Mediaboss Marketing

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

Texas teachers and students denounced a more strict anti-critical race theory bill as censorship and anti-civics education at a Senate committee hearing.

The bill will likely reach the full Senate for a vote soon after gaining committee approval Thursday afternoon.

The special session proposal builds off of a bill Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law last month that seeks to ban critical race theory from the classroom. Abbott insisted more could be done to abolish the theory from being taught to Texas public school students.

But educators insist critical race theory an academic framework that probes the way policies and laws uphold systemic racism in areas like education or housing is not part of curriculum. They worry the new law and any efforts to make teaching more restrictive will have a chilling effect on conversations about race and current events in the classroom. Representatives from major teacher groups complained that they were not consulted in the crafting of the proposal.

Gabriella Gonzalez, a student teacher in Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD, told lawmakers that she did not know how to teach about the diversity of Texas student population with the bill in place and that it didnt offer sufficient directions to new teachers like herself.

I deserve to know my place in Texas history and so does every fourth and seventh grader looking at [their curriculum] in the state, Gonzalez said. I should feel no fear when teaching the experience to Hispanic populations during social studies or any content area.

A group of roughly 50 opponents who included teachers, students and education advocates crowded the balcony of the Texas Senate on Thursday to oppose the legislation, even though it has little chance of passing anytime soon. House Democrats broke quorum earlier this week, effectively halting their chamber from taking any action to advance the bill.

Every student should learn about our countrys history, good and bad, said Ana Ramn, the deputy director of advocacy with the Intercultural Development Research Association. This [bill] is attacking our opportunity to help people and students understand systemic racism in our state.

Neither the new law nor the proposal authored by Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, mentions the theory explicitly.

Instead, the law Abbott signed last month prohibits schools from compelling social studies teachers to discuss a particular current event or widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs and mandates that teachers discussing such topics not give deference to any one perspective.

Hughes version goes a step further, extending the prohibition to teachers in all subject areas and eliminating a number of required teachings including the history of Native Americans, the Chicano movement and womens suffrage.

It also strikes a required curriculum on the history of white supremacy and the ways in which it is morally wrong. Each of the eliminated lessons were added into the law by House Democrats at the end of the last regular session.

The Mineola Republican explained Thursday that his legislation slashes many of the required teachings because it is the State Board of Educations role to determine what is taught.

We are not saying those things cant be taught, Hughes said. This bill is about ... broad concepts.

State Board of Education Chairman Keven Ellis, R-Lufkin, noted at the committee meeting that much of the required teachings listed within the law signed by Abbott were already included in Texas required curriculum. Ellis oversees the board charged with interpreting the legislation into curriculum standards that all schools will have to follow.

The strikethroughs are not being taken as a signal to the state board to limit those topics, Ellis said.

Hughes bill also establishes a civics training program that would prepare educators to guide discussion of current events and teach media literacy, including instruction on verifying information and sources. The proposal also forbids schools from awarding course credit or making part of a course work for organizations that lobby for legislation at the federal, state or local levels.

Responding to concerns about enforcement, Hughes said he was open to exploring mechanisms and suggested that schools could use existing systems to track who is following the guidelines in the legislation and who is not.

Some proponents suggested penalties for breaking the tenets of the bill. The group of about a dozen commenters who voiced support for the legislation Thursday were mostly parents alleging their schools were teaching the academic theory.

One mother claimed that her son, who recently graduated from a high school near Houston, did not know how to write a sentence or what a semicolon was because schools have been focusing on the wrong things, including critical race theory.

You were hired to teach facts and skills [and] equip students for a successful life, not to hate their parents, the police or their country, said Ruth York, a representative of the Tea Party Patriots, addressing teachers.

Texas is one of several states that have been drawn into the turbulent cultural debate over whether critical race theory is being taught in K-12 classrooms. The mere insinuation that the concept is present in curriculum has drawn dozens to school board meetings and legislative hearings. It even became a focal point of several trustee races in Texas.

The definition of the theory is often in contention. Sen. Bob Hall, R-Rockwall, described the theory as teaching our kids to hate and activist training while a critic of the bill said it was not teaching kids that white people are bad, but that white supremacy is bad.

Hughes bill passed out of committee with only Republicans voting to forward it to the Senate floor. The bills author said it would likely come up for consideration by the full chamber fairly quickly with some potential amendments, including one that would clarify that eliminating required teachings wont prevent instructors from teaching the full curriculum.

The DMN Education Lab deepens the coverage and conversation about urgent education issues critical to the future of North Texas.

The DMN Education Lab is a community-funded journalism initiative, with support from The Beck Group, Bobby and Lottye Lyle, Communities Foundation of Texas, The Dallas Foundation, Dallas Regional Chamber, Deedie Rose, The Meadows Foundation, Solutions Journalism Network, Southern Methodist University and Todd A. Williams Family Foundation. The Dallas Morning News retains full editorial control of the Education Labs journalism.

See the original post:
Anti-critical race theory bill heads to Senate after teachers assail it as censorship - The Dallas Morning News

Fox Nation host Tammy Bruce told "The Faulkner Focus" on Friday that American corporations working with the government on potential censorship is "classic fascism." Bruce reacted to White House press secretary Jen Psaki announcing that the administration is working on flagging Facebook on "misinformation" about COVID-19 vaccines.

CRITICS SLAM THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER PSAKI REVEALS IT'S CONSULTING WITH FACEBOOK TO 'FLAG MISINFORMATION'

TAMMY BRUCE: This is more than just the First Amendment. I have to say, to have corporate America work with the government, that is the core of fascism. That is the only way that fascism can work is when you've got a corporate bolster and they're in the pool with you in order to make that kind of control functional.

So this moves us into quite an authoritarian framework where it's also messaged very casually. If you notice, like this is totally normal. It's not only not normal, it not only is a violation of the First Amendment, clearly, but it sets a very different approach when it comes to what the founders had in mind, which was a representative republic. Democracy, right? This is very classically fascism.

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW BELOW:

See more here:
Tammy Bruce: 'Classic fascism' for government to work with corporations to censor 'misinformation' - Fox News

A sixth form student looks at his A-Level results at The Crossley Heath Grammar School in Halifax, England, August 13, 2020. (Molly Darlington/Reuters)

A U.K. proposal known as the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill has attracted controversy and criticism from the Left lately. Some question whether legislation is the appropriate answer to growing threats against free speech, while others remain unconvinced that there is a necessity for government action at all.

The bill, if passed, would allow the Office for Students (OfS), which is an independent regulatory body of British higher education, to monitor and enforce freedom of speech measures at higher education institutions, introduce a complaints system and redress for breaches of free speech duties through the introduction of a statutory tort, extend duties on free speech to students unions and create a role of Director of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the OfS.

Given the well-documented threats to free speech on U.K. college campuses, the bill appears to be a reasonable solution to the growing presence of censorship, voluntary or involuntary, on U.K. campuses. And its perfectly plausible that legislation is the correct route to take.

A report published by ADF International reveals that almost 40% of students admit fears that expressing their views on campus could adversely affect their future career opportunities. Journalist Jenni Murrays speaking engagement at Oxford University was canceled after a comment she made in a newspaper article that was deemed transphobic came to light; and a lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire, on the other hand, was dismissed for asserting that faith is not something to be admired.

Critics of the speech bill claim it is simply not necessary. The spokeswoman for Universities UK contends it would only [duplicate] existing legislation and [create] unnecessary bureaucracy without providing any protection to speech beyond the current legal framework. The general secretary of the University and College Union asserts that it relies on an [incredible] over-exaggeration of issues.

Lets look at the legal tradition of free speech in the U.K. The basis of this right is established through the common law and the European Convention, which was incorporated into U.K. domestic law by the legislature through the Human Rights Act.

Of course, the American Constitutions guarantee of free speech is more robust than that used in the European Convention, whose protection of freedom of expression is subjected to an array of exceptions. While the First Amendment states categorically that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, the European Convention cautiously states that freedom of expression may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law for various reasons including the protection of health or morals. The common law, meanwhile, is constantly evolving in accordance with contemporary jurisprudence.

In the U.S., the First Amendment offers ample legal grounds for citizens to challenge laws restricting speech on the basis of constitutionality alone.Butaccording to a policy paper issued by the U.K. government, there is no clear means of enforcing compliance with the duties to protect freedom of speech under the current legal framework. The U.K. does not currently have tort laws that apply specifically to free speech, and common-law jurisprudence has been reluctant to find violations of free speech on the part of colleges. The Higher Education Bill aims to fill in the gaps andallow individuals to file legal claims against educational institutions accused of free-speech violations.

A true defender of free speech would proclaim that the answer to wrong speech is invariably more speech. It is evident that self-censorship of students and the removal of speakers and educators whose opinions may offend all lead to a common result which is narrowing the scope of information available to students.

Here is the original post:
U.K. Free-Speech Bill a Sound Solution to Censorship - National Review

The debate over censorship of the internet by big tech companies seems to be intensifying. This is a real problem, but there is a danger that some potential cures may be worse than the disease.

The big tech media giants have increasingly been making editorial decisions relating to major political controversies. Given the near monopolistic reach of companies like Twitter and Facebook, critics, particularly on the right, have a legitimate concern that there is a concerted effort to suppress political speech.

There are numerous examples of this, and not just the current ban of former President Trump, who won 74 million votes in the last election, from both Facebook and Twitter. You dont have to believe Mr. Trumps claims that the last election was stolen, or endorse his actions on January 6, to think that it is inappropriate to exclude such an important political figure for extended periods. But it goes well beyond Mr. Trumps exclusion. The tech companies seem increasingly disinclined to permit political posts that runs counter to the prevailing liberal narrative. For example, just before the election a decision was made to squelch a credible report in the New York Post concerning Hunter Bidens laptop and its possible connection to candidate Joe Biden.

And with respect to the Covid virus, almost any speech outside the mainstream has been excluded, or at least subject to contentious fact checks or cautionary messages. For a while even stories suggesting a connection between the virus and the Chinese laboratory in Wuhan were considered disinformation. To be clear, I got the vaccine months ago, and I think most people should get shots. But excluding much of the skepticism about the vaccines, its efficacy and its potential side effects seems a little excessive.

While it isnt a good thing that a few billionaires have an outsized impact on what is permissible speech, it is less than obvious what can be done as a remedy.

One potential solution would be to require that large internet providers treat all speech equally, as is required of the government, which (unlike private companies) is subject to the First Amendment. Alternatively, you could treat the big providers as though they are a public utility which, like the telephone companies of old, were largely required to accept speech from all comers.

While the argument has been made that the big tech sites operate the functional equivalent of the town square, and thus is similar the government, in fact the tech companies have different rights, powers and responsibilities than governmental authorities. In addition, you probably wouldnt want all speech rules applicable to the government also to apply to the tech companies. For example, most people are comfortable with at least some forms of censorship by the tech companies. Facebook, for example, seems well within its rights to prohibit pornographic images which might not be legally obscene. And even if it might be legally protected speech, few of us are concerned that that, say, Twitter, does not allow rants by neo-Nazis or the Klan on its site. Similar arguments would be applicable to the public utility theory since censorship would be largely prohibited.

It has also been suggested that large utilities lose their protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which under most circumstances shields internet company for liability for defamatory posts of third parties. The problem here is that, unlike newspapers and most television shows, it is impossible, or at least very impractical, to prescreen user content.

There is also the idea of an antitrust initiative against the big players, with unknown economic ramifications.

I guess in my perfect world, there would be an understanding by the tech company that suppressing a large chunk of political speech is not in their long term best interest and that they would do well to take a less heavy hand rather than be subjected to the heavy hand of legislation or regulation. Well see if they come to realize that.

Read more here:
Big Tech, Censorship and the Internet - Garden City News