Mediaboss Marketing

China, being a country with some heavy censorship rules, has had a reputation for canceling movies that showcased a different culture. Disney, being one of several companies that try to bring woke culture to kids has often run into problems with them.

In a meeting, the CEO of Disney, Bob Iger met with a delegation from the Chinese Communist Party to discuss how the company would represent its media in China better. Essentially giving China an olive branch to reconcile things, Bob Iger wishes to build upon a trusting deal that would let Disney release into the Chinese market without disturbing the thoughts and ideologies of the country.

Well, after some years of streaming services taking the lead, people tried to resurrect the art of cinema and theaters. While releasing movies in theaters, China did not allow the release of several Marvel movies due to unknown reasons, even though the censor board cleared it.

Also read: There was no way to force the issue: Marvels Ex-chairman Says He Never Conspired to Fire Kevin Feige From MCU Before Avengers: Infinity War

After the whole ordeal was over, it has been reported that a delegation from the Chinese Communist Party had a meeting with Disney CEO Bob Iger. With the intention of making things all right between the company and the country, Iger admitted that they have indeed done wrong in the past, but are willing to make up for it for a better future.

During the hour-long meeting, 10 lawmakers raised the issue of Chinas unnecessary censorship. An insider source however stated that CEO Bob Iger sorted things out and that he reconciled it between Disney and the countrys regime. The source stated that Igers aim is not to change the story but it was a value judgment and dont always get it right.

This could potentially mean that China and Disneys relationship would be on better terms now, and who knows, maybe the country would also allow the release of Marvel movies from now on. As Bob Iger tries to make it up to a country, a Floridan Republican governor wants to make the company pay!

Suggested: Tom Hollands Co-star Charlie Cox Was Embarrassed About His Cameo in $1.9 Billion MCU Film After Poor Reaction From Audience: It was dead f**king quiet!

Related: We have to look at what stories we are mining: Disney CEO Bob Iger Hints Trimming Down $51.8B Star Wars, $40.8B MCU Franchise Movies to FocusonQuality

With all the anti-LGBT bills that Florida seems to want to pass, Disney was scolded by Floridan Governor Ron DeSantis. Having heard enough of it, Bob Iger lashed out at the governor, as he said that a company deserved the same freedom of speech that an individual may hold.

It seems like hes decided to retaliate against us, including the naming of a new board to oversee the property and the business, in effect to seek to punish a company for its exercise of a constitutional right. That just seems really wrong to me.

The CEO further continued,

Any action that thwarts those efforts simply to retaliate for a position the company took sounds not just anti-business, but it sounds anti-Florida. And Ill just leave it at that.

It seems that if things get worse, Disney may soon have a panel of oversee directors operating over the mass media company. The case is currently on trial as the judge prepares for the next hearing of Disney vs the governor.

Source: CBR

Go here to see the original:
Disney CEO's Olive Branch to China Amidst Heavy Censorship Backlash - FandomWire

A year after it was enacted, Georgias so-called book banning law is leading to confusion and censorship in our schools.

The law, passed in April 2022 as Senate Bill 226, allows parents and guardians to submit complaints about the content of material in their childrens textbooks and in school and classroom libraries.

Georgia public schools now must have a complaint resolution policy that allows challenges to material believed to be harmful to minors, defined by the law as sexual content appealing to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors, which lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. This definition mirrors the U.S. Supreme Courts definition of obscenity.

When a parent or guardian submits a written complaint about school material, the school principal has seven days to investigate whether the material is harmful to minors. The decision of whether to remove or restrict student access to the challenged material is left exclusively to the principal, although the school board may conduct a review.

The Georgia Department of Education does not give principals any guidance for determining whether material meets the definition of harmful to minors, and it offers no concrete steps for handling complaints. The departments model complaint resolution policy simply restates the laws requirements.

The law undermines students constitutional right to receive information. In the 1982 case of Island Trees School District v. Pico, the Supreme Court noted that school libraries afford students an opportunity at self-education and individual enrichment and that public school boards are not free to restrict student access to library books simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books. In the words of the court, the First Amendment rights of students may be directly and sharply implicated by the removal of books from the shelves of a school library. Yet Georgia now empowers any parent to initiate a process that does exactly that.

Another year-old Georgia law only makes matters worse. SB 377, also referred to as Georgias divisive concepts bill, regulates whether and how teachers can discuss topics like race and ethnicity in the classroom. Both laws deprive students of their First Amendment right to receive information, and the combination has created uncertainty and normalized censorship.

Nan Brown, coordinator of the Georgia Library Media Associations advocacy team, reports that Georgia teachers have begun censoring both what they say to students and what materials they keep in their classrooms. Some teachers have limited or altogether avoided discussing topics like the Civil War or figures like Martin Luther King Jr. for fear of putting their jobs at risk, Brown said.

In the just-ended Georgia General Assembly session, lawmakers considered encouraging even more censorship in our schools. Senate Bill 154 would have made school librarians criminally liable for distributing harmful materials to minors. Fortunately, the bill did not pass this year. But it could reappear in 2024.

What would such a law mean for Georgia schools? To see the damage it could do, we need only look one state over.

In 2017, Floridas Legislature passed a law (House Bill 989) that was a precursor to Georgias SB 226. Floridas law lacks detailed guidance for resolving complaints, leading to significant uncertainty among educators about what books they can have in their classrooms, paving the way for self-censorship by teachers that deprives students of their First Amendment right to receive information.

Last year, the Florida lawmakers in addition to passing their own divisive concepts law passed HB 1467, which requires all books in public school media centers, as well as any books assigned or recommended by teachers, be pre-approved as content-appropriate by the schools media specialist. A public educator who allows students access to unapproved materials may be subject to felony prosecution.

Schools are unequipped to shoulder the administrative burden of this year-old law. For example, in Duval County, Florida, a mere 54 media specialists are responsible for vetting 1.6 million titles in the countys 200 schools. Fear of criminal consequences and a backlog of classroom materials waiting to be reviewed has led Florida teachers to box up and donate entire classroom libraries.

SB 154 would have similar consequences in Georgia. The proposal which remains in play for the 2024 General Assembly session would expose educators to potential arrest and prosecution for simply having books and resources in their classrooms, without any real, practicable guidance on which materials are allowed and which are not.

Georgia must learn from the mistakes weve already made by following in Floridas unconstitutional footsteps. Criminalizing teachers well-intentioned conduct and impeding students access to educational information would put us on a path to even more censorship in our schools.

Original post:
A year later, Georgia's 'book banning' law normalizes censorship in ... - Georgia Recorder

The Lafourche Parish School Board created a policy that forms a committee to vet what is discussed in their meetings.

The policy requires all items submitted for discussion be turned in to the superintendent's office five days before the meeting. It then goes before a three-person Executive Ad Hoc Committee chosen by the School Board President Tina Babin. Those three members then vote whether the item goes before the full board or not. The policy passed Tuesday.

According to Lafourche Parish Superintendent Jarod Martin, the committee is a recreation of an older policy the school board had known as the advisory committee. It dissolved when the school board reduced in members from a 15-member board to nine. He said this new three-person committee would fulfill the same purpose as the old board and would be pulled together as needed.

"In practice, it changes nothing for how our board has operated for many years," Martin said. "It provides a codified avenue for agenda items to be added to the agenda."

Both Martin and Babin were unsure if the committee would be subject to open meeting law requirements. Open meetings would allow the public to see what items were approved and denied for discussion.

Asked if they would be open to the public, Babin said, "I would prefer to have a word from the attorney before committing to an answer."

The three members would be selected from the school board and Babin said she would choose them based on who posed the item and who could best discuss it. Because the committee is formed as needed, the members can change each time it is formed.

Requirements for an item to be put on the agenda are whether it applies to education, if it has an informational purpose, if another policy or law already applies to it, and if it should instead be sent to a committee for discussion before going to the full board.

More: Trans, drag debates sowing fear in local communities

More: A horse tranquilizer showing up in street drugs, linked to amputations

This process appears at least to one member as a method for censoring unwanted topics from discussion. School board member Jamie Marlbrough said elected officials shouldn't have their items vetted by a committee, they were already vetted by voters.

Marlbrough argues that if members of their constituency constantly have their voice struck down by that committee then a board member should have the power to place it on the agenda if they feel it important enough.

By having the item discussed the board can inform the public, and the constituents will feel like their concerns aren't being ignored. She said what this committee creates is a mechanism to silence board members the majority doesn't agree with.

"It's taking more and more power away from elected officials," she said.

The school board has an exit ramp if they feel items denied are worthy of discussion but aren't making it to the meetings. With a two-thirds vote, the board can place an item on the agenda opposing the committee, but Marlbrough said that's unlikely since the committee is already three members of the nine-member board.

See the article here:
School Board begins vetting discussion items, member fears ... - Daily Comet

Not fit for family viewing! Sounds like the quotes Ive been reading from Gov. Ron DeSantis and his Republican colleagues in the Legislature. Theyve been warning us of dangers to children if the little ones catch glimpses of drag queens dancing and waving at them from floats in Florida pride parades.

But the above quote isnt recent. It dates way back to 1954. Ed Sullivan was reacting to requests that he book 21-year-old Elvis Presley on his variety show. Just as with our governor today, Sullivan was deeply concerned about the unhealthy effects some of Elvis dance moves might have on the sexual development of Americas children.

Eventually Sullivan did book Elvis. To limit possible damage to children viewing at home, CBS directed its cameras to censor any shots of The Kings gyrating hips. But, as with the recent Drag Queen Christmas Show at Orlandos Plaza Live, children were not banned from the studio audience. So they could see it all. Fortunately, no long-term damage was reported.

Clive Thomas Orlando

Legislators who authored the bill to cap contributions by city-owned utilities to city budgets in the interest of fairness to customers who live outside municipal boundaries could have three possible motives:

Political Pulse

Weekly

Get latest updates political news from Central Florida and across the state.

First could be an impulse to be fair to customers outside the city, who do not benefit directly from city amenities or services. However, many from outlying areas visit or work in the city that owns the utility serving them, and enjoy them while there. Capping contributions could raise taxes on residents to cover shortfalls while having neither benefit nor penalty for non-residents. Fairness sounds good, but much recent legislation lacks fairness entirely.

Second, the motivation could be both economic and political. Developers may choose a city-owned utility for new neighborhoods because rates are reasonable, service dependable, and the city willing to connect. For-profit companies would be happy to service these customers instead. With the cap in place, the city might not be as willing a partner. Did for-profit actors contact legislative friends for help?

Third would be a baldly political motive. Since cities often vote Democratic, punishing them by punching holes in their budgets, forcing higher taxes on their blue-aligned residents, would fit the regrettable current of Florida politics.

City-owned utilities generally have good track records and satisfied customers both inside and outside city limits. Unlike for-profit companies, they must answer directly to local officials rather than stockholders in other states. Follow the rule of If it aint broke, dont fix it and bury this bill.

Robert S. Carr Orlando

A commentary that appeared in Sundays Orlando Sentinel (LGBTQ+ students face terrifying reality as school boards get partisan) is alarming and very accurate. The student who wrote it, Will Larkins, is telling the truth when it comes to this sinister group of charlatans. The Christian right has seemingly been empowered by the Republican Party to strike down and erase what they dont like in public schools. None of what they do has anything to do with protecting children but has everything to do with pushing their narrative and religious beliefs on others. Does this sound familiar? Dont let this happen to your kids. Stop the madness, stand up and push back. Your public schools need your help now more than ever.

PJ Whelan Orlando

Continued here:
Drag shows only the latest unnecessary censorship | Letters - Orlando Sentinel

The Union Government, on April 6, 2023, promulgated certainamendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, a piece of delegated legislation under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Through these amendments, inter alia, social media intermediaries or SMI (such as Twitter, Facebook, etc.) are now obligated under Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules to inform their users, through internal rules, regulations and other policies, to not host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information which is identified as fake or false or misleading by [a] fact check unit of the Central Government in respect of any business of the Union government.

In a situation where SMIs fail to carry out this obligation, they will be exposed to potentially losing their immunity from any civil or criminal liability as intermediaries for any third-party content hosted on their platforms. This situation arises due to the legislative framework manifested in the IT Rules. Section 79 of the Act reads that intermediaries are immune from hosting third-party data, information, or communication, provided that they observe due diligence while discharging [their] duties under the Act which are provided under the IT Rules.

If an intermediary fails to do so, then the immunity from any liability under Section 79 will not extend to such a person. This is also reiterated under Rule 7 of the IT Rules. This development raises some important questions of constitutional law, which shall be discussed in this essay.

By way of the amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v), the Union government now possesses the authority to necessitate SMIs carry out the due diligence and moderate information and communications of third-parties on their platforms (unless they wish to lose their immunity under Section 79) in accordance with the version of events circulated by a fact check unit of the Union government.

Advertisement

Advertisement

However, it is not clear under the IT Rules how this would be achieved. One possible way of doing so, inevitably, would be to censor the content which is contrary to the fact-checked version of the government. This is so because Rule 3(1)(b)(v) requires a SMI to cause the user to not host certain kinds of information. To cause means to produce a positive effect towards the achievement of a desired result (per Blacks Law Dictionary (Bryan Garner Ed., 2009), at 250).

Another way to do so would be to flag content as deceptive or incorrect for the benefit of other users accessing such content (the way, for example, Twitters manipulative media policy ostensibly operates). Therefore, the visible objective of amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) is to mandate SMIs to moderate content by not allowing users or, at least, disincentivising them to communicate information which is contrary to the Governments version of events in respect of its business.

In this regard, the United States Fourth Circuit Courts decision inZeranv. America Online, Inc.(1997) is important in the context ofSection 230 of the Communication Decency Act (which Section 79 of the Act is based on). In this case, the appellant filed a lawsuit of defamation against America Online, Inc.s (AOL) website for third-party content circulated on its website.

While dismissing the appeal, the court observed that the purpose of Section 230 (which granted AOL immunity for third-party content) was to catalyse the dissemination of diverse speech on the internet, and that the imposition of any liability on the intermediary would be simply another form of intrusive government regulation of speech.

It further noted that an intermediary, if at the risk of incurring any kind of liability or losing its legal immunity, is de facto bound to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. In addition, it is but natural for the Government to only impose its version of the truth which is otherwise unsuitable for the ruling political dispensation.

Therefore, while immunity under Section 79, as opposed to Section 230 of the CDA, is explicitly subject to due diligence conditions, the implications of introducing a fact check mechanism under Rule 3(1)(b)(v) are clearly stated in Zeran: the problem becomes one of the State exercising a Hecklers veto, andcausing a chilling effecton freedom of speech, at its convenience.

Understood this way, the amendment prima facie espouses a chilling effect on speech being disseminated on SMI platforms.

The validity of the amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) would, therefore, have to be judged on the anvil of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees simply the right to freedom of speech and expression, decisions of various courts have expanded its purview beyond the provisions language.

Decisions of the high courts of Delhi (Srishti School, 2011) and Bombay (Anand Patwardhan, 1996) have rejected the idea of the state possessing monopoly over the true portrayal of an event. Building on the ideas of J.S. Mill (here), Justice Muralidhar presciently noted inSrishtithat the right of the viewer to think autonomously while reacting [], and to make informed choices,without being controlled by the State, alsoconstitutes an integral partof the freedom of speech and expression.

As Gautam Bhatia has demonstrated elsewhere, these decisions showcase a distaste towards legal paternalism and the states ability to deem its version of the truth as the universal truth.

However,SrishtiandPatwardhanconcerned a directlis between the state and its citizens, and did not involve a private intermediary moderating content at the directions of the state. It is yet only speculative how SMIs will eventually promote the governments version of events over others circulating online.

Moreover, the chilling effect doctrines application too seems a difficult at this point. In Anuradha Basinv. Union of India(2020), one of the petitioners newspaper could not be circulated owing to internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir. Accordingly, they sought for the Supreme Court to declare such shutdowns as unconstitutional, in violation of Article 19(1)(a).

While the court accepted the chilling effect test as applicable under Article 19(1)(a), the question of what standard must be applied to test such regulations on speech was left open for discussion in a future case. Further, the court had also held that constitutionally testing the chilling effect of a regulation cannot be purely speculative, unless evidence is brought before the court to enable it to give a clear finding.

Therefore, for now, in the absence of evidence to showcase the amendments actual impact on free speech, any conclusion as to its constitutional validity is practically difficult to arrive at, even though it may seem prima facie unconstitutional.

The issues posed by the amendment are a unique legal development. Indian courts have not yet substantively dealt with legal cases where online speech of private citizens is sought to be controlled by the government by obligating intermediaries to carry out the due diligence of moderating content online in accordance with the governments version of the truth.

As opposed to much more explicit guarantees of free speech against the moderation by non-state actors (such asArticle 13(3) of theAmerican Convention on Human Rights), Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution does not provide any immediate answers of how valid such (indirect) censorships or chilling effect on speech may be.

If and when the amendment is challenged eventually in courts, the relationship between social media platforms, their users, and the states power to insinuate its authority over the citizens right to freedom of speech and the prevailing version of truth will be further shaped.

Link:
The Amendments to the IT Rules Approach Censorship But Are More Complicated Than Apparent - The Wire