Mediaboss Marketing

By most accounts, Minamata is a pretty good movie. Its a dramatization of the story of real-life photojournalist W. Eugene Smith, who in 1971 was dispatched to the Japanese fishing village of Minamata to chronicle the impact of mercury poisoning by the Chisso Chemical Company.

What resulted was a shocking series of photographs that exposed the crime to the world, despite the company trying to block Smith at every turn. Ordinarily, this would be classic Oscar bait: a sober prestige picture about corporate greed with a heavyweight actor at the helm.

But, unfortunately for Minamata, that heavyweight actor is Johnny Depp. Depps reputation has crumbled over the last few years, particularly after the UK High Court ruled that it wasnt libelous to call him a wife-beater, promptly followed by him losing his appeal against the decision.

Minamatawas soon removed from festival schedules and director Andrew Levitas says MGM went out of their way to bury the movie in the US. Heres his letter to the studio:

In re-exposing their pain in the sharing of their story, this long marginalised community hoped for only one thing to lift history from the shadows so that other innocents would never be afflicted as they have and it seemed in that moment, with MGMs partnership, a decades-long wish was finally coming true. Now, imagine the devastation when they learned this past week, that despite an already successful global roll out, MGM had decided to bury the film (acquisitions head Mr. Sam Wollmans words) because MGM was concerned about the possibility that the personal issues of an actor in the film could reflect negatively upon them and that from MGMs perspective the victims and their families were secondary to this.

Australian photojournalist Stephen Dupont feels its particularly insulting that this story wont get the audience it deserves, saying that he enjoyed the movie, that the pain of the real-life victims of the poisoning has been ignored, and that MGM is engaged in censorship:

MGM is not just punishing Depp but everyone else, the other actors, the director, the cinematographer, writers, all those involved. Even if the allegations were true, I wouldnt change my opinion. With Depp what were talking about is a marriage breakdown, something that lots of people go through all around the world, the only difference is that theyre not celebrities. Its a sad state of censorship in a far too critical world where, god forbid, if you say or do anything the wrong way, or make a mistake, and youre crucified every which way. Lets get these things into perspective.

Its a fair point, though in my eyes theres a difference between saying something the wrong way and beating the crap out of your wife.

Anyway, theres a chance Minamata might one day get its moment in the spotlight. Depp is pinning his hopes on a titanic clash with ex-wife Amber Heard in 2022. Depp is suing Heard for $50M over a Washington Post op-ed she wrote about her experience as a victim of domestic violence. Shes filed a $100 million counterclaim, also alleging defamation and that Johnny was responsible for a social media effort to tarnish her career by getting her booted offAquaman 2.

Perhaps if Depp is vindicated in a domestic court he can begin rebuilding his reputation and Minamata will be reappraised by audiences. Though, honestly, I wouldnt get your hopes up too much.

See the original post here:
MGM Accused Of Censorship After Burying Johnny Depp's Latest Movie - We Got This Covered

Congress shall establish prohibiting - free speech - or the people peaceably to Amend- the U.S. September 25, 89. Ratified December 15, .

What is censorship?

Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons individuals, groups, or government officials find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, Dont let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! American Library Association (ALA)

The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. This 67-year-old Freedom to Read Statement maintains its significance in the mission of United States public libraries.

As difficult as it may be to see an item in a library that is 180 degrees from your opinions, understandings, and values, perhaps take a deep breath and think how this is our First Amendment at work. This is evidence that our intellectual freedoms are strong. Wow! Yes! We are so lucky!

On this note, Grand County Library District joins libraries across the US in celebrating the freedom to read during Banned Books Week, Sept. 26-Oct. 2. The 2021 theme is: Books Unite Us. Censorship Divides Us.

Think of a book (or movie) that stretched your thoughts, compassion, and understanding. Did this experience translate into you reaching across an aisle, a boundary, or a border? Or did it anger you? Did you want to learn more about an issue? Maybe it didnt change your mind, but did it help you have a better respect for a loved ones opinion? Or, did you close the book having a clearer perspective?

Being able to better connect with others is one powerful outcome of a well-written story. This will not always be the case with books we read, but when it does, lets hope communities grow a little brighter and more compassionate.

The ALA reports that there were 273 books challenged in 2020. Here are some of the most challenged books for 2020:

Reasons: Challenged, banned, and restricted for LGBTQIA+ content, conflicting with a religious viewpoint, and not reflecting the values of our community.

Reasons: Banned and challenged because of authors public statements, and because of claims that the book contains selective storytelling incidents and does not encompass racism against all people.

Reasons: Banned and challenged for racial slurs and their negative effect on students, featuring a white savior character, and its perception of the Black experience

Hungry for what was censored in the first paragraph? What were some other most challenged books? Want to read a challenged book? Visit your GCLD library and get started on your journey.

More:
Library Corner: Censorship and Banned Books Week - Sky Hi News

HONG KONG The director of Far From Home, a short, intimate film about a family caught in the tumult of the 2019 antigovernment protests in Hong Kong, had hoped to show off her work at a local film festival in June.

Then the censors stepped in.

They told the director, Mok Kwan-ling, that her films title which in Cantonese could carry a suggestion of cleaning up after a crime must go. Dialogue expressing sympathy for an arrested protester had to be excised. Scenes of removing items from a room also had to be cut, apparently because they might be construed as concealing evidence.

In total, Ms. Mok was ordered to make 14 cuts from the 25-minute film. But she said that doing so would have destroyed the balance she had attempted to forge between the views of protesters and those who opposed them. So she refused, and her film has thus far gone unseen by the public.

It was quite contradictory to a good narrative and a good plot, she said. If a person is completely good or completely bad, its very boring.

In March, a local theater pulled the prizewinning protest documentary Inside the Red Brick Wall, after a state-run newspaper said it incited hatred of China. At least two Hong Kong directors have decided to not release new films locally. When an earlier film by one of those directors was shown to a private gathering last month, the gathering was raided by the police.

Directors say they fear the government will force them to cut their films and, potentially, put them in prison if they dismiss demands and show their work.

Under the national security law, Hong Kong is no longer Hong Kong, said Jevons Au, a director who moved to Canada shortly after the sweeping law was imposed. Hong Kong is a part of China, and its film industry will finally turn into a part of Chinas film industry.

Beyond the national security law, the government plans to toughen its censorship policies to allow it to ban or force cuts to films deemed contrary to the interests of national security. Such powers would also be retroactive, meaning the authorities could bar films that were previously approved. People that show such films could face up to three years in prison.

Part of the underlying goal of this law is to intimidate Hong Kong filmmakers, investors, producers, distributors and theaters into internalizing self-censorship, said Shelly Kraicer, a film researcher specializing in Chinese-language cinema. There will be a lot of ideas that just arent going to become projects and projects that arent going to be developed into films.

The new restrictions are unlikely to trouble bigger-budget Hong Kong films, which are increasingly made in collaboration with mainland companies and aimed at the Chinese market. Producers already work to ensure those films comply with mainland censorship. Likewise, distributors and streaming services like Netflix, which is available in Hong Kong but not mainland China, are wary of crossing red lines.

Netflix is a business first, said Kenny Ng, an expert on film censorship at Hong Kong Baptist Universitys Academy of Film. They show unconventional films, including politically controversial films, but only from a safe distance. I think Netflix has bigger concerns about access to commercial markets, even in mainland China.

Netflix representatives did not reply to requests for comment.

The most likely targets of the new rules, which are expected to be approved this fall by Hong Kongs legislature, are independent documentaries and fictional films that touch on protests and opposition politics.

For those independent filmmakers who really want to do Hong Kong stories in Hong Kong, it will be very challenging, said Mr. Au, the director who moved to Canada. They will have a lot of obstacles. It might even be dangerous.

The documentary Inside the Red Brick Wall was shot by anonymous filmmakers who followed protesters at Hong Kong Polytechnic University when they were besieged by police for two weeks in 2019. In addition to the film being pulled from the local theater, the Arts Development Council of Hong Kong withdrew a $90,000 grant to Ying E Chi, the independent film collective that released it.

The censorship office had initially approved the documentary for audiences over 18, but now some in the film industry believe it could face a retroactive ban.

Creators of the fictional film Ten Years, which examined the fears of vanishing culture and freedoms that invigorated the resistance to Chinas tightening grip on Hong Kong, say it could also be targeted under the new rules. The filmmakers had difficulties finding venues when the movie was released in 2015, but now it might be banned completely, said Mr. Au, who directed one vignette in the five-part film.

Kiwi Chow, who also directed part of Ten Years, knew that his protest documentary Revolution of Our Times had no chance of being approved in Hong Kong. Even its overseas premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in July required special precautions. It was shown on short notice near the end of the festival so Beijing couldnt pressure the organizers to block it.

Mr. Chow sold the film rights to a European distributor and, before he returned to Hong Kong, deleted footage of the film from his own computers out of fear he might be arrested.

Some of the subjects of the 152-minute film, including pro-democracy activists such as Benny Tai and Gwyneth Ho, are now in jail. Mr. Chow feared he, too, might be arrested. Friends and family warned him to leave the city, release the film anonymously or change its title. The title is drawn from the slogan Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times, which the government has described as an illegal call for Hong Kong independence.

But Mr. Chow said he ultimately went ahead with the film as he had envisioned it out of a sense of responsibility to the project, its subject and crew.

I need to do whats right and not let fear shake my beliefs, he said.

While he has yet to face direct retaliation, he said there were signs it could be coming.

When he attended a small, private showing of Beyond the Dream, a nonpolitical romance that he directed, the police raided the event. Mr. Chow and about 40 people who attended the screening at the office of a pro-democracy district representative were each fined about $645 for violating social distancing rules.

It seems like a warning sign from the regime, he said. Its not very direct. Its still a question whether the regime has begun its work: Has a case on me been opened?

Continue reading here:
How Hong Kong Censors Films in the Name of National Security - The New York Times

Avera's Dr. Michael Elliott joins us for a South Dakota COVID-19 update.

We wrap up our September spotlight with an in-depth conversation about libraries, censorship, and the First Amendment. Deborah Caldwell Stone is director of the American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom. She joins us during national Banned Books Week.

TheTriTonesof Mitchell won the South Dakota Rock & Roll Hall of Fame's Battle of the Bands on Friday. The event was restricted to high school musicians. TheTriTonesare a 10-member jazz fusion band.

Dr. Keith Mueller, the Gerhard Hartman Professor and head of the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Iowa, presents "Delivery of Health Care in Rural Areas" tonight at 7:00 p.m. at the Sherman Center at Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell. He joins us to discuss current challenges to rural health care service.

The World Archery Championships concluded in Yankton on Sunday. The Archery World Cup takes place tomorrow and Thursday at Riverside Park in Yankton with the top 32 archers in the world competing.

In the Moment airs live at 12CT/11MT. The audio from the day's show is attached soon after the show airs.

Go here to see the original:
Libraries, censorship, and the First Amendment | SDPB - SDPB Radio

Austin, TX, September 24, 2021 Two trade associations, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), filed a lawsuit in a federal district court to strike down provisions of a new Texas law, passed in the Texas legislature as House Bill (HB) 20.

HB 20, which will become effective later this year unless enjoined by the court, requires increased transparency from major social media platforms and prohibits them from censoring users.

NetChoice and the CCIA, whose members include big tech companies such as Facebook and Google, contend that the regulations on the social media platforms are a violation of the businesses First Amendment rights to curate the content hosted on their sites.

Allowing HB 20 to take effect will inflict significant harm on Texans by threatening the safety of users, creators, and businesses that use these websites to reach audiences in a family-friendly way, said the president and CEO of NetChoice, Steve DelBianco, in a press release. No American should ever be forced to navigate through harmful and offensive images, videos and posts.

The lawsuit says that the big tech members of NetChoice and CCIA currently prohibit all sorts of speech that they deem harmful or objectionable or against their policies, including medical misinformation, hate speech and slurs (spanning the spectrum from race and religion to veteran status), glorification of violence and animal abuse, and impersonation, lies, and misinformation more broadly.

Though users must agree to such oversight by the platforms in the fine print of their terms of service, advocates of banning social media censorship argue that the regulation of hate speech without any clear standard of what constitutes it is dangerous.

An example of that counter-argument can be found in an amicus brief for another lawsuit from NetChoice against a similar Florida law, which was filed on behalf of the satirical website The Babylon Bee and its non-satirical sister-site Not the Bee.

The brief states, [I]n Twitters judgment, a politicians biologically correct statement that [a] man has no womb or eggs is hate speech, but a college professors profoundly racist statement, I block white people because [t]here is nothing white people can say and do that is creative, profound, and intimidating, is valuable discourse deserving to remain on the platform.

As of the publication of this article, the latter tweet remains uncensored on Twitter.

It appears that in Twitters judgment, biology is hate, but unadorned racismat least of a certain varietyis not, it remarks.

Proponents of the Texas law also argue that checks on social media platforms are necessary because those methods of communication have become a powerful aspect of modern discourse where the freedom of speech for individuals should not be stifled.

Twitter, Facebook and other massive platforms arent just any private companies, wrote Greg Abbott in a recent op-ed published in the Washington Post. They are our modern-day public square, and effectively control the channels we use for discourse.

Abbott and other supporters say the law doesnt interfere with the platforms ability to block criminal activity on their sites, or to remove content that incites violence or is illegal or obscene, but is necessary to shield everyday Texans from censorship despite the vast protections federal law has given to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

That law explicitly protects online platforms to be able to censor content that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

Unlike the Florida law, which could allow individuals to sue for monetary damages from the platform, lawmakers say that the Texas proposal threads a needle through Section 230 by only allowing the individual to sue to stop the censorship and costs and reasonable and necessary attorneys fees.

But when a similar proposal to HB 20 was being debated earlier this year, DelBianco appeared to testify against it and argued that Section 230 wont matter, but rather that the courts would ultimately strike it down on the basis of the First Amendment.

Whether the freedom of companies to censor what they please or whether individuals freedom of speech should be protected even on social media is a legal debate that will likely not go away anytime soon in the digital age, but now that ball is in the courts.

Read the original here:
Big Tech Sues Texas Over New Law Targeting Social Media Censorship - The Texan