Mediaboss Marketing

Mary Ware Dennett wroteThe Sex Side of Life in 1915as a teaching tool for her teenage sons. Photo illustration by Meilan Solly / Photos courtesy of Sharon Spaulding and Newspapers.com

It only took 42 minutes for an all-male jury to convict Mary Ware Dennett. Her crime? Sending a sex education pamphlet through the mail.

Charged with violating the Comstock Act of 1873one of a series of so-called chastity lawsDennett, a reproductive rights activist, had written and illustrated the booklet in question for her own teenage sons, as well as for parents around the country looking for a new way to teach their children about sex.

Lawyer Morris Ernst filed an appeal, setting in motion a federal court case that signaled the beginning of the end of the countrys obscenity laws. The pairs victory marked the zenith of Dennetts life work, building on her previous efforts to publicize and increase access to contraception and sex education. (Prior to the trial, she was best known as the more conservative rival of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.) Today, however, United States v. Dennett and its defendant are relatively unknown.

One of the reasons the Dennett case hasnt gotten the attention that it deserves is simply because it was an incremental victory, but one that took the crucial first step, says Laura Weinrib, a constitutional historian and law scholar at Harvard University. First steps are often overlooked. We tend to look at the culmination and miss the progression that got us there.

Dennett wrote the pamphlet in question, The Sex Side of Life: An Explanation for Young People, in 1915. Illustrated with anatomically correct drawings, it provided factual information, offered a discussion of human physiology and celebrated sex as a natural human act.

[G]ive them the facts, noted Dennett in the text, ... but also give them some conception of sex life as a vivifying joy, as a vital art, as a thing to be studied and developed with reverence for its big meaning, with understanding of its far-reaching reactions, psychologically and spiritually.

After Dennetts 14-year-old son approved the booklet, she circulated it among friends who, in turn, shared it with others. Eventually, The Sex Side of Life landed on the desk of editor Victor Robinson, who published it in his Medical Review of Reviewsin 1918. Calling the pamphlet a splendid contribution, Robinson added, We know nothing that equals Mrs. Dennetts brochure. Dennett, for her part, received so many requests for copies that she had the booklet reprinted and began selling it for a quarter to anyone who wrote to her asking for one.

These transactions flew in the face of the Comstock Laws, federal and local anti-obscenity legislation that equated birth control with pornography and rendered all devices and information for the prevention of conception illegal. Doctors couldnt discuss contraception with their patients, nor could parents discuss it with their children.

The Sex Side of Life offered no actionable advice regarding birth control. As Dennett acknowledged in the brochure, At present, unfortunately, it is against the law to give people information as to how to manage their sex relations so that no baby will be created. But the Comstock Act also stated that any printed material deemed obscene, lewd or lasciviouslabels that could be applied to the illustrated pamphletwas non-mailable. First-time offenders faced up to five years in prison or a maximum fine of $5,000.

In the same year that Dennett first wrote the brochure, she co-founded the National Birth Control League (NBCL), the first organization of its kind. The groups goal was to change obscenity laws at a state level and unshackle the subject of sex from Victorian morality and misinformation.

By 1919, Dennett had adopted a new approach to the fight for womens rights. A former secretary for state and national suffrage associations, she borrowed a page from the suffrage movement, tackling the issue on the federal level rather than state-by-state. She resigned from the NBCL and founded the Voluntary Parenthood League, whose mission was to pass legislation in Congress that would remove the words preventing conception from federal statutes, thereby uncoupling birth control from pornography.

Dennett soon found that the topic of sex education and contraception was too controversial for elected officials. Her lobbying efforts proved unsuccessful, so in 1921, she again changed tactics. Though the Comstock Laws prohibited the dissemination of obscene materials through the mail, they granted the postmaster general the power to determine what constituted obscenity. Dennett reasoned that if the Post Office lifted its ban on birth control materials, activists would win a partial victory and be able to offer widespread access to information.

Postmaster General William Hays, who had publicly stated that the Post Office should not function as a censorship organization, emerged as a potential ally. But Hays resigned his post in January 1922 without taking action. (Ironically, Hays later established what became known as the Hays Code, a set of self-imposed restrictions on profanity, sex and morality in the motion picture industry.) Dennett had hoped that the incoming postmaster general, Hubert Work, would fulfill his predecessors commitments. Instead, one of Works first official actions was to order copies of the Comstock Laws prominently displayed in every post office across America. He then declared The Sex Side of Life unmailable and indecent.

Undaunted, Dennett redoubled her lobbying efforts in Congress and began pushing to have the postal ban on her booklet removed. She wrote to Work, pressing him to identify which section was obscene, but no response ever arrived. Dennett also asked Arthur Hays, chief counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to challenge the ban in court. In letters preserved at Radcliffe Colleges Schlesinger Library, Dennett argued that her booklet provided scientific and factual information. Though sympathetic, Hays declined, believing that the ACLU couldnt win the case.

By 1925, Dennettdiscouraged, broke and in poor healthhad conceded defeat regarding her legislative efforts and semi-retired. But she couldnt let the issue go entirely. She continued to mail The Sex Side of Life to those who requested copies and, in 1926, published a book titledBirth Control Laws: Shall We Keep Them, Change Them, or Abolish Them?

Publicly, Dennetts mission was to make information about birth control legal; privately, however, her motivation was to protect other women from the physical and emotional suffering she had endured.

The activist wed in 1900 and gave birth to three children, two of whom survived, within five years. Although the specifics of her medical condition are unknown, she likely suffered from lacerations of the uterus or fistulas, which are sometimes caused by childbirth and can be life-threatening if one becomes pregnant again.

Without access to contraceptives, Dennett faced a terrible choice: refrain from sexual intercourse or risk death if she conceived. Within two years, her husband had left her for another woman.

Dennett obtained custody of her children, but her abandonment and lack of access to birth control continued to haunt her. Eventually, these experiences led her to conclude that winning the vote was only one step on the path to equality. Women, she believed, deserved more.

In 1928, Dennett again reached out to the ACLU, this time to lawyer Ernst, who agreed to challenge the postal ban on the Sex Side of Life in court. Dennett understood the risks and possible consequences to her reputation and privacy, but she declared herself ready to take the gamble and be game. As she knew from press coverage of her separation and divorce, newspaper headlines and stories could be sensational, even salacious. (The story was considered scandalous because Dennetts husband wanted to leave her to form a commune with another family.)

Dennett believed that anyone who needed contraception should get it without undue burden or expense, without moralizing or gatekeeping by the medical establishment, says Stephanie Gorton, author of Citizen Reporters: S.S. McClure, Ida Tarbell and the Magazine That Rewrote America. Though she wasn't fond of publicity, she was willing to endure a federal obscenity trial so the next generation could have accurate sex educationand learn the facts of life without connecting them with shame or disgust.

In January 1929, before Ernst had finalized his legal strategy, Dennett was indicted by the government. Almost overnight, the trial became national news, buoyed by The Sex Side of Lifes earlier endorsement by medical organizations, parents groups, colleges and churches. The case accomplished a significant piece of what Dennett had worked 15 years to achieve: Sex, censorship and reproductive rights were being debated across America.

During the trial, assistant U.S. attorney James E. Wilkinson called the Sex Side of Life pure and simple smut. Pointing at Dennett, he warned that she would lead our children not only into the gutter, but below the gutter and into the sewer.

None of Dennetts expert witnesses were allowed to testify. The all-male jury took just 45 minutes to convict. Ernst filed an appeal.

In May, following Dennetts conviction but prior to the appellate courts ruling, an investigative reporter for the New York Telegram uncovered the source of the indictment. A postal inspector named C.E. Dunbar had been ordered to investigate a complaint about the pamphlet filed by an official with the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Using the pseudonym Mrs. Carl Miles, Dunbar sent a decoy letter to Dennett requesting a copy of the pamphlet. Unsuspecting, Dennett mailed the copy, thereby setting in motion her indictment, arrest and trial. (Writing about the trial later, Dennett noted that the DAR official who allegedly made the complaint was never called as a witness or identified. The activist speculated, Is she, perhaps, as mythical as Mrs. Miles?)

Dennetts is a name that deserves to be known.

When news of the undercover operation broke, Dennett wrote to her family that support for the case is rolling up till it looks like a mountain range. Leaders from the academic, religious, social and political sectors formed a national committee to raise money and awareness in support of Dennett; her name became synonymous with free speech and sex education.

In March 1930, an appellate court reversed Dennetts conviction, setting a landmark precedent. It wasnt the full victory Dennett had devoted much of her life to achieving, but it cracked the legal armor of censorship.

Even though Mary Ware Dennett wasnt a lawyer, she became an expert in obscenity law, says constitutional historian Weinrib. U.S. v. Dennett was influential in that it generated both public enthusiasm and money for the anti-censorship movement. It also had a tangible effect on the ACLUs organizational policies, and it led the ACLU to enter the fight against all forms of what we call morality-based censorship.

Ernst was back in court the following year. Citing U.S. v. Dennett, he won two lawsuits on behalf of British sex educator Marie Stopes and her previously banned books, Married Love and Contraception. Then, in 1933, Ernst expanded on arguments made in the Dennett case to encompass literature and the arts. He challenged the governments ban on James Joyces Ulysses and won, in part because of the precedent set by Dennetts case. Other important legal victories followed, each successively loosening the legal definition of obscenity. But it was only in 1970 that the Comstock Laws were fully struck down.

Ninety-two years after Dennetts arrest, titles dealing with sex continue to top the list of the American Library Associations most frequently challenged books. Sex education hasnt fared much better. As of September 2021, only 18 states require sex education to be medically accurate, and only 30 states mandate sex education at all. The U.S. has one of the highestteen pregnancy rates of all developed nations.

What might Dennett think or do if she were alive today? Lauren MacIvor Thompson, a historian of early 20th-century womens rights and public health at Kennesaw State University, takes the long view:

While its disheartening that we are fighting the same battles over sex and sex education today, I think that if Dennett were still alive, shed be fighting with school boards to include medically and scientifically accurate, inclusive, and appropriate information in schools. ... Shed [also] be fighting to ensure fair contraceptive and abortion access, knowing that the three pillars of education, access and necessary medical care all go hand in hand.

At the time of Dennetts death in 1947, The Sex Side of Life had been translated into 15 languages and printed in 23 editions. Until 1964, the activists family continued to mail the pamphlet to anyone who requested a copy.

As a lodestar in the history of marginalized Americans claiming bodily autonomy and exercising their right to free speech in a cultural moment hostile to both principles, says Gorton, Dennetts is a name that deserves to be known.

Originally posted here:
The Sex Education Pamphlet That Sparked a Landmark Censorship Case - Smithsonian

Sept. 30, 2021 4:27 pm ET

In Great Art Doesnt Care About Fairness, Equality or Identity (op-ed, Sept. 25), James Campbell writes, It is surely one of the strangest of recent cultural phenomena that, whereas it was traditionally young radicals who fought to throw off the shackles of censorship, it is their radical heirs who lead the campaign to fasten them on again.

There is nothing strange about it. Those young radicals of the 1960s to whom Mr. Campbell refers were not fighting for free speech. They were exploiting Americas commitment to free speech to spread their own radical leftist beliefs. Now that they have completed their long march through the institutions, giving them near-monopoly control of the propagation of ideas in the U.S., they find that freedom of speech has become something of an inconvenience. That pesky thing called truth keeps rearing its head. Better to stifle the opposition altogether. Welcome to the revolution.

Read the original here:
Censorship and the Possibility of Great Art - The Wall Street Journal

China will ban games that include same-sex relationship, effeminate men and is looking to crack down ... [+] on anything the state deems immoral.

China is set to crack down on video games with content the state deems immoral. According to a leaked memo, games must have correct values in order to be approved by the Chinese government, as well as an accurate understanding of Chinese history and culture.

The memo was leaked to The South China Morning Post, and details the types of content the governments regulators will no longer approve. This includes:

Sorry Mass Effect, you tick off all these boxes.

This comes after China recently announced new regulations to the amount of online gaming kids and teens are allowed to play in a week to just three hours. China has also cracked down on TV, banning effeminate or sissy men and instructing broadcasters to promote excellent Chinese traditional culture instead.

Ive written about censorship plenty in the past, though more frequently about efforts in the US to have problematic content banned (where it is thankfully much harder to do). I think Chinas censoriousness can help serve as a cautionary tale for anyone not sold on the importance of free speech.

Most recently, I wrote about the Geena Davis Institutes report on violent video games and how video games reinforce notions of toxic masculinity.

"Hyperexposure to these kinds of tropes is very impactful," Davis said during a fireside chat discussing the report. "What we're exposed to over and over becomes a sort of reality for us. Media and games, the things we see in our popular culture, have a tremendous impact in shaping who we are. So as you can imagine, playing these games over and over or watching people play these games can have a significant impact about what you think is the actual way that men should be, or what masculinity should look like."

Its curious to see how much Davis and the Chinese state agree (and it was Ashely Judd saying this before Davis). Both believe that video games impact our understanding of masculinity. Davis worries that games will make men and boys more violent and sexist; the Communist Party in China is concerned that games will make men sissies. They have diametrically opposed views other than this belief that games cause some form of real world harm and must be regulated to prevent that harm.

The same goes with a new open letter to Rockstar Gameswhich I discuss on my YouTube channelfrom a group of LGBTQ+ game devs in the UK asking the studio to remove harmful transphobic content from the Enhanced version of GTA V.

Then there is the attempt, by a surprising number of game developers and media, to ban or deplatform the upcoming tactical shooter Six Days In Fallujah because they believe it will somehow inflict harm on Arabic people and Muslims.

Rewind further and you may recall the tale of Hatred, a game about a guy going out and killing innocent people thats little more than a murder simulator. People wanted that game banned and for a moment, Valve compliedpulling Hatred from its digital shelf, though only briefly. Valve boss Gabe Newell intervened and Hatred was returned to Steam, though it received an Adults Only rating, something typically reserved for graph sexual content.

At the time, I wrote: Getting excited over games being banned, censored, or otherwise restricted is a lot more troubling to me than killing pixels.

Because in a video game thats all you can ever do. Whether youre shooting people in Call Of Duty, brutalizing orcs in Shadow of Mordor or demon-slaying in DOOM, at the end of the day its all just pixels and the act of killing pixelswith a gamepad or mouse-and-keyboardis a far cry from doing the real thing. If GTA V made us all car thieves and killers wed have 100 million murderers on our hands.

Australia banned Hotline Miami 2 over a rape scene in that incredibly bloody and violent game. But that scene, like the game itself, is parody. We do not need the government to pick and choose whats appropriate for us to see or read or play, if for no other reason than the fact that the state is not subtle or nuanced enough to distinguish whats satire and whats not.

A Clockwork Orange

It is impossible to balance the scales between security and freedom in a way that satisfies everyone. If we are worried that art can cause harm, its a natural instinct to censor art in order to prevent harm. But someone always has to define what harm means and who is threatened by it.

The Chinese governments definition is very different from Geena Daviss or Ashley Judds. China wants to ban same-sex romances while Out Gaming wants Rockstar to self-censor GTA V because it includes trans sex workers. The motives may be different but the results are the same: Censorship of art in the name of preventing harm due to the misguided belief that games make people violent or toxic or gay or whatever.

At my Substack, we have a Book Club and our first book was Anthony Burgesss A Clockwork Orange. I chose this novel for a few reasons. All the books in the Book Club have movie adaptations that we can watch and compare, and Stanley Kubricks film version is excellent and controversial (the second entry is Starship Troopersyou should absolutely subscribe!). But I was also interested in Burgesss dystopia and what it says about the importance of human freedom.

Burgess believed that if we took away the ability to choose between good and evil we would become no more than a clockwork orange, not a person at all. How can we truly be good if we have no choice in the matter? We are little more than a machine at that point. Its our agency, our free will, that allows us to be truly good. We must have the ability to eat the forbidden fruit in order to turn it down.

When the film was released in the UK it caused a moral panic. There were reports of copycats dressing up like Alex and his droogs and calls for the film to be banned. Anthony Burgess said at the time:

To try and fasten any responsibility on art as the cause of life seems to me to put the case the wrong way around. Art consists of reshaping life, but it does not create life, nor cause life. Furthermore, to attribute powerful suggestive qualities to a film is at odds with the scientifically accepted view that, even after deep hypnosis in a posthypnotic state, people cannot be made to do things which are at odds with their natures.

In other words, while some bad people might take inspiration from A Clockwork Orange, they were already bad. The movie didnt make them bad anymore than a video game will make you a car thief or a killer. Most people will not watch A Clockwork Orange and leave the theater a rapist or a killer or a thug.

As I have written on countless occasions, the rise in popularity of video games can be correlated directly to the drop in violent crime. Correlation is not causation, obviously, but the fact remains that as weve found new, relatively inexpensive ways to entertain ourselvesfrom games to streaming servicesviolent crime has fallen. If games caused real world violence, surely we would see that actually play out in the real world.

Chinas regulations will greatly diminish the types of games Chinese gamers will be able to legally play. We should condemn this, naturally, but its important to remember why theyre doing it in the first place: To prevent harm, to enforce their version of what is morally right and good.

We may believe that our version of censorship is the good kind, that we are only trying to stop bad games from getting released or that were doing it to help women or children or the most vulnerable in society. But power doesnt work like that and we cant always assume that the good guysaka the people we agree withwill always be in charge.

Censorship, unlike art, really is a form of violence. We forget that at our own peril.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook. You can support my work on Patreon and sign up for my newsletter on Substack. Subscribe to my YouTube channel here.

Read more from the original source:
China Is Banning Same-Sex Relationships And 'Effeminate' Men From Video Games - Forbes

Hannah Michelle BussaNEWS EDITOR

Banned Books Week was celebrated Sept. 26 to Oct. 2 this year.

Sam Petto, the Communications Director for the ACLU of Nebraska, said Banned Books Week is an annual celebration of the freedom to read and a reminder that local governments and school districts all too often attempt to ban books when they dislike their ideas, their words or the viewpoints they feature.

The week is important because it reminds us that we all need to take an active role in defending open access to information and our right to free expression, he said.

Tammi Owens, the Outreach and Instruction Librarian and Associate Professor at UNO, said many of the books that end up on most-challenged lists contain diverse content.

These diverse perspectives offer windows into other lives or echo our own experiences, and its so important for everyone to have access to those stories, she said. Perhaps especially so for people, young adults in particular, who see themselves in those stories but live in communities with people who may want to censor those ideas.

The American Library Association keeps track of the efforts to ban books. Petto said these numbers show common themes.

Books featuring the perspectives of people who are LGBTQ, people of color and people belonging to certain faith traditions are most frequently challenged, he said. What does that tell us? Censorship often targets the viewpoints of those who are already most marginalized. To fix our most challenging societal issues, we need education and free expression, not censorship.

Petto said it is fortunate that government censorship is unconstitutional.

The law is absolutely clear on that point and groups like the ACLU are here to defend your First Amendment rights when theyre violated, he said.

Many popular books have been banned.

It sounds bizarre to anyone who had childhood dreams of getting their letter from Hogwarts, but nationally, the ACLU has defeated efforts to take the Harry Potter series out of school libraries, Petto said.

Omaha author Rainbow Rowells book Eleanor & Park has been challenged in several school districts. Petto said Rowell links resources on her website to help students resist those censorship efforts.

Beth Black, the owner of The Bookworm, said Banned Books Week is important to remind people of the importance of free speech and the expression of ideas.

Often, the objection to a specific book, especially in the schools, comes from a single person who is imposing their beliefs and opinions on the majority, she said. I feel that the objection of one should not be imposed on the masses.

Black said open communication allows both parties to express their ideas and beliefs, while the lack of communication is both divisive and destructive. Censoring ideas ends communication.

As an independent bookstore owner and as an American citizen, I do feel that censorship is wrong, she said.

She said books shouldnt simply be judged by todays standards. Books written decades ago still need to be discussed, while keeping in mind the time in which it was written.

Weve come a long way, but its important to remember where we came from, she said.

Petto said Banned Books Week isnt just about books its about free expression and having the right to discuss and consider all kinds of ideas and information.

That right takes constant defending, he said. Case in point: UNO students recently helped stop a University of Nebraska Board of Regents resolution that would have chilled classroom conversations of racism and whitewashed history.

Petto said state leaders have already said theyll attempt to pass similar legislation next year focusing on K-12 schools, denying those students an inclusive education.

Ideas are powerful and its not the governments role to pick winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas, he said. Thats why well always be ready to defend your right to free expression.

The top ten most banned books for the past twenty years can be found here.

comments

Read this article:
Banned Books Week - Gateway - The Gateway

The COVID-19 Pandemic has served the Democrats well. With a Karl Marx mentality, they agree with censorship of medical and legal professionals who disagree with the vaccine or how it should be administered. Seniors and those with other health issues should take the chance and get vaccinated. They are the ones dying in great numbers.

The vaccine proponents ignore those that are exempt, including congress, the senate, Hollywood actors, and Illegal immigrants, including millions in our sanctuary cities. We are not told all the ingredients in the vaccine or the side effects and not told why the manufacturers cannot be sued. Its the reason people like Bill Gates and now eight more new billionaires exist because Moderna, Pfizer and J&J are sure investments for them.

Tell us all the facts and dont censor anyone with the medical, scientific and legal credentials that dont agree with the likes of Biden, Fauci and their minions. With true transparency, we can choose to get our families vaccinated or not. Proponents claim the vaccine is safe. If true, make them liable, like with all other drugs. Then the distrust might dissipate. A simple solution that we should all agree on: Stop the censorship.

(Donald Siracusa is a Bay Terrace resident.)

More:
Stop the vaccine censorship to gain our trust (letter to the editor) - silive.com