Mediaboss Marketing

This content contains affiliate links. When you buy through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission.

Comics censorship is an American pastime. While censorship has been raging for the last 15 months, book and comic censorship is nothing new. Its just found new legs with the help of right-wing, white Christian nationalism led by groups like Moms For Liberty, among others. Comics, which have been long-subject to censorship in America, beginning in part with citizens seeking to hide any comics with nudity or sexTijuana Bibles, published from the 1920s until the 1960s, were one common form of very sexually-forward comics, often uncredited, that became an early target of censors. The Comics Code Authority took this a step further in the 1950s, better codifying and pursing comics which did not meet their standards.

Comics continued to be the target of censors, as well as legal prosecution. When Friendly Franks comic shop in Lansing, Illinois, came under fire after a police officer deemed the owner to be selling obscene materials, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund developed and has since helped support comics creators, sellers, librarians, educators, and readers in protecting their right to access comics. The officer, Anthony van Gorp, utilized the dog whistle of the 80s, claiming that in addition to obscenity, the shop was selling material of the satanic influence.

Though comics has been a part of the American literary landscape for well over 100 years, it was not until the early 2000s when more comics began to make their way into schools and libraries. Many were, of course, of the superhero variety, but as comics became more widely accepted as a legitimate form of reading and literacy, more comics beyond the superhero worlds emerged. The late 00s and early 10s were especially vibrant times for comics for young people, and as such, censors made their voices heard, challenging and banning comics.

Many who challenge comics in todays era do so from a place of misunderstanding how comics work. As will be seen in the case studies linked below, adults often talk about how children have accessed a comic that looked like a kids book and found something that was less suited to their age. Though comics enthusiasts, librarians, and educators have pushed to better educate people about comic literacy a skill set separate from but related to print literacy, as it involves understanding the purpose of and meaning behind the use of images to tell a story it is a skill set. As such, it is something censors can use to further their agenda. Anything with images is seen as material for children, despite the reality that many of the titles are published for adults and shelved with adult books.

The Stack Newsletter

Sign up to The Stack to receive Book Riot Comic's best posts, picked for you.

Thank you for signing up! Keep an eye on your inbox.

From 2000 to 2009, the American Library Association which at the time had a much more robust staff and budget dedicated to intellectual freedom identified zero comics among their top 100 most challenged titles. This makes a lot of sense; the format was still evolving. The story from 2010-2019, however, is different. Despite what was happening in libraries, with a rise in understanding of literacy and its myriad forms and a collection mirroring this, so, too, came the backlist from small but vocal minorities about how comic books were inappropriate. Many of the calls mimicked those of earlier censors, citing satanic influences, inappropriate content (read: sex and sexuality), and being anti-family, unsuitable to age, or offensive political viewpoint. In that decade, 11 of the top 100 most challenged books were comics.

Comics challenges and bans have only increased since ALAs last report. During this current wave of censorship, it comes as little surprise comics are a focal point and in particular, comics that explore gender and sexuality. Drama and This One Summer, published for the middle grade and young adult audiences respectively, foreshadowed the current spate of censorship against queer books; they remain among the titles challenges and banned, though censors have expanded their targets, too.

Gender Queer, a coming-of-age memoir by Maia Kobabe, remains at the top of the list for most challenged book this year. It is Kobabes own tale of learning to understand eir gender and the struggles to define eirself in a binary world. But rather than consider the story from its literary perspective and appropriateness for young readers who themselves are struggling understand themselves or others in the world, censors have delighted in blowing up two passages from the book without context. Those passages show on-page sex fantasies that are not only not lewd nor obscene, but they are common experiences of young people around the world.

It is a clear and willful misreading.

It is also a sign that, despite how much time, effort, and energy goes into comics literacy, a small group of well-funded, politically-fueled individuals will continue to showcase their illiteracy. Because in addition to pushing for the right to determine what other people can read, censors today highlight how little they respect art, how little they understand comics, and how eager they are to continue being ignorant about both.

Because ALAs compiled lists of challenged and banned books do not yet include the 2020s and because they do not release the titles of every book challenge they hear (instead releasing their top 10 lists annually), knowing the full scope of current comics challenges is tricky. But thanks to Dr. Tasslyn Magnusson, who has been tracking every title challenged across the country since last fall, it is possible to get an idea of how widespread comics censorship is right now.

Between October 2021 and August 2022, there have been at least 40 unique comics titles challenged. This includes at least 80 unique challenges or bans to Gender Queer, 25 to This One Summer, and about 20 each to Drama, Mike Curatos Flamer, Cathy G. Johnsons The Breakaways, and Fun Home. Every one of these comics was banned or challenged due to LGBTQ+ themes.

These are the most challenged and most banned comics in the U.S. right now, in order. This is based off information able to be found online, meaning that it does not represent silent or quiet censorship of books like this or the stories which mainstream and/or local media does not cover (for example, the quiet removal of Gender Queer from Spartanburg Public Library):

It is impossible not to see the trends, even for readers who may not be familiar with comics. These books are queer, they are by or about people of color, and they are about immigrants.

While there is a lot readers and champions of the freedom to read can do to fight book bans, including making sure you are borrowing, reading, and requesting even more comics be available in your libraries and schools, there is something to be said, too, about the power of knowing the history of comics censorship specifically. Here are some excellent articles by devoted comics fans, comics creators, and scholars alike to help illuminate and contextualize the ongoing efforts to ban comics in the USA.

These are just the tip of the iceberg.

Visit link:
Here are the Most Challenged Comics and Most Banned Comics Since 2000 - Book Riot

Live A Lives English localization has come under fire, as yet another Square Enix title is being accused of censorship and poor translation.

Source: Live A Live (2022), Nintendo

RELATED: Eidos Montral Founder Describes Management Of Square Enixs Western Studios As A Train Wreck In Slow Motion

Originally released in 1994, the SNES JRPG takes place across multiple eras, each with their own twists on gameplay. From the ancient past to the far-flung future, from feudal Japan to the wild west, a mysterious threat seems to transcend time and space. The game didnt have an official western launch until its 2022 remake, with English gameplay of the SNES original coming from fan-translated emulators.

Twitter profile@iuntue, an account dedicated to cataloging inaccurate translations and censorship in localization of Japanese games, shared their thoughts on Live A Live Remake. As with several prior Square Enix titles, liberties appear to have been taken, typically avoiding content that could be deemed sexist or offensive. This is despite a study this year proving sexualized content doesnt cause misogyny or body image issues.

It should be noted that while Square Enix both develops and publishes Live A Live in Japan, the games worldwide release was published by Nintendo. Even so, thanks to Square Enix own ethics department and aforementioned recent history, one must wonder which of the pair dictated these changes.

Source: Live A Live (2022), Nintendo

Starting with the Imperial China chapter, Earthen Heart Shifu (Xin Shan Quan Master in fan translations) playfully teases bandit Lei Kugo over her temper. It could be argued he is either evoking the trope of a much older man either making flirtatious comments or testing her resolve to keep her temper; a flaw Lei eventually overcomes in the story as she becomes Shifus student.

In the English version however, Shifu doesnt outright tell her to keep her calm. Instead he reassures her that he wont forget her name, praises it, and cautions her to avoid the arrogance that led to him so easily halting her attempted mugging.

Japanese

Earthen Heart Shifu: All right, all right, no need to get so angry. Youre letting your pretty face go to waste.

English

Earthen Heart Shifu: You may rest assured that I will not [forget your name]. It is a good, strong name, worthy of pride. But pride will lead you astray if you let it. As it did not so long ago.

Source: @iuntue, Twitter

Moving to the Wild West, the Mariachi band appears to have lost their Mexican accents at first. @iuntue highlights how one band member greets you with A-amigo! in Japanese, but G-greetings, my friend! in English.

Source: @iuntue, Twitter

However, the English version does feature the band members speaking and singing in Mexican, with their words translated into English in brackets. They also use Spanish words when addressing the player in English, such as vaquero and pistolero, and dubbed lines spoken with a Mexican accent.

One also inquires, Tequila! Yes, tequila! Thats what you need, yes? which could be assumed to be a stereotypical Mexican drink. As such, if there was an attempt to downplay Mexican stereotypes, the only change made would be ditching the Spanish/Mexican word for friend.

Source: Live A Live (2022), Nintendo

A later scene also sees an outlaw harassing Sundown for sitting in his spot, has his advances rejected by Annie, and then hurls a child into Sundown who remained still up until that point. Pretending to make amends, the outlaw mockingly offers to buy Sundown a glass of milk, alluding to his perceived delicate nature.

As Sundown rejects the milk, the outlaw mocks Sundown in the same manner in English and Japanese. Sundown can then either remain silent or respond. In Japanese his response is curt, arguably fitting someone slow to anger, or wanting to avoid trouble and about to be pushed too far. In English its more of a quip, and almost looking for trouble.

Japanese

Outlaw: Or do you like it when the milk doesnt come from mamas titty? (Machine Translation: DeepL)

Sundown: Get lost.

English

Outlaw: Lemme guess: its not that you hate milk, but that you cant stomach it less its fresh from your mothers tits!

Sundown: Your mothers, maybe.

Source: @iuntue, Twitter

Players also have the option to swipe clothes from Annies wardrobe. In the original 1994 version at least, based on the English fan translation players can find Annies Nighty. In the 2022 English version, this is Annies Diary.

She still acts with disgust over the player obtaining it, and showing it to her has Annie responding Hey! This aint no library! Youre on thin ice, you two! However, as it was a nighty, players are able to equip the diary to the torso armor slot.

It could be argued that the censored version still works, as tucking a book under your shirt or jacket so its just in front of your heart is a trope that would fit in the wild west setting. Even so, it cant hide the fact it offers very little defense, much like a sheer nightgown. This is also not the only time a piece of inappropriate gear was renamed.

Source: Live A Live (2022), Nintendo

RELATED: Square Enix Heavily Censors Sexualized Artwork From Various Series For English Release Of Manga UP! App

In the original 1994 release, during the Near Future chapter, Watanabe can help the player obtain Taekos Panties, but not before several failed attempts including his own boxers. In the localized version of the 2022 remake his initial offer is Watanabes pocket lint (originally Watanabes Boxers). In other instances outside the home, Watanabes Boxers is changed to Watanabes Badge.

The reason for this change is because Akira is attempting to steal Taekos pocket money. Players are given Taekos Pouch (Taekos Jeans), Taekos Picture (Takekos Stockings), Taekos furious fist (Taekos Punch, with a notably softer sounding tap when Akira uses it on Watanabe), and finally Taekos Secret Stash (Taekos Panties).

@Iuntuenotes that this change is also reflected in the Japanese version, at least with the underwear being changed to money; specifically, Taekos Secret Savings via machine translation on DeepL. Again, these items may be equipped to certain armor slots despite their new titles.

Source: @iuntue, Twitter

Another point of contention among fans was the fact that, as detailed by Twitter user @KingOfPrinnies, this change makes the scene slightly out of character for Akira.

Now that Ive hit the Near Future chapter in Live A Live, I think Ive found my 2nd issue with the official translation, the userbegan (his first issue mentioned later in this article). The original lets Akira have Watanabe try to steal Taekos underwear, but thats been changed to have him steal money. Which, morally somehow seems worse.

Source: @KingofPrinnies, Twitter

Like, stealing the underwear of the woman who raised you since you became an orphan has some implications if you think about it, but like, now youre stealing the money shes been saving up. Like, dude, maybe that money was for THE ORPHANAGE YOU LIVE IN, @KingofPrinnies reasons. Dk move.

Source: @KingofPrinnies, Twitter

NPC Kazu also states Yukis so mean! She keeps calling me Sir Farts-a-Lot! But it wasnt me! In the original Japanese, Kazu states Yuki called me a pervert!

One more scene in the near future has Lawless, a cool and collected biker who Akira looks up to, offering slightly different dialogue. As he pilots a mecha with his dying breath, he reveals the truth about his past, and how he was responsible for something terrible in Akiras life.

His girlfriend Taeko interrupts, saying hes in no condition to keep piloting the mecha and needs to rest @iuntue shows how in both languages Lawless answers about doing the right thing to make amends, but in Japanese was censored, likely to prevent accusations of misogyny.

Source: Live A Live (2022), Nintendo

Japanese:

Lawless: Its not a womans place to but in When a man is setting things Straight

English:

Lawless: Sometimes youve gotta own up to your mistakes Consequences be damned. Am I Am I right?

@iuntue also notes that even the fan-translation wasnt accurate, as they went with Women always get in the way Right?

Source: @iuntue, Twitter

One final line comes from the Pre-History chapter, which is almost entirely devoid of text. While its amusing to think English localizers may have bungled a chapter with only one word of dialogue, there are menus, equipment, and skills found in this chapter.

At the end of Prehistory, @GeneKanichen explains, Pogo fks the girl and creates spoken language by saying LOOOOOOOVE!!! (Ai in Japanese). The scene is fairly suggestive, as Pogo is seen walking into a cave with a girl, and despite being comic relief ties into Live A Lives themes of humanity, love, hatred, and keeping hope for better things. The new game leaves it as AIIIIIIIIEEEE.

@LunarArchivist shares the fan-translation and official 2022 English versions side by side, much to their disgust. Jesus Christ.

Source: @LunarArchivist Twitter, @GeneKaninchen Twitter

Note: Spoilers for Live A Live from here.

In the games final chapter, @iuntue justifies that The localization kinda explains Aieee! if you pick Pogo at the end. While Pogo screams Aieee! again, Oersted understands this as him attempting to say love in Japanese. In English, he merely takes the cave-mans wild caterwauling as being passionate, and reminding him of love.

Japanese:

Pogo: Ai~~~!

Oersted: A Aika (Love)

English:

Pogo: Aieee!

Oersted: Such passion. Nay. Tis love.

Source: @iuntue, Twitter

What do you think of Live A Lives localization? Let us know on social media and in the comments below.

NEXT: Interview: Fan And Professional Translators Speak Out On Western Localization Issues And The Current State Of The English Manga Industry

Here is the original post:
English Localization Of Square Enix's 'Live A Live' Found To Be Riddled With Poor Translation And Censorship - Bounding Into Comics

Enlarge / US and Texas flags flying outside the Texas State Capitol building in Austin.

Getty Images | PA Thompson

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked the Texas law that prohibits social media companies from moderating content based on a user's "viewpoint." The Supreme Court order came about three weeks after the so-called "censorship" law was reinstated by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

"The application to vacate stay presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted," the ruling said. "The May 11, 2022 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit staying the district court's preliminary injunction is vacated."

It was a 5-4 decision with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts voting to block the Texas law. Alito wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. The ruling says separately that "Justice [Elena] Kagan would deny the application to vacate stay," but Kagan did not join Alito's dissent.

The Supreme Court ruling came in response to an emergency application from tech groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications & Industry Association (CCIA).With the preliminary injunction reinstated, litigation will continue, and Texas cannot enforce the law unless it wins the case. Advertisement

"This ruling means that private American companies will have an opportunity to be heard in court before they are forced to disseminate vile, abusive or extremist content under this Texas law. We appreciate the Supreme Court ensuring First Amendment protections, including the right not to be compelled to speak, will be upheld during the legal challenge to Texas's social media law," CCIA President Matt Schruers said.

"No online platform, website, or newspaper should be directed by government officials to carry certain speech. This has been a key tenet of our democracy for more than 200 years and the Supreme Court has upheld that," Schruers also said.

The Texas law is labeled as "an act relating to censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages." The law says a "social media platform may not censor a user" based on the user's "viewpoint" and defines "censor" as "block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression." The Texas attorney general or users can sue social media platforms that violate this ban and win injunctive relief and reimbursement of court costs, the law says.

In addition to being unconstitutional, the Texas law "would have been a disaster for social media users and for public discourse," said John Bergmayer, legal director for consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. "It would have ordered social media platforms to host and distribute horrific and distasteful content, and to turn a blind eye to hate, abuse, and coordinated misinformation campaigns. The main result of these policies would not be to enhance free speech, but to keep people from speaking by driving them away from toxic platforms."

The rest is here:
Sorry, Texas: Supreme Court blocks law banning censorship on social ...

On Tuesday, Twitter announced that it had filed suit against the Indian government alleging that it interpreted a suite of 2021 laws too broadly when ordering the company to censor dissident users in the country. The lawsuit comes in response to increased pressure from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which in recent weeks has ordered Twitter to block the posts and accounts of dissidents. According to CNN, a source familiar with the suit said that the company will attempt to show that the government's orders "demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate."

The 2021 regulations Twitter is now fighting gave India's government the ability to demand that social media companies block certain posts or accounts in the country. Further, the Indian government has required social media companies to locate their compliance officers within the country so that they can be held criminally liable if the company fails to comply with government orders.

While Twitter has complied with orders, the suit marks a major act of resistance against the Indian government's calls to censor dissident content. In 2021, WhatsApp filed a similar suit, attempting to prevent the government from forcing the company to make all messages "traceable" upon request. That order, according to the company, would "severely undermine the privacy of billions of people who communicate digitally[.]" WhatApp's suit is still ongoing.

Twitter's suit highlights an important issue faced by social media platforms: What to do when local laws demand they participate in politically-motivated censorship? Increasingly, censorious governments are attempting to deputize tech companies to do their dirty work for themforcing companies to censor, block, or even track the whereabouts of government critics. While these companies may have values which marginally attempt to protect free speech, oppressive governments often coerce tech companies into collaborating.

Governments all around the world have enlisted tech companies to carry out local censorship missions. In 2024, the European Union's Digital Services Act will take effect, forcing tech companies to sharply regulate their platforms. The legislation requires companies to take down content deemed as hate speech, or disinformationtwo broad categorizations that can easily morph into broad state censorship. In Germany, hate-speech laws require companies like Twitter to report users to law enforcement. As one Twitter spokesperson said, the law "forces private companies into the role of prosecutors by reporting users to law enforcement even when there is no illegal behaviour."

While the threat of criminal liability for employees (India-based executives found guilty of violating censorship orders could face up to seven years in prison) might prevent companies from outright refusing to comply with censorious regulations, lawsuits like Twitter's are a clear step in the right direction.

However, the future increasingly appears to offer social media companies a choice between participating in government-mandated censorship and surveillance, or ceasing operations entirely in those countries. The first entails participating in considerable injustice, the other could involve reducing their customer base by billions.

Read the original post:
India Wants Twitter To Participate in Government Censorship - Reason

On Monday, several activists wore t-shirts emblazoned with the question Where Is Peng Shuai? to a match at Wimbledon in order to raise awareness about the Chinese tennis star. Peng has been absent from international media following her forced disappearance, forced re-appearances, and forced retirement in the wake of a sexual assault allegation against former Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli that she posted last November. Peng won a Grand Slam title at Wimbledon in 2013, but discussion of the injustice against her was unwelcome at the tournament this week. As Emine Sinmaz from The Guardian reported, the activists were confronted by Wimbledon security guards who warned them not to approach anyone at the venue:

Will Hoyles, 39, one of the campaigners, said: We came trying to raise a bit of awareness but Wimbledon have managed to make it worse for themselves by harassing us

They were asking loads of questions about what we were going to do, why we were here, you know, what wed already done etc. And we told them wed just been wandering around and wed spoken to a few people and thats when they seemed to get quite suspicious.

He said that the staff told them they should not approach anyone to talk to them. They said repeatedly the club doesnt like to be political, he added. [Source]

Despite citing political neutrality to justify tamping down the show of support for Peng Shuai, Wimbledon chose to ban 16 athletes from Russia and Belarus in April, in response to Russias invasion of Ukraine and Belarus support for the invasion. A similar controversy occurred in January, when the Australian Open ejected activists attempting to raise awareness about Peng Shuais disappearance, but that organization later reversed its decision under widespread public pressure. The Womens Tennis Association, one of the few major tennis organizations that has followed through on its supportive rhetoric of Peng, has canceled all of its events in China due to her continued absence from public life.

Off the court, other #MeToo cases are slowly making their way through Chinas judicial system. On June 22, a Chinese court sentenced Zhang Guo, a man accused of sexually assaulting a former Alibaba employee, to 18 months in prison. The former employee, surnamed Zhou, alleged that Zhang and her former manager, surnamed Wang, had pressured her into drinking too much alcohol at a client dinner last August and raped her later that night. After Zhou revealed her story on an internal corporate message board, Alibaba fired Wang, but then did an about-face and fired ten other employees for leaking Zhous accusation to the public. Zhou eventually lost her own job as well. This week, in the wake of Zhangs sentencing, Zhou called out inconsistencies in the police statement about the case. Huizhong Wu from the Associated Press reported on Zhous online post criticizing Wangs lenient judicial treatment:

Zhou criticized the official police account for turning her manager from someone who objectively has criminal intention, a rapist with actual criminal intentions, into a good boss caring for his drunk female subordinate.

And as for me? I have become a slut who is falsely accusing the male boss that she was carrying on with, she continued.

[] She wrote that her former manager had stolen her ID card to get the hotel to make him a key for her room, asking the staff to list him as a fellow traveler. She also said that police had concluded she could not express herself clearly when the front desk called to get her consent for giving him a key.

He voluntarily cancelled his taxi on the app, carried my stolen ID card, went back to the hotel and added himself to my room, sexually violated me, she told the AP, elaborating on her post. All these things show that not only did he intentionally try to rape, but also he committed a criminal act.

A police statement last August said that Wang had the key made with Zhous consent and that he had her ID card, without saying how he had gotten it. [Source]

Two days after Zhang was sentenced to prison, a four-hour public hearing for a sexual assault case involving the leader of another powerful Chinese tech company took place in the U.S. The victim, Liu Jingyao, has accused Liu Qiangdong, the billionaire founder of Chinese e-commerce giant JD.com, of raping her after a dinner and drinks party in 2018. At the time, Liu Jingyao was an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota. The hearing revolved around a motion to add punitive damages against Liu Qiangdong and JD.com, and the official jury trial is scheduled to begin on either September 26 or October 3. In a recent overview of the case published by a WeChat account supportive of womens rights, friends and supporters of Jingyao who attended her hearing shared more details about the trial, and criticized the double standards applied to male and female behavior in sexual assault cases:

In the court of public opinion, victims are on the receiving end of boundless scrutiny and mistrust. Why dont we ask Liu Qiangdong, or the person who organized the event, why a dozen middle-aged men would invite a young twenty-something woman to a drinking party? Why did Liu Qiangdong bring Jingyao to his villa in the first place? Liu Qiangdong is a married man, so why wasnt he more circumspect about his words and behavior? People tend to instinctively come up with excuses to justify the behavior of rich and powerful men. But as a woman, unless you happen to think like a perfectly rational automaton, people will tend to exaggerate the irrational aspects of your behavior. [Chinese]

This week, similar public vilification was heaped on Yu Xiuhua, a woman born with cerebral palsy who has become famous for her poems about love, sexuality, disability, and female identity. In a Weibo post (deleted two hours after it was published on Wednesday), she accused her estranged husband Yang Zhuce of domestic violence, alleging that he physically assaulted her multiple times in the course of their two-month marriage, after she asked him if he was having an affair with another woman. While some of Yus fans were sympathetic or outraged on her behalf, other netizens criticized her for being an attention-seeker, alleged that she had it coming, or made her the target of online bullying and death threats. The author of a WeChat post archived by CDT detailed how women who suffer sexual violence often receive harsher public scrutiny and criticism than their male abusers:

This has become a common practice online. When a woman suffers domestic abuse, the first question people ask is, What did she do [to provoke it]?

In the absence of other evidence, the mind conjures up various and vilifying possibilities:

Did the man find out that their child wasnt his?

Was she mean to her in-laws?

Was she too bad-tempered?

This is particularly true in the case of Yu Xiuhua, a headstrong, high-profile woman with many enemies. Some will find it easy to understand why a man might beat her: theyll say she had it coming, she brought this humiliation on herself, she knew the risks and went into it with her eyes wide open.

Youre old, disabled, and uglywhy would you think such a young man could actually love you?

The heartless domestic abuser has thus far avoided the storm, while Yu Xiuhua, the one who was beaten, finds herself in the eye of the storm, the object of public censure. [Chinese]

Translation by Cindy Carter.

The rest is here:
#MeToo Cases Weather Censorship, Suppression, and Victim-bashing - China Digital Times