Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Medical censorship and the COVID-19 vaccines – University of Dallas University News

The United States approach to handling COVID-19 is not balanced nor does it orient itself towards the patients best interest, since doctors have not been using available drugs to treat symptoms of the virus for patients at home and in hospitals.

Dr. Peter A. McCullough, a cardiologist, internist and epidemiologist, who has testified before Congress twice and gained national attention for his extensive work in treating COVID-19 patients, honored UD with a well-attended talk on Sept. 22. Dr. William Stigall, pediatrician and bioethicist at Cook Childrens Medical Center and UD adjunct professor of philosophy, offered a response to McCullough.

McCullough expressed concern about the lack of COVID-19 treatments, the potential risks of the new vaccines and the medical censorship and coercion.

McCullough called American doctors failure to treat symptoms of the virus therapeutic nihilism. McCullough has teamed up with other doctors to treat COVID-19 patients with a combination of drugs, including Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.

The lack of objective clinical trials and lack of an external safety monitoring board for the COVID-19 vaccines constitute an unprecedented blunder in the medical field. McCullough explained, We always have external bodies as a mechanism of unbiased people because you can imagine how biased the CDC and the FDA [are] for a successful program just like the pharmaceutical companies.

The CDC and FDA are now recommending COVID-19 vaccines for the types of individuals who are always excluded from clinical trials, such as pregnant women.

This is concerning, especially for women of child-bearing potential. McCullough cited a Japanese study of the mRNA vaccines on rats which showed that lipid nanoparticles produced by the vaccine hyper-concentrate in the ovaries of animals, and likely in human ovaries as well.

We know the spike protein circulates in the body for two weeks after the first shot of messenger RNA. There have been no genotype studies, McCullough said.

We dont know if it changes genetic information in the human body. We dont know if it causes birth defects or cancer.

McCullough cited the CDC database, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS, according to which there have been 14,506 vaccine-related deaths as of Sept. 9 and over 5,000 cases of Myocarditis, inflammation of the heart linked to COVID-19 vaccines.

These cases, most of them reported by doctors, have been investigated by the CDC and assigned permanent numbers in the database, McCullough said.

It is common knowledge that the new COVID-19 vaccines are dubitably effective in preventing variants of the virus, as evidenced by the Delta variant. Natural immunity is the best solution for containing COVID-19 for if vaccines still allow breakthrough cases, there is no other end in sight.

McCullough fears that medical censorship over anything contrary to the COVID-19 vaccine agenda is sucking the lifeblood of medical science.

He said, Were losing our medical freedom. Thats related to a circle of social freedom. When we break the circle of social freedom, thats related to the circle of economic freedom.

McCulloughs contract with the Baylor University Medical Center was terminated with no explanation given last January. McCullough had served as vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center for six years.

Despite a lawsuit from Texas healthcare giant Baylor Scott and White, aimed at preventing McCollough from associating himself with his former employer, McCullough continues to promote COVID-19 treatment and vaccine safety at great personal risk.

In response to McCullough, Stigall said,Dr. McCullough is on to something [but] theres a lot of complexity and nuance that needs to color these discussions.

According to Stigall, the COVID-19 vaccines must be safe since Pfizer is working with the FDA to design and test the vaccines.

Stigall compared the COVID-19 pandemic to the 1918 Spanish Flu, the deadliest pandemic in recent history, which killed 50 million people worldwide between 3%-5% of the worlds population and had a high mortality rate in healthy young people 20-40.

During the Spanish Flu pandemic, there was widespread medical failure in treating the disease and medical censorship of those who opposed the harmful treatments.

However, the real reason for pandemics, Stigall said, is spiritual. He said, The reason were in 1918 is because of those errors that were made in the 1500s. The reason those errors were made in the 1500s is Genesis chapters 1, 2 and 3.

While sin is truly the origin of our ills, God has given us means for treatment through the intellects of specialists like McCullough.

Charity and standard medical practice demand that no person dies on the altar of corporate interests and political correctness. If the vaccines, while failing to prevent the virus, cause many patients to die from side effects, our medical authorities and experts are failing us.

More:
Medical censorship and the COVID-19 vaccines - University of Dallas University News

Pa. schools may be required to post their curriculum online. Is it about transparency or censorship? – PennLive

A controversial bill that would allow parents to have online access to what their children are learning in public schools won passage on Wednesday in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

The bill, which if enacted would take effect starting next school year, would provide information about curriculum, including the academic standard to be achieved, instructional materials, course syllabus, and assessment techniques.

With its approval by the House on a 110-89 vote with all Democrats and three Republicans opposing, the bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.

The measures sponsor, Rep. Andrew Lewis, R-Dauphin County, said he seeks to standardize a practice already happening in some districts in the commonwealth that makes it easy for parents to annually review a schools curriculum materials, rather than having to visit a school or administrative building to see them.

The bill would apply to school districts, career and technical centers, charter schools and intermediate units.

It simply brings our state into the 21st Century by making sure that especially in an environment of remote learning, parents can access the information that theyre entitled to [by state law] online, Lewis said.

Pa. Rep. Andrew Lewis, R-Dauphin County, referred to his bill requiring the posting of curriculum materials online as bringing the state into the 21st Century but one critic called it "an invitation to censorship."Oct. 6, 2021Screenshot from Pa. House of Representatives website

Republicans have touted the bill as a tool for transparency. But critics said it placed an unnecessary burden on school officials and suggested hidden motives are at play in this measure.

This bill will drag education right into the middle of the culture wars, said Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny County, Your neighbor, her grandfather in Florida, your crazy uncle and his best friend in California can all weigh in on what the schools are teaching your child. Lets be clear.

Frankel said teachers are happy to share with parents what their children are supposed to learn and parents also could ask their children directly about it.

This bill isnt about transparency for parents, Frankel said. Its about bringing the fights that get started on Fox News to the kindergarten classroom near you. ... This legislation is an invitation to the book burners and anti-maskers to harass our schools and our teachers.

Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, D-Philadelphia, picked up on that point, saying he sees it as having the potential to intensify threats and violence against teachers and school administrators already under fire over masking requirements and other matters.

It encourages certain factions in our country to be emboldened and to continue to spread lies about what is happening in our classrooms, Kenyatta said.

Rep. Aaron Bernstine, R-Butler County, countered those arguments, saying, There will be no lies because information will specifically be online so people can see it.

Referring to the bills critics, Bernstine said, Theres no reason to hide if theres nothing to be scared of.

Since broadband access is still limited in areas of the state, though, Rep. Mike Sturla, D-Lancaster County, said the only people who will be able to view the curriculum in those districts are those who are outside those areas. Secondly, he faulted the bill for failing to include private schools that receive public funding through various state programs.

This is a bad bill even if it did include those things, Sturla said. This is simply an attack on public education, plain and simple.

Lewis said the bill puts the responsibility for placing the curriculum and instructional materials online on the chief school administrator or a designee, not teachers. However, opponents argued teachers will be the ones who have to gather that information together and insisted it will be a burden for them.

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association and other public school advocacy organizations have opposed the bill.

This mandate would amount to a crushing level of work for educators at a time when they are navigating in-person instruction, addressing student learning delays, and meeting students needs during a global pandemic, said Rich Askey, president of the Pennsylvania State Education Association. Its an absolutely unnecessary distraction from what is really important teaching kids.

Among other concerns, Askey and Rep. Mark Longietti, D-Mercer County, said the bill raises questions related to the posting of copy-written materials, quizzes and tests online.

Sharon Ward, senior policy advisor of the Education Law Center, agreed with opponents that the bill is burdensome and unnecessary.

We are also concerned that the bill invites censorship in the guise of transparency, Ward said.

The bill was amended on Tuesday to require schools to update curriculum information each time a new or revised curriculum is used within 30 days of its approval.

Jan Murphy may be reached at jmurphy@pennlive.com. Follow her on Twitter at @JanMurphy.

Read this article:
Pa. schools may be required to post their curriculum online. Is it about transparency or censorship? - PennLive

Kevin Clifford: School board silencing parents is just another act of censorship – Conway Daily Sun

The recently proposed Conway School Board policy to silence parents is just another anti-American act of censorship from a cabal of out-of-control Conway school board members that include, Joe Lentini, Jessica Whitelaw, Joe Mosca, and Dr. Michelle Capozzoli. These people should never be elected again.

This same policy was rejected by the SAU 9 board recently. This is a very dangerous policy that sets the stage for further censorship from our locally elected officials.

In a lame excuse to defend the policy, Lentini stated that the meetings are contentious, and that people are not showing up. The real issue is that very few people previously attended and now this cabal does not want to take any criticism from an energized and passionate group of parents.

The Suns Sept. 30 article stated that Lentini helped craft the policy, which is highly doubtful and was allegedly borrowed from the New Hampshire School Board Association, a membership lobbying organization that rejects parents rights in favor of school boards.

Nevertheless, if Lentini did help craft this draconian censorship policy it was poorly written, where the proposed policy prohibits, obscene, libelous, and defamatory statements. If further allows the board chair to terminate the speakers privilege to speak based on the chairpersons definition of such.

Nonetheless, Lentinis proposed censorship policy is perplexing in that it prohibits libel, which according to Blacks Law Dictionary is a Defamatory statement published through any manner or media. Accordingly, my act of writing and publishing this letter could be considered defamatory and libelous according to Lentinis distorted assessment, and my and other constituents privilege to speak could be terminated.

This is a tyrannical rule organized by board chair Lentini who clearly stated on a public meeting online that he and others should not have to listen to parents. Lentinis hubris meter is now maxed-out at 100 percent, and it is unclear why he is still in this elected position when he doesnt want to hear from constituents.

Public officials cannot shield themselves from bona fide public criticism, no matter how hard they try, this has been upheld in the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case. It is time for Lentini, Capozzoli, Mosca, and Whitelaw to take a refresher course in American Civics and First Amendment free speech.

Original post:
Kevin Clifford: School board silencing parents is just another act of censorship - Conway Daily Sun

Women can`t eat pizza on TV, men barred from serving tea to ladies: Iran`s censorship rules leave citizens… – Zee News

New Delhi: In a bizarre development, Iran has banned TV makers from depicting women eating pizza on screen and men serving tea to women in workplaces.

As per IranWire report, women cannot be shown consuming any red-coloured beverages, sandwiches or pizza. Under new censorship guidelines, women on TV cannot be depicted wearing leather gloves either.

Moreover, images of men and women in domestic environments will first be specially reviewed by Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) directors before they can be aired. Amir Hossein Shamshadi, the chief of public relations of IRIB, divulged that these new guidelines were imposed following a recent audit of the organization, IranWire reported.

To avoid facing backlash from the authorities in Tehran, some Iranian streaming sites will adhere to self censor.

These censorship rules could be seen taking effect after Iranian talk show Pishgoo avoided showing actress Elnaz Habibis face on camera in September. During the show, only her voice was heard which irked many viewers including veteran actor Amin Tarokh who took to Instagram to complain. "I wish the guest's name had been subtitled, at least. Because we didnt see her face at all, had the host not mentioned it [at the beginning], wed have no idea which artist was being talked about! What pleasure is derived from getting a close-up look at the creators of the program, and a far-off one at the guest, just because theyre a woman? Especially a lady like this whos very decent. All you get from the IRIB is a voice and no picture," the actor said.

Live TV

Follow this link:
Women can`t eat pizza on TV, men barred from serving tea to ladies: Iran`s censorship rules leave citizens... - Zee News

The Sex Education Pamphlet That Sparked a Landmark Censorship Case – Smithsonian

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