Mediaboss Marketing

Bestselling author Anthony Horowitz has said he is against tampering with the works of dead writers, amid an ongoing row over sensitivity readers.

In recent months, texts by late authors such as Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie and James Bond creator Ian Fleming have been found to have been updated by their publishers and literary estates.

A number of prominent writers and public figures have spoken against the practice, with Sir Philip Pullman suggesting it would be better to let the books go out of print.

Appearing at Oxford Literary Festival, Horowitz, the bestselling author of books including the Alex Rider series as well as three Bond novels, reportedly said he believed it was better for children to read books that might be deemed offensive than none at all.

The Times also claimed he said Dahls publishers had shot themselves in the foot with the updates, which involved removing descriptions of characters as fat and ugly.

They really shot themselves in the foot with their attempts to bowdlerise it, he said, calling the changes sacrilege.

Im basically opposed to tampering with the work of dead writers, he said. They cant defend themselves. It seems to me that you should take the work, judge it and be aware of why we no longer share these opinions, or this view of the world. Rather than censor, cut and take out stuff.

He later added: Whatever your view of the book, even if it is something considered offensive or trivial or trite, it is better than not reading. As long as they read something.

(Getty Images)

Following a backlash, including unprecedented criticism from Queen Consort Camilla, Puffin said it would retain the new versions of Dahls books but also offer original editions.

An earlier statement had said the changes were made to ensure that the books could continue to be enjoyed by all today.

The Independent has contacted Horowitzs representatives and Puffin for comment.

Horowitz has previously complained about sensitivity readings of his own work.

Story continues

My publishers have been more nervous in the editing of my books, he claimed in an interview last year. Issues of levels of violence, language and attitudes do get more closely examined. Ive had some of my books read for sensitivity. But thats the 21st century. Peoples attitudes have changed and what didnt offend people 40 years ago does now.

Asked about how he approaches the character of 007, he remarked: When Im writing the books I always hear Sean Connery and see Daniel Craig. I am perfectly happy to defend Bond. My Bond is a man of the Fifties and Sixties, so he lives by a different moral code to the one we have now.

I refute the suggestion that he is chauvinistic or sexist or misogynistic. I think he treats women very well in the books and has great respect for them, yet I admit he has some of the attitudes that we now would not celebrate in the 21st century, but thats because the books were written in the 20th century. It was a different time.

Read more here:
Anthony Horowitz says Roald Dahl publishers shot themselves in the foot over censorship row - Yahoo News

(Leah Hogsten | The Salt Lake Tribune) Four of nine books that have been removed from schools in the Canyons School District and placed under review, Nov. 23, 2021. The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison, Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe, Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov and Beyond Magenta by Susan Kuklin.

By Jody Plant | Special to The Tribune

| March 24, 2023, 12:00 p.m.

| Updated: March 25, 2023, 8:27 p.m.

The outmoded Davis School District has announced that it will remove the Nobel Prize-winning novel The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison.

Davis Country has a disturbing history of censorship, racism and homophobia. One example of many is in 1978 Jeanne Layton, director of the Davis County Library in Bountiful, lost her job for refusing to remove Don DeLillos Americana from the library shelves.

As argued in a June 5, 2012, editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune, The Davis County School District is now targeting books for children that portray families headed by same-sex parents and a book with the message that bullying of homosexual teenagers is wrong. In Davis County, it seems, book banning based on intolerance is alive and well.

This recent decision to ban The Bluest Eye is outrageous, disturbing and tragic. The book is a masterpiece describing how racism and discrimination can ruin a childs life, any life, particularly a Black life. The book also addresses abuse against Black women and children, misconceived ideas of beauty, self loathing, harsh judgments and the lengths women will go to in order to fit with societal standards and how women continue the long fight for equality and respect.

Clearly, the Davis School Board is threatened by this Noble Prize strong work of fiction. We should all be alarmed by this action.

Toni Morrison is celebrated and censored, she was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, the Noble Prize in Literature, the PEN/Saul Bellow Award for Achievement in American Fiction and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Her books are vitally important, a clarion call for equality and humanity for all lives.

Morrisons rich storytelling gifts us clear narratives of the Black experience. She was an ebullient warrior against censorship, powerfully advocating for libraries and open access to literature for decades. She left the world a huge hole with her passing in 2019.

It seems Davis County would rather expose children to gun violence than allowing them the great experience of reading a Toni Morrison book.

Heres an idea, why not ban guns instead of books?

Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens (ages 1 to 19) in the United States. Every year, 19,000 children and teens are shot and killed or wounded and approximately 3 million are exposed to gun violence. This is far more dangerous than a book about racism.

Lets keep our children safe, informed of critical Black history and educated with access to great books and libraries.

Jody Plant, Salt Lake City, is a visual artist and retired librarian.

Go here to read the rest:
Davis County has a history of censorship, racism and homophobia. - Salt Lake Tribune

ISTANBUL

Russia on Tuesday claimed that "censorship and manipulation" of the media in Germany was in "full bloom."

Pointing to a German government report on the state of independent media in the country, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Telegram that Berlin had transferred at least 1.5 million ($1.6 million) to outlets in recent years.

"The 'independent, separate-from-the-state-budget' media received more than 1.5 million euros in cash and bank transfers," Zakharova said, pointing to Berlin's 2022 decision to remove Russian state news agency RT from its broadcasting network and statements from German officials saying they had no influence on information processes.

According to the 30-page report requested by lawmakers asking the government about the state of German independent media, 200 journalists were involved in the services for which the payments were made, including moderation, lecturing, and media training.

Zakharova also suggested that the information in the report was incomplete. "This is not all the state money and not all the journalists that Berlin contracts for its information and propaganda activities. This is explicitly stated in the government's response."

"That is, the German security forces pay journalists for no reason at all, no matter how, no one knows how much, and no one should know and will not know about this, because we are talking about 'state security considerations'," Zakharova further claimed, adding: "Censorship and manipulation of the media in Germany is in full bloom."

Germany's media regulator banned Russia's German-language TV channel RT Deutsch in January 2022, claiming that it lacked a valid license to operate in the country.

Read the original post:
Media 'censorship, manipulation' in Germany in 'full bloom,' Russia ... - Anadolu Agency | English

Not many people know that 16 November 2022 was the day that freedom of speech died on the internet. This was the day the European Unions Digital Services Act (DSA) came into law. Under the DSA, very large online platforms (VLOPs) with more than 45million monthly active users like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram will have to swiftly remove illegal content, hate speech and so-called disinformation from their platforms. Or they will face fines of up to six per cent of their annual global revenue. Larger platforms must be DSA compliant by this summer, while smaller platforms will be obliged to tackle this content from 2024 onwards.

The ramifications of this are immense. Not only will the DSA now enforce the regulation of content on the internet for the first time, but it is also set to become a global standard, not just a European one.

In recent years, the EU has largely realised its ambition to become a global regulatory superpower. The EU can dictate how any company worldwide must behave if it wants to operate in Europe, the worlds second-largest market. As a result, its strict regulatory standards often end up being adopted worldwide by both firms and other regulators, in what is known as the Brussels effect. Take the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a privacy law which came into force in May 2018. Among many other things, it requires individuals to give explicit consent before their data can be processed. These EU regulations have since become the global standard, and the same could now happen for the DSA.

The EUs enforcement of GDPR has been somewhat tentative. It has issued only about 1.7 billion in penalties since 2018, according to The Economist, which is peanuts in an industry that generates more than a trillion euros in revenue annually. But the EU seems to have learnt from this: the DSA has enormous enforcement capabilities built into it. The European Commission expects its internal industry watchdog to have over 100 full-time staff by 2024. Plus, contract workers and national experts will be expected to supervise Big Techs operations, too. It amounts to what EU internal-markets commissioner Thierry Breton calls a historic moment in digital regulation. The VLOPS are expected to fund this enforcement operation themselves, paying up to 0.05 per cent of their global annual turnover each year to the Commission.

This gives the EU an extraordinary amount of power. The regulation of the DSA will be overseen by the Commission itself, not an independent regulator. Whats more, the DSA includes a crisis-management mechanism, added last year in a last-minute amendment. The Commission argued it needs to be able to direct how platforms respond to events like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Apparently, in a crisis, the anticipatory or voluntary nature of obligations on tech companies to tackle disinformation would be insufficient. Under the DSA, the Commission has given itself the power to determine whether such a crisis exists, defined as an objective risk of serious prejudice to public security or public health in the Union. Given the EUs willingness to weaponise the rule of law against its ideological opponents, such as Poland and Hungary, the potential this gives the EU to abuse this mechanism is worrying indeed.

Not only does this give the EU immense powers for censorship, it also represents a profound technocratic evasion of democratic accountability. The unelected European Commission is forcing Big Tech to police the internet to rein in what the EU deems to be unacceptable speech or disinformation. In so doing, the Commission has empowered itself to impose its values on the rest of us. If this draconian censorship were being enforced by a national government, we would at least be able to vote it out. But this is an altogether different scenario.

Under the new law, the undemocratic European Commission has empowered itself to regulate content on the internet without any hint of accountability to the millions of ordinary European citizens who use these services. By placing the onus on Big Tech to carry this out, the EU can censor at arms length, which lowers the risk of mass opposition from within Europe. It is cunning but cowardly. The EUs technocratic, anti-democratic impulse to censor is being outsourced to Big Tech. And all the leading Big Tech firms have agreed to operate under these regulations, even to the point of funding the EU regulatory body that will supervise their operations.

Big Tech has little choice but to comply. It is, after all, the price firms will pay to remain operational in Europe. Even Elon Musk has fallen in line, despite his promises last year to make Twitter a common digital town square with minimal censorship and maximal free expression. Good meeting with Thierry Breton regarding EU DSA, Musk tweeted in January. The goals of transparency, accountability and accuracy of information are aligned with ours, he said. Emboldened, the EU is now instructing Twitter to employ more content-moderation staff instead of relying on algorithmic moderation.

Perhaps we shouldnt be surprised that Big Tech is motivated by profit rather than principle. What is most shocking is how unaccountable and anti-democratic all this is. Every player in this sorry saga is unaccountable to ordinary people. Each hides behind the other to deflect criticism: the Commission claims its censorship laws are necessary to protect European citizens from the harm of unregulated social-media companies; Big Tech then complies with that law in order to serve its millions of users. While both sides claim to be doing this for the public, neither is remotely accountable to the public.

Worst of all, the EUs censorship regime is now going global. Last year, the EU opened a new office in Silicon Valley to forge closer relationships between EU regulators and Big Tech. Without Big Tech companies of its own, it is only through its regulatory muscle that the EU can claim to be a player on the world stage. Indeed, Washington now appears set to follow suit, with President Biden calling for bi-partisan measures to regulate Big Tech earlier this year.

The DSA has set a precedent that online content should be regulated, and this has now been accepted on principle. As a result, freedom of speech on the internet is effectively dead killed by the EUs undemocratic and authoritarian Digital Services Act.

Dr Norman Lewis is managing director of Futures Diagnosis and a visiting research fellow of MCC Brussels.

See the original post:
The EUs censorship regime is about to go global - Spiked

Book Challenges Nearly Doubled From 2021

CHICAGO The American Library Association (ALA) today released new data documenting*1,269 demands to censor library books and resources in 2022, the highest number of attempted book bans since ALA began compiling data about censorship in libraries more than 20 years ago. The unparalleled number of reported book challenges in 2022 nearly doubles the 729 challenges reported in 2021.

A record 2,571 unique titles were targeted for censorship, a 38% increase from the 1,858 unique titles targeted for censorship in 2021. Of those titles, the vast majority were written by or about members of the LGBTQIA+ community and people of color.

Of the reported book challenges, 58% targeted books and materials in school libraries, classroom libraries or school curricula; 41% of book challenges targeted materials in public libraries.

The prevalent use of lists of books compiled by organized censorship groups contributed significantly to the skyrocketing number of challenges and the frequency with which each title was challenged. Of the overall number of books challenged, 90% were part of attempts to censor multiple titles. Of the books challenged, 40% were in cases involving 100 or more books

Prior to 2021, the vast majority of challenges to library resources only sought to remove or restrict access to a single book.

A book challenge is a demand to remove a book from a librarys collection so that no one else can read it. Overwhelmingly, were seeing these challenges come from organized censorship groups that target local library board meetings to demand removal of a long list of books they share on social media, said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of ALAs Office for Intellectual Freedom. Their aim is to suppress the voices of those traditionally excluded from our nations conversations, such as people in the LGBTQIA+ community or people of color.

Each attempt to ban a book by one of these groups represents a direct attack on every persons constitutionally protected right to freely choose what books to read and what ideas to explore, said Caldwell-Stone. "The choice of what to read must be left to the reader or, in the case of children, to parents. That choice does not belong to self-appointed book police.

ALA will unveil its highly anticipated list of the top 10 most challenged books in the U.S. on Monday, April 24 during National Library Week, along with its full State of America's Libraries Report. The theme ofNational Library Week 2023, There's More to the Story, focuses on the essential services and programming that libraries offer through and beyond books.

ALA President Lessa Kanani'opua Pelayo-Lozada said, Every day professional librarians sit down with parents to thoughtfully determine what reading material is best suited for their childs needs. Now, many library workers face threats to their employment, their personal safety, and in some cases, threats of prosecution for providing books to youth they and their parents want to read.

ALA began documenting the book challenges reported to us over two decades ago because we want to shine a light on the threat of censorship facing readers and entire communities. Book challenges distract from the core mission of libraries: to provide access to information. That includes access to information and services for learners of all ages, homeschooling parents, job seekers, new computer users, budding readers, entrepreneurs, veterans, tax filers and amateur genealogists just to name a few.

While a vocal minority stokes the flames of controversy around books, the vast majority of people across the nation are using life-changing services that public and school libraries offer. Our nation cannot afford to lose the library workers who lift up their communities and safeguard our First Amendment freedom to read.

Polling conducted by bipartisan research firms in 2022 showed that voters across the political spectrum oppose efforts to remove books from libraries and have confidence in libraries to make good decisions about their collections. To galvanize support for libraries and respond to the surge in book challenges and other efforts to suppress access to information, in 2022 ALA launched Unite Against Book Bans, a national initiative to empower readers everywhere to stand together in the fight against censorship.The coalition will mark its first anniversary during National Library Week.

* ALA compiles data on book challenges from reports filed with its Office for Intellectual Freedom by library professionals in the field and from news stories published throughout the United States. Because many book challenges are not reported to the ALA or covered by the press, the 2022 data compiled by ALA represents only a snapshot of book censorship throughout the year. A challenge to a book may be resolved in favor of retaining the book in the collection, or it can result in a book being restricted or withdrawn from the library.

Read the original post:
American Library Association reports record number of demands to ... - ala.org