Mediaboss Marketing

Jen Psaki, White House press secretary, speaks during a news conference in the James S. Brady Press ... [+] Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, July 2, 2021. The pace of U.S. hiring accelerated in June, with payrolls gaining the most in 10 months, suggesting firms are having greater success recruiting workers to keep pace with the economy's reopening.Photographer: Samuel Corum/Bloomberg

On Friday afternoon, White Press Secretary Jen Psaki was a hot topic on Twitter after she had a curt exchange with Fox New Channel's Peter Doocy over the issue of Covid-19 vaccine misinformation on social media. President Joe Biden has been especially critical of social media platforms, notably Facebook, for allowing the spread of misinformation about the coronavirus as well as vaccines.

Biden has blamed misinformation for stalling U.S. vaccine rates, and suggested, "They're killing people," when asked what his message was to the social networks for allowing misleading claims to spread.

"The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated," Biden added.

Facebook was quick to respond to the president.

"We will not be distracted by accusations which aren't supported by the facts," a company spokesman said in a statement to NBC News. "The fact is that more than 2 billion people have viewed authoritative information about COVID-19 and vaccines on Facebook, which is more than any other place on the internet. More than 3.3 million Americans have also used our vaccine finder tool to find out where and how to get a vaccine. The facts show that Facebook is helping save lives. Period."

Censorship Or Not?

The fact that the president took aim at a social media platform has been widely called out by many on social media platforms, suggesting it was censorship, while others even saw it as a First Amendment violation. However, that isn't accurate.

"I was surprised when the White House called out Facebook by name," said Bob Jarvis, lawyer and professor of Law at Nova Southeastern University.

"I think it would have been more appropriate if the White House simply had reminded Americans that there is a lot of misinformation on the web and that everyone, as always, should approach the web with a good deal of skepticism and be very careful as to what they believe, even if information appears on a social media platform that they like and regularly use," Jarvis added. "Obviously, however, the White House is very frustrated with the misinformation that is impeding its drive to get 'shots in arms.' And it obviously feels that there is no political downside in calling out Facebook.This assessment undoubtedly is correct, inasmuch as Big Tech currently has few, if any, friends."

Misinformation Is Protected Speech

Some cable talking heads, as well as social media political pundits, have also pondered whether "misinformation" would in fact be protected. Comparisons to yelling fire in a crowded theater have been suggested online, but Jarvis said that isn't comparable, however.

"'Misinformation' is covered by the First Amendment," he added. "Under the First Amendment, all information, no matter how wrong, is protected by the First Amendment. That is why, for example, Holocaust deniers can say what they say. Justice Holmes's exception for falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not concerned with the fact that the misinformation is wrong. Instead, it carves out the exception it does because the 100% certain consequence that will follow is that there will be an immediate stampede and, as a result, immediate death.

"Likewise for the other well-known exception i.e., publicizing troop movements in wartime," Jarvis explained. "Here, we cannot say with 100% certainty that people who do not get immunized will contract Covid and die. In fact, we know that at least some of them won't contract Covid."

Another misconception that has circulated on social media is that social media companies are also bound by the First Amendment, and their respective removal of Covid-19 related posts would be a form of censorship. That isn't accurate either.

"The First Amendment has to protect misinformation, otherwise, someone would have to decide what constitutes misinformation," said Jarvis. "The government clearly cannot be given that power, because that's a direct route to dictatorship. But a private company like Facebook, which is not subject to the First Amendment which, of course, applies only to the government can decide that someone is spewing false information and can decide not to give that person their time; or, in the case of Facebook, their platform and access to their users."

Ban Them All?

Twitter users also reacted quickly to call out Psaki for stating on Friday that social media companies should provide transparency about their rules.

"You shouldn't be banned from one platform and not others if you are providing misinformation out there," is what she said, but many took those words out of context.

"Jen Psaki stood at the podium and essentially said that people who are banned from one social media platform should be banned from all of them. Free speech is dead in America if these people get their way," wrote Rep. Lauren Boerbert (@laurenboebert) (R-Colo.), who has remained quite critical of the Biden administration.

Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker), CEO of BeckerNews.com, also took aim at Psaki, suggesting, "This is *truly* dangerous."

However, in context what Psaki meant wasn't that someone should be banned from all social media if one platform makes the decision to do so, but that it should be based on the content that individual was posting.

"I did understand Jen Psaki's comment to be that if you are banned from one social media platform for spreading Covid-19 misinformation you should be banned from all other platforms, and that platforms should work together to create a 'blacklist' of users," said Jarvis.

"I don't believe there is any other way to interpret her comment," he added. "Again, this is fine under the First Amendment because the platforms are private companies and therefore are not subject to the First Amendment.And the government is merely suggesting that the platforms ban people who spread Covid-19 misinformation and is not requiring the platforms to do so, which would violate the First Amendment."

Read the original post:
Misinformation: The White House And Jen Psaki Didn't Actually Call For Censorship Of Social Media - Forbes

Submitted July 14, 2021

Several weeks ago, I had the opportunity to speak in front of our local county commissioners about their efforts to censor a display of books in the James V. Brown Library. The efforts that lead to this moment surrounded a particular set of books that represented themes of Pride Month. These books were simple stories that deal with friendships, families, and individualism.

Two of the commissioners, Scott Metzger and Tony Mussare paid a visit to the library to investigate what they said was a complaint by some constituents about the display and they wanted to make a request with the director to have the books removed.

Prior to this visit, Metzger posted a message on social media that he thought the books should be removed from the display and placed back on the shelves. He also went on to espouse his rather misinformed opinions about what people should or should not be allowed to read.

When word began to spread about the visit to the library by the two commissioners, a friend of mine contacted me to see what sort of challenges they may be facing. The first thing I said is that your director will have a plan of action for this. Censorship efforts like this happen all too often around the country and the library world is prepared. But with that, I immediately reached out to friends in organizations like the Library of Congress, American Library Association, The American Civil Liberties Union, EveryLibrary.Org, Banned Books Week, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund--all of whom are on constant watch for these moments.

The responses came from those offices within the hour: What do you need? What resources do you have? How can we help? Every one of these organizations were on standby.

Not surprisingly, Barbara McGary, Director of the library along with her staff and the board of directors calmly stood firm in defense of the idea that a library represents everyone in the community. And the commissioners backed down from their requests to have the books removed.

So how does this tie in with the rise of Hitler?

At this moment I am researching and editing a graphic novel about the holocaust and one of the (many) elements that stands out in the years prior to Hitler taking power is how much of a role censorship, along with propaganda, played a critical role in the rise of the Nazi party.

They burned hundreds of thousands of books--any book that did not reflect the Nationalist ideals of the Nazi Party and the Third Reich. They burned books of history, poetry, science

They also used simple yet powerful words to belittle and demean anyone who did not fit their ideals of what a true German was. These words fed rumors which led to hysteria: Jews are not worthy, homosexuals are not worthy, mentally disabled are not worthy, gypsies are not worthy. In the eyes of the Nazis, this meant these people were not worthy of food, clothing, homesthey were not really even humans, they were all seen as a drain on the nations resources. They were disposable.

The words progressed: pogrom, relocation, labor camp, death camp, extermination. The words led to the creation of an industrial extermination process that killed over six million people.

I am not writing this to convince those two commissioners that censorship can lead to horrible things. They dont realize they are already part of the problem that allows for genocide to become possible.

I am writing this as a call to you, your children, your friends, and anyone who understands that these tiny forms of censorship can and do lead to horrible events in societies around the world.

Any time a book is removed from the library or classroom because it goes against the opinions of an elected official or any nonelected administrator or a parent who declares the book offends their sensibilities, we all need to stand up and defend that book.

Even if it is just one book.

The extermination of millions of Jews, gays, disabled, and other people happened only a generation ago. The words that made Hitler possible started two decades prior to that.

When I spoke in front of the commissioners that day, I looked directly at Metzger and Mussare and I pointed out that their words can and do cause harm. Their words make it ok for people to get hurt, beaten, or even killed. They enable hatred in people who simply cannot accept any one who is different.

Those words are no different than the ones that led to the industrial extermination of over six million human beings. If you visit the library today, you can find incredible stories about the Holocaust, and you will see how devastating those words can be.

We need to make sure this never happens again, and the fight will always start with someone wanting a book removed from the library.

--

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed in this letter to the editor do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints ofNorthcentralPa.com.

Our content is free, but our journalists work hard. 100% of your contribution to NorthcentralPa.com goes directly toward helping us cover the important news and events in our region. Thank you for saying that local news matters!

Read more here:
Letter to the editor: Your library, censorship, and the rise of Hitler - NorthcentralPa.com

If [Donald] Trump and [Bernie] Sanders take the same position on Big Tech censorship, David Catron writes at The American Spectator, the issue deserves serious attention.

Hes right, but in pretty much the opposite of the way he intends. When the mainstream right and left agree on anything, thats almost always a blazing neon sign warning us that our freedoms are under threat.

Catron (and Trump and Sanders) want the U.S. government to seize control of social media platforms and dictate which users those platforms must accept and what kind of content those platforms must permit publication of. They dont put it quite that baldly, of course, but who would? Their cause is implicit in their criticisms of Big Tech as a monopoly, which requires government regulation to promote competition in the marketplace of ideas.

Social media platforms arent monopolies. If you dont like Facebook or Twitter, you can go to Minds, MeWe, Diaspora, Mastodon, Gab, Discord, et al.

The U.S. government, however, is a monopoly. Everyones forced to do business with it, and in many areas it forcibly forbids or limits competition with its own offerings.

Arguments in favor of government regulation of social media platforms arent arguments against monopolies. Theyre arguments in favor of extending the government monopolys reach into new markets.

In this case, markets constitutionally protected by the First Amendment and by that amendments codification in statute vis a vis the Internet, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Social media platforms banning and content moderation decisions arent censorship.

Censorship is you cant say that.

You cant use out platform to say that isnt censorship.

If you tell me I cant sing my favorite Irish ballad and that if I do youll have me arrested (assuming you have the power to do so), thats censorship.

If you tell me I cant sing Foggy Dew on your front porch at midnight, thats not censorship. Im free to sing it on my own front porch, or on the sidewalk, or at karaoke night at the local bar.

By way of arguing the point, some of my friends point out that politicians bully major internet platforms into censoring by proxy. The popular example is Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, successfully leaning on Amazon Prime Video to remove anti-vaccine documentaries.

My friends are right. Its a problem. Politicians attempting to compel platforms to host speech they dont want to host is the flip side of the same problem, not a different problem.

Whatever the solution to that problem may be, repeal of the First Amendment or reform of Section 230 arent part of it.

Ideally, bad actors like Schiff, Trump and Sanders would be impeached and removed from office, or charged with conspiracy against rights (18 US Code 241), or both.

Barring that, we should work to ensure that these evil-doers lose in Congress, in the courts and at the ballot box. We mustnt sacrifice internet freedom, or freedom of speech and press in general, to politicians and their schemes.

THOMAS L. KNAPP is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism. Email him at media@thegarrisoncenter.org. Follow @thomaslknapp on Twitter.

View original post here:
THOMAS L. KNAPP: Internet censorship is the real monopoly threat - Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal

The federal government has launched a campaign to flag Facebook posts it deems "misinformation" on COVID-19, a decision which Sen. Josh Hawley, R-MO., described as "really scary" on "Special Report" Thursday.

Hawley: I think it's scary. I think it's really scary to have the federal government of the United States, the White House, compiling lists of people, organizations, whatever, and then going to a private company that, by the way, is a monopoly, Facebook, and saying you need to censor, you need to do something about this, you need to tell these users, these private users at a private company what they can or cannot say. I mean, I just think that this kind of coordination between big government and the big monopoly corporation, boy, that is scary stuff. And it really is censorship.

At this point, you really have to wonder how private of companies they are. I mean, if you're taking direction from the federal government, openly coordinating with the federal government, you've got the government saying, we think that this speech ought to be censored, and big tech, they carry out those instructions. I mean, that looks like they're starting to operate as a public utility. And there are many people out there who say we ought to just treat them as public utilities. We ought to just regulate these private companies as such. My view is we ought to break them up and restore competition. But I have to tell you, their status as independent private companies looks more and more endangered here. They're acting like arms of the government. And when they're monopolies, that's a big problem.

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW BELOW:

Continued here:
Hawley hammers White House as really scary for pushing Facebook to 'censor' COVID posts - Fox News

Chinese censors have approved Denis Villeneuves sci-fi spectacular Dune for release in the worlds largest film market. The film has officially announced that it will hit local screens this year, although it has not yet set a release date.

In late June, Warner Bros. shifted the films U.S. release date back from Oct. 1 to Oct. 22 amidst a larger scheduling reshuffle by the company. In China, the film is distributed by Wanda subsidiary Legendary Pictures.

A big consideration for the timing change may have been that the planned Oct. 1 release would have coincided with Chinas Oct. 1 National Day holiday and the subsequent weeks-long protectionist period during which there is an unofficial blackout on foreign titles to boost sales for local propaganda films. Other types of blockbusters, local and imported alike, should be returning to theaters around the Oct. 22 date.

The later date also bolsters its Chinese box office prospects. Should Dune have released Oct. 1 on HBO Max before a Chinese theatrical release, its China sales would likely have been significantly impacted by piracy, particularly since HBO Max is unavailable in the mainland.

The film has made casting choices that will appeal to a Chinese viewership, selecting Taiwan-born actor Chang Chen to play Dr. Wellington Yueh, a role previously taken up in past film adaptations by white actors Dean Stockwell (1984s Dune) and Robert Russell (Frank Herberts Dune miniseries). Chang is known for his roles in Wong Kar-wais Happy Together and 2046, Ang Lees Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hou Hsiao-hsiens Three Times and The Assassin.

Passing censorship more than three months before its North America debut will hopefully help smooth the way for Dune to secure a day-and-date release for China alongside domestic, although that is not always the case. Marvels Black Widow, for instance, passed censorship back in March, but has yet to announce a China release date despite opening July 9 stateside.

The news of the greenlight for the China Dune outing was met with an outpouring of excitement from Chinese viewers, many of whom are already dubbing it one of the major movie events of the year.

Villeneuves past films have had strong, though not smashing success, at the Chinese box office. China was the top overseas territory for both Arrival and Blade Runner 2049, which grossed $15.9 million and $11.7 million in the country, respectively.

Continue reading here:
Dune Passes Chinese Censorship, to the Relief of Fans - Variety