harris vs. Trump-Vance to democracy vs. right-wing authoritarianism, pushes that message intently in critical states, and provides voters with concrete examples of the harm that would flow from the 2025 game plan, perhaps Democrats would feel more hopeful.

Another option (not that these are mutually exclusive messages) is to run against the out-of-control Supreme Court. President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans, The Post reports. He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. Given that the Supreme Courts standing has dropped to new lows and more than 3 in 4 Americans want term limits, according to a Fox News poll, such proposals would be very popular across the ideological spectrum. To make a difference, Biden would need to argue emphatically that the court is as much a threat to our constitutional system as his opponent. Fixing the court through legislation and/or a constitutional amendment would then be front and center.

In sum, the Biden team must show it can get off the back foot and effectively drive their message in swing states. If Democrats are not convinced he has such a plan and can sell it, they have an obligation to level with the president and push for a change at the top of the ticket. Our democracy might hinge on it.

Rarely does a politician so perfectly model the behavior he is advocating for as did Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro following the assassination attempt on Trump last Saturday. Not only did Shapiro speak calmly and stick to the facts, but also, more importantly, he lauded a fellow human being whose politics were radically opposed to his own.

We lost a fellow Pennsylvanian last night: Corey Comperatore, Shapiro said at a news conference. Corey was a girl dad. Corey was a firefighter. Corey went to church every Sunday. Corey loved his community. And most especially, Corey loved his family. He added, Corey died a hero. ... Corey dove on his family to protect them last night at this rally. Corey was the very best of us. May his memory be a blessing.

Shapiro recognized Comperatore as someone excited by politics; however, Shapiro refused to reduce or define Comperatore by political labels. In celebrating a citizens vigorous participation in a campaign rally of someone whose politics he deeply objects to, Shapiro embodied the spirit of the First Amendment, an essential part of our democracy. And Shapiro, thereby, showed the very best of us.

Professional sports is generally a young persons game. And last weekend, we saw a changing of the guard in two different sports. In the Copa Amrica soccer finals, 37-year-old Argentine superstar Lionel Messi, battered and bruised, had to leave the field with the score tied 0-0. He broke down sobbing, unable to lead his teammates to yet another championship. His team pulled out a 1-0 victory, turning his sorrow into joy.

His early exit from the field was a poignant reminder that he might have finished his career for his national team. Those in attendance might be able to boast they saw his last game in a blue-and-white-striped jersey. In the future, Messis teammates at some point must carry on entirely without his presence on the field.

Meanwhile, at Wimbledon, Novak Djokovic, also 37 years old and holder of more Grand Slam singles titles than any other mens player, met someone who might one day top that record. Without dropping a set, Carlos Alcaraz, just 21, swiftly dispensed with Djokovic. Alcaraz modestly said he was not yet a champion in the same league as Djokovic or other greats such as Roger Federer. Yet is the operative word. He already has four Grand Slams to his name. Djokovic, a famously prickly personality, is often not the crowd favorite (especially this year), but during the match, he periodically recognized Alcarazs remarkable shot-making. At the end, he handled the loss with equanimity.

The two championships were a reminder that even illustrious, enduring careers come to an end, leaving the aging champion a shadow of his former self. We should enjoy the greats while we have them. Such athletes are far and few between.

Every other Wednesday at noon, I host a Q&A with readers. Submit a question for the next one.

The rest is here:
Opinion | Democrats must not self-censor. But they also need a plan to win. - The Washington Post

The report linked below was recently published by the Law Library of Congress.

Title

Book and Media Censorship in Selected Countries

Source

The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Directorate, 2024.

From the Introduction

Freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and freedom of the arts are well-known concepts in United States law. The following report provides brief overviews of the treatment of these concepts, with a lens on book and media bans, in 22 different countries. The report covers the primary laws related to censorship, and when available or relevant, includes notable cases and other instances of book or media censorship.

Countries were chosen to represent major regions of the world and include countries from the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Brazil, China, Cuba, Germany, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, The Gambia, Georgia, Israel, India, Kenya, Liberia, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Malawi, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, and Vietnam are included in the study. This selection was based on a finding that these jurisdictions had laws aimed at censorship or expression based on historical, cultural, and political traditions.

Each country has either constitutional or legislative protections in place for freedom of speech, however, many of the surveyed countries also have legislation to regulate matters such as obscenity and incitement. Most countries also contain exceptions for censorship of materials. In some countries, censorship is targeted more toward materials that may fall into the hands of children. Countries such as Malawi and Trinidad and Tobago limit materials that may be targeted toward children. Some countries have restrictions based on national security concerns, such as Israel, Russia, and Uzbekistan. Some countries have restrictions based on language that speaks against the government. China, Cuba, Egypt, and Vietnam have laws with provisions against materials that could be construed as critical of the government. Egypt also has laws pertaining to materials that are adverse to Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. Some countries have more severe criminal penalties for distribution of materials. In The Gambia, trafficking in obscene publications is a felony criminal act. Some countries have seen recent changes in law regarding censorship and media bans. In India, old British colonial laws regarding censorship were replaced by provisions in recently enacted criminal procedure and penal codes, and in France, laws that totally prohibit certain books or media have been repealed, although courts can restrict the distribution of a book on a case-bycase basis if it is deemed contrary to French law.

This report was prepared in time-limited circumstances and should not be considered a comprehensive treatment of this topic for these jurisdictions. Additional relevant information is available in prior Law Library multijurisdictional reports.

Direct to Full Text Report 32 pages; PDF.

Filed under: Libraries, News, Reports

Read the original:
New Report From Law Library of Congress: Book and Media Censorship in Selected Countries - LJ INFOdocket

The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) announces the launch of a new resource, Art Censorship Index: Post-October 7th, documenting the recent spike in censorship of art and artists invoking Israel or Palestine.

Artworks and artists referencing the subject of Israel and Palestine have long been subjects of controversy and/or censorship, but following the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent retaliation in Gaza, arts censorship incidents have risen dramatically. This new map tracks instances of censorship specifically affecting audience access to the arts in the United States, whether visual, performance-based, or literary.

Our cultural sphere is at its richest when artists and cultural institutions are able to reflect upon challenging social and political issues of our time, said Elizabeth Larison, Director of NCACs Arts and Culture Advocacy Program. By documenting these instances of art censorship, we hope to inspire greater accountability and dialogue within the artistic community and beyond.

Through this initiative, NCAC aims to raise awareness of this most recent trend of art censorship, advocate for the protection of artistic freedom, and empower individuals and organizations to identify and resist censorship efforts.

The map will be continually updated with relevant art censorship cases as they arise, providing a real-time resource for researchers, journalists, activists, and policymakers interested in understanding and addressing this pressing issue.

The NCAC invites artists, cultural workers, and the general public to explore the map, share their experiences, and contribute to the ongoing conversation about artistic freedom and censorship.

The Index can be found at: https://ncac.org/art-censorship-index-post-october-7th

See the original post:
National Coalition Against Censorship Launches Map Tracking Art Censorship Since October 7th - Blogging Censorship

Human cognition deals with chaos like a person sorts laundry: by putting things in bins. Lower animals do this in rudimentary ways. Lizards instinctively toggle between five responses to whatever appears in their perceptual field: fight, flee, eat, mate, or ignore. Human beings, too, make instinctive determinations. But while lizards can only hiss or bleat, man, as Aristotle says, possesses logos, whose meanings include word, speech, thought, reason, account, order, proportion, and ratio. Through language, and especially through politicsthe unfettered public exchange of a broad range of opinions and argumentshuman beings discern, articulate, and produce social orders that make possible not just life, but the good life.

Today, however, free speech and politics are under concerted assault in the liberal democracies of the West. The public-private consortia directing that campaignwhat has been called the Censorship Industrial Complexwas the topic of a conference at the end of June in London.

The Westminster Free Speech Forum was organized by Michael Shellenberger, one of the authors of the Twitter Files and CBR Chair of Politics, Censorship, and Free Speech at the University of Austin. The gathering was private and off-the-record to ensure that participants would not be persecuted. (This was a serious concern: Brazils attorney generalBrazilshad accused Shellenberger of having committed a probable crime after he published the Twitter Files.) The conference brought together more than 50 journalists, publishers, academics, parliamentarians, philanthropists, and free-speech activists to discuss the problem of ever-expanding censorship in Western democracies. Experts from the United States, Germany, the U.K., Brazil, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and the Czech Republic reported on how governments are cracking down on free speech in their home countries and around the world.

Speakers documented the coordinated efforts of the UN, EU, World Health Organization, Organization of American States (OAS), and U.S. government to police opinions and facts that interfere with their political goals, and to punish those who promulgate them. They mapped the immense governmental bureaucracies that have implemented a whole of society approach to censorship, leveraging opaque networks of agencies and offices with a mind-numbing multitude of acronyms. They explored the concerted effort among foreign policy and intelligence communities, philanthropies, the news media, NGOs, and universities to stop supposed disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. And they reflected on ways to counter the alarming growth of a culture of censorship among the young and those on the left, majorities of whom support regulating speech.

The war against free speech is being fought with treaties and official agreements with wording as broad as a shotguns blast. One of many examples is the OASs 2013 Inter-American Convention Against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance. Article 1 of the Convention includes in its definition of intolerance disrespect, rejection, or contempt . . . [for the] opinions of others, while Article 4 states that the duties of the [35 signatory] states include [to] prevent, eliminate, prohibit, and punish, in accordance with their constitutional norms . . . all acts and manifestations of discrimination and intolerance. But what is disrespect? What constitutes rejection of an opinion? Is, say, discussion of the connection between Islam and violence punishable intolerance? There are no clear answers to these questions, because the censors never define their terms. The vagueness deliberately encourages self-censorship by communicating an implicit warning: caveat loquens, let the speaker beware.

As European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen explained, Hate is hate. In other words, Hate is what we say it is. In Europe and across the developed world, such sentiments quickly becomes censorious policies. Say the EU wishes to deem racism a national crisis. It calls for studies and selects and funds NGOs to produce them. The surveys ask anonymous respondents whether, for example, theyve been subject to, or witnessed, racism. The results provide independent evidence of a social emergency, which the Censorship Industrial Complex leverages to justify speech restrictions. This phenomenon plays out wherever there is censorship. Using endless up-escalators of money and power, the CIC creates agenda-driven crises, which it uses to justify further crackdowns on free speech. This is the kind of self-perpetuating system that political scientists call SLICC, a self-licking ice cream cone.

Athenian democracy, as one Forum speaker observed, was characterized by isegoria, equality in the exercise of freedom, and parrhesia, frankness. The CIC rejects these core democratic values. Its notion that legal but harmful information must be censored presupposes that the citizens of liberal democracies cannot think for themselves.

As a result, the CIC infantilizes the public. Police Scotlands creepy Dont Feed Hate campaign, for example, features a furry Hate Monster with an angry expression, suggesting so-called hate speech is little more than the tantrum of an ill-bred child. The Hate Monster, Police Scotlands website explains, represents that feeling some people get when they are frustrated and angry and take it out on others, because they feel like they need to show they are better than them. The website encourages citizens to report (anonymously, if they wish) any hate crimes they witness. Its totalitarian Sesame Street for adults.

American citizens, too, apparently need commissars to babysit them. In 2021, Nina Jankowicz, who would later head the Department of Homeland Securitys now-disbanded Disinformation Governance Board, posted to TikTok a bizarre video of herself made up like Mary Poppins, singing Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, whose lyrics shed rewritten to explain disinformation. For a while, Jankowicz performed her shtick on a platform called Alethea (from the Greek aletheia, truth),which helps companies detect and mitigate disinformation and misinformation. She has also co-founded a nonprofit, the American Sunlight Project, which seeks to combat false or misleading information by ensuring that that citizens have access to trustworthy sources. This corporate branding exemplifies Orwellian doublespeak: darkness is sunlight, and falsehood is truth.

The most potent weapon against these would-be censors is the very one the CIC targets: free speech, which Frederick Douglass called the dread of tyrants. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech, Douglass proclaimed in 1860. Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South. In the same address, he shrewdly observed that the suppression of free speech limits educational possibilities, and so violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It even harms the know-it-all censors, whose refusal to entertain substantial opposition to their own assumptions and arguments deprives them of a rare and fleeting opportunity to develop intellectual humility.

The good news is that the CICs dishonesty has been extensively exposed. Claims that the government, the intelligence community, and the media repeatedly dismissed as conspiracy theoriesthat Covid originated in a Chinese lab; that vaccines were ineffective in preventing its spread and carried significant risks of their own; that the infamous laptop really did belong to Hunter Biden; and that Joe Biden is suffering cognitive declinehave all, in rapid succession, turned out to be true. We can only hope that these revelationsand the vigilance of defenders of free speech, including those who participated in the Forumwill yet stymie our would-be censors.

Photo: z_wei / iStock / Getty Images Plus

See the original post here:
Shut Up, They Explained - City Journal

Key Takeaways

Censorship resistance is the ability to make financial transactions without interruption from third parties. Unlike traditional banking systems, which rely on intermediaries that can freeze accounts or block payments, censorship-resistant systems allow individuals control over their finances.

This concept is central to the cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology systems. Censorship-resistant systems aim to create a more fair and open financial landscape by removing the need for trusted intermediaries.

Blockchain technology uses several mechanisms to achieve censorship resistance:

Censorship is harmful because it weakens important ideas that make a society work. By stopping free speech and controlling the flow of information, censorship holds back innovation, changes history, and gives too much power to a small group of people.

Censorship slows progress by stopping the sharing of ideas. It also keeps influential people in control by silencing those who disagree. Manipulating information through censorship can lead to wrong results.

While blockchain technology helps to prevent censorship, its not entirely protected from problems. Issues like network centralization, government control, and new ways to watch people could weaken these benefits.

The blockchain ecosystem must keep improving and changing to resist censorship. Developments in privacy-enhancing technologies, such as zero-knowledge proofs, are important for securing user data and preserving the decentralized nature of blockchain networks.

Understanding the risks of traditional finance, such as government interference and bank failures, helps us appreciate the importance of censorship resistance. Cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology provide a solution by decentralizing financial power and protecting individual rights.

However, its important to recognize that the way to a fully censorship-resistant financial system is ongoing. Challenges like regulation and new technology will continue to change the landscape.

Read the original here:
Censorship Resistance in Blockchain Technology - UseTheBitcoin