Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

The power of comedy and why censorship does not belong in it – North Texas Daily

Content warning: this article contains language and content related to suicide. Reader discretion is advised.

Comedy comes from dark places.

At least, thats the case for many comedians. Richard Pryor grew up in a brothel with a prostitute and a pimp for parents. Eddie Murphys father was murdered when he was 8 years old. Trevor Noahs mother was shot in front of him. Hannah Gadsby, Jim Carrey and Tiffany Haddish were all homeless. John Belushi, Mitch Hedberg and Chris Farley lost their lives to drugs. Robin Williams took his own life. The list goes on.

Although not all comedians experience such degrees of trauma, adversity or bad childhoods, the link between comedy and tragedy is undeniable and well-documented. Humor often becomes a strength for deeply wounded people.

Take Pete Davidson for example, who lost his father in the Sept. 11 attacks when he was 7 years old. In his stand-up special SMD, he tells the audience that after his father died he was gifted a PlayStation 2. He then follows up with a joke about how pushing his mother down the stairs might get him a PlayStation 3.

Thats my new life, Davidson quips. Murder and toys.

Regardless of how you feel about the joke, its admirable that Davidson managed to take a personal tragedy and turn it into something positive that people can laugh about, himself included. Instead of attempting to ignore or suppress the pain of losing his father, he deals with it directly and tries to find the humor in it.

Taken at face value, it sounds insane. How can someone possibly find humor in the death of their father, especially when it happened as the result of a national tragedy?

When you try to ignore something that bothers you, whether its an intrusive thought, character flaw or negative experience, it chips away at the back of your mind. No matter what you do, it never goes away. When you purposely acknowledge that thing, point it out and laugh at it, it removes all the power and control it has over you. To quote Charlie Chaplin: In order to truly laugh, you must be able to take your pain and play with it.

Its a concept that can be difficult for some people to grasp, but for Davidson and like-minded comedians, its how they heal themselves and their audiences. When therapy and medication fail to do their jobs, humor becomes a coping mechanism.

As much as comedy helps performers and listeners, some feel that it goes too far in the subject matter. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries and poked fun at sensitive topics, which has led a lot of groups and activists to demand censorship across the medium. If comedy was censored, anything considered potentially offensive would be off-limits to joke about (like Davidsons 9/11 joke).

Because comedy functions as an art form, censoring it would set a dangerous precedent. Comedy is in the same category as music, film, painting or literature. Everyone has their own taste, style and preference.

For example, I think country music is one of the worst things thats ever happened to our planet. The fact that bands like Florida Georgia Line are successful makes me question the existence of a God. Almost every song uses the same basic melodies and is about drinking, driving or drinking while driving. At some point in the song, the main character gets hammered, goes for a cruise and ends up near a body of water surrounded by women. The phrases raisin hell, good stuff and step up in the truck are said for what it feels like hundreds of times.

As much as Id like to see Florida Georgia Line get catapulted into space, there are millions of people who find enjoyment in their music. Its the same concept with comedy. A comedian, late-night host or entertainer you think is terrible might bring joy to someone else. We all have different opinions on whats good, whats bad, acceptable and funny.

Also, as with all forms of art, comedy tends to come from a personal place thats deep, emotionally raw and unfiltered. Any attempt to censor that is a bad idea. Passing comedy through a filter is like shaking up a Dr. Pepper and drinking it after its flat. Sure, its still Dr. Pepper, but all of the flavor is gone.

Humor comes from real-life experiences and you cant censor reality. The comedians I mentioned in the beginning all used comedy to deal with their adversity. Humor was the only thing that helped mend their pain and allow them to tell their stories, which allows other people to heal and tell their own stories.

Comedy can be just as healing to the people who tell it as it is to the people who hear it. For those people, laughter isnt just the best medicine its the only medicine.

Featured Illustration by J. Robynn Aviles

Continued here:
The power of comedy and why censorship does not belong in it - North Texas Daily

Texas’ Social Media Law is Not the Solution to Censorship – EFF

The big-name social media companies have all done a ratheratrocious jobof moderating user speech on their platforms. However, much like Florida's similarlyunconstitutionalattempt to address the issue (S.B. 7072), Texas' recently enactedH.B. 20would make the matter worse for Texans and everyone else.

Signed into law by Governor Abbott last week, the Texas law prohibits platforms with more than 50 million users nationwide from moderating user posts based on viewpoint or geographic location. However, as we stated in ourfriend-of-the-court briefin support of NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Associations lawsuit challenging Florida's law (NetChoice v. Moody), "Every court that has considered the issue, dating back to at least 2007, has rightfully found that private entities that operate online platforms for speech and that open those platforms for others to speak enjoy a First Amendment right to edit and curate that speech."

Inconsistent and opaque content moderation by online media services is a legitimate problem. It continues to result in the censorship of a range of important speech, often disproportionately impacting people who arent elected officials. That's why EFF joined with a cohort of allies in 2018 to draft theSanta Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation, offering one model for how platforms can begin voluntarily implementing content moderation practices grounded in a human rights framework. Under the proposed principles, platforms would:

H.B. 20 does attempt to mandate some of the transparency measures called for in the Santa Clara Principles. Although these legal mandates might be appropriate as part of a carefully crafted legislative scheme, H.B. 20 is not the result of a reasonable policy debate. Rather it is a retaliatory law aimed at violating the First Amendment rights of online services in a way that will ultimately harm all internet users.

We fully expect that once H.B. 20 is challenged, courts will draw from the wealth of legal precedent and find the law unconstitutional. Perhaps recognizing that H.B. 20 is imperiled for the same reasons as Floridas law, the Lonestar State this week filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the appeal of a federal courts ruling that Floridas law is unconstitutional.

Despite Texas and Floridas laws being unconstitutional, the concerns regarding social media platforms' control on our public discourse is a critical policy issue. It is vitally important that platforms take action to provide transparency, accountability, and meaningful due process to all impacted speakers and ensure that the enforcement of their content guidelines is fair, unbiased, proportional, and respectful of human rights.

See the original post here:
Texas' Social Media Law is Not the Solution to Censorship - EFF

Error 20021: Crowdsourced Report on the Varied Methods of Weibo Censorship – China Digital Times

20021 may look like a random string of numbers or a mangled date, but many Weibo users know it as a sign that they are being blocked from posting sensitive content. Telegram user @cybergraveyardcn () recently sent CDT crowdsourced, categorized data documenting many years and varieties of Weibo censorship. The report, translated below, includes screenshots of error messages, notices, and other indications that a post has been censored on Weibo. @cybergraveyardcn has since made the full report public on Telegram. Readers can view more Weibo censorship archives in @cybergraveyardcns channel by searching the term # (Weibo Archives).

Note: All of the content is my own work. Images were chosen at random to serve as examples, and do not represent my own personal views. Please forgive me for any errors you may find. Created: February 12, 2020

I. Unable to post or display

1. (Error 20021) Sorry, unable to perform the current operation due to content in violation of relevant laws and regulations or the terms of the Weibo Community Agreement. (The post is blocked because of specific content.)

2. Comments containing sensitive words cannot be viewed. Called comment gobbling for short.

II. Image or video censored

1. Image cannot be opened.

2. Video has been deleted.

3. Image can be opened from the timeline on the homepage, but not from the post itself. (In this case, animated GIFs that cannot be attached are usually official images containing the names of state leaders.)

III. Restrictions

1. Restricted circulation. The number of views is zero or a very low number. Post does not appear in the users timeline.

2. Repost button automatically disappears from post. Only comment and like buttons are displayed. Content can only be viewed by mutual friends.

3. Repost and comment functions are normal, but the contents of reposts and comments are not visible.

4. Reposting disabled from original post (repost button is gray), but can repost from other users reposts.

5. Commenting disabled. Comments cannot be viewed. Post can be reposted, and reposts are still visible.

6. Repost and comment functions disabled. Post cannot be reposted or replied to.

7. Likes disabled.

8. Post can be reposted, but the full text of the original post cannot be viewed.

9. Blocked from editing post.

10. Blocked from promoting post [a paid service].

11. Author has elected to display comments selectively.

IV. Contents of post censored

1. Repost button disappears after a certain number of reposts. Content is only visible to mutual friends.

2. Another user has reported you for violating regulations. In accordance with Weibos Rules for Reports and Complaints, [sic] has been deleted.

3. This post has been deleted for violating relevant laws and regulations and the Weibo Rules for Reports and Complaints. Displayed as Error 20112: Permission to view this post has been temporarily revoked.

4. Account inspected by cyber police for alleged violation of regulations; content processed for violation of regulations.

5. Both original post and repost chain have been deleted.

6. Original post not deleted, but reposts in chain have been selectively deleted.

7. Customer service makes Big V account viewable by account owner only.

V. Search censored

1. Account exists, but does not appear in the search bar.

2. Search results only show content from verified users.

3. In accordance with relevant laws and regulations, search results cannot be displayed.

VI. Bans

1. Likes not permitted. Likes disappear automatically.

2. Reposts not permitted. Reposts appear to work, but do not appear on the users page.

3. (Error 20016) Updated too frequently. Triggered by multiple reposts within a short period of time.

4. Must enter verification code to follow, unfollow, like, comment, or repost.

5. Because you recently posted content that violates relevant national laws and regulations, your Weibo account is suspended for seven days/30 days/90 days/one year/etc. You may or may not receive a private message notifying you of the suspension.

VII. Account deleted

Unusual activity has been detected on your Weibo account. Please reactivate your account to restore normal function. (Error 3022608) Commonly known as account bombing. Account page displays the message User does not exist, and posts show the message, This account cannot be viewed because the user has been reported for violating relevant laws and regulations and the terms of the Weibo Community Agreement, or Content does not exist. [Chinese]

Translation by Anne Henochowicz.

CDT has independently verified some of the images included in the report. For example, one screenshot shows that nationalistic influencer Ren Yi, better known as Chairman Rabbit ( @jeune), posted an image with a caption in Chinese that read The hypocritical mob is a cancer on the rule of law. The screenshot shows that the image had been removed, a common censorship method on Weibo, where longer texts are often shared as images. CDT found that Chairman Rabbit used the exact same title in a blog post dated July 14, 2019. The blog post also included an image of a short essay in which he criticized Hong Kong protesters. It is likely that he posted the image on Weibo, and that it was later removed, as shown in @cybergraveyardcns screenshot.

Another screenshot shows that Weibo user @ posted, Some genius translated the name of American Gileads new drug Remdesivir as Peoples Hope (Remdesivir). (The drug name, Rud xwi sounds similar to rn[mn] de xwng [] [peoples hope].) The screenshot shows that the posts comment function was disabled. CDT was unable to locate the original post, but other posts made around the same time (February 2020) attribute the sentence to the same author.

More:
Error 20021: Crowdsourced Report on the Varied Methods of Weibo Censorship - China Digital Times

Here’s how to beat liberal censorship of ideas – Catholic Culture

By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Sep 17, 2021

In todays Wall Street Journal, my friend Tom Spence, president of Regnery Publishing (which brought out my book Lost Shepherd), lets loose on Banned Books Week. He explains that this gimmicky promotion caters primarily to those who believe that schoolchildren should have access to anything bound between two covers without the interference of those busybodies we call parents.

Unfortunately, Spence observes, there are books being banned todayalthough the sponsors of Banned Books Week have nothing to say about it. Books that offend against woke attitudes and politically-correct standards are disappearing from bookstores and from the Amazon menu. Authors are cancelled. Lecturers are disinvited.

Such censorship hurts the authors, of course. But it also hurts the rest of us, their potential readers, because we never have a chance to learn what they have to say. We dont even know what we dont know.

The censorship is not confined to written works alone, however. The social-media giants, Facebook and Twitter, are even more blatant in stifling the views that their employees find offensive. How often have you seen a fact-check pasted onto a controversial postand, if you took the time to investigate, discovered that the fact-check was far more misleading than the post it sought to correct.

An urban television news team recently issued an appeal on Facebook, asking for stories about unvaccinated people who had been felled by Covid. That Facebook page was promptly flooded with thousands of replies. But the vast majority of those replies were not giving the reporters what they wanted; instead they were telling stories about friends and relatives who had been harmed by the Covid injections, or had contracted Covid even after being fully vaccinated. Clearly this response was not what the TV news editors expected. Still, isnt it a story nonetheless?

News editorslike publishers and librarians and bookstore owners and social-media baronshave enormous power to sway public opinion. They exercise that power not only by putting their own slant on news stories, but alsofar more ominouslyby censoring the stories they find inconvenient. You cannot be outraged by an injustice, or encouraged by a positive development, if you dont hear about them.

Mistrust of the mass media is widespread in our society today. Many Americans say that they dont believe what they hear from the mainstream media. That skepticism is richly deserved, and for the most part healthy. Still a problem remains. You may not believe what you see in the mainstream media, but what about what you dont see? You dont know what you dont know.

This is why, for more than 30 years now, I have been insisting that discerning readers need to find their own trusted sources of news. If you know that the mainstream media are offering slanted coverage of some stories, and blacking out other stories altogether, you need to find outlets that will provide accurate reporting on the subjects that interest you. Which is I why I established Catholic World News, 25 years ago, and why I want you all to encourage your loyal Catholic friends to discover us.

Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

There are no comments yet for this item.

See the original post here:
Here's how to beat liberal censorship of ideas - Catholic Culture

Congress members intervene in Google censorship of life-saving Abortion Pill Reversal – Pregnancy Help News

A group of U.S. senators challenged Google over the tech giants double standard and censorship of pro-life Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) ads while advertisements for deadly abortion pills are still allowed on the search engine.

We are deeply concerned by Googles decision to ban Live Actions pro-life ads promoting Heartbeat Internationals Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) hotline, the senators wrote in a letter Thursday. Googles pro-life censorship is out of step with the science and reflects an unacceptable bias against pro-life views. We insist that you immediately reverse this decision.

Google pulled APR ads from pro-life group Live Action Tuesday following a report from a group named Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The report was publicized in an article from The Daily Beast parroting abortion industry anti-APR narratives such as that the APR protocol is dangerous and not based on science. Abortion proponents regularly attack APR legislatively, in the courts, and in the media.

Quashing APR ads on the internet or social media means women seeking a second chance at choosing life for their child will be blocked from obtaining the information necessary for them to have that second chance and choice.

[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]

Google first approved Live Actions APR ads let them run for more than four months, the senators noted, at a cost of more than $170,000 and directing thousands of people to the APR hotline.

Then, their letter states:

On September 13, Google unexpectedly shut down these ads without warning or evidence, citing its unreliable claims policy. Google has subsequently indicated that it took this action after reviewing a one-sided pro-abortion report provided by a left-leaning news agency. Google has also since stated that it censored APR ads because they made unproven medical claims, citing serious concerns from the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It is shameful that Google has acted to appease pro-abortion activists by silencing pro-life voices, rather than considering all the evidence and following the science.

Montana Sen. Steve Daines (R) spearheaded the letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai. Daines is the founder and chair of the Senate Pro-Life Caucus and was joined in sending the memo by Senators Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).

Google disingenuously cites unreliable claims as their reason to ban the promotion of Abortion Pill Reversal, but has obviously failed to understand the FDA-approved treatment that the reversal technology uses, Live Action said in a statement. Live Action and pro-life medical professionals across the country are proud to promote the Abortion Pill Reversal regimen, which involves an FDA-approved, bioidentical pregnancy hormone called progesterone that has been used for dozens of years to prevent miscarriage and has already saved thousands of lives.

Heartbeat International, the largest network of pregnancy help organizations in the world, manages the Abortion Pill Rescue Network (APRN), made up of some 1,000 medical professionals and pregnancy help centers who facilitate APR.

Heartbeat President Jor-El Godsey said there was no issue with a policy restricting unreliable claims, however the problem is that this policy is being abused.

Unfortunately, how this policy is being implemented by Google protects Big Abortion and forces women to go through with an abortion that they no longer want, Godsey said.

Tweet This: Googles pro-life censorship is out of step with the science and reflects an unacceptable bias against pro-life views"-Group of US senators

Chemical abortion, or the abortion pill, also known as medical abortion, RU-486, DIY, or self-managed abortion, is a two-drug process.

The first drug, mifepristone, destabilizes a womans pregnancy by blocking progesterone, the natural hormone necessary to sustain a womans pregnancy. This typically ends her unborn childs life.

The second drug, misoprostol, is taken a day or so later and causes the mother to deliver her deceased child, provided the chemical abortion is successful.

The abortion pill has numerous possible side effects associated with it, some severe. If complications from the abortion pill do occur, the woman is typically at home, often alone to deal with the (at times severe) side effects.

However, if a woman regrets starting a chemical abortion and she acts soon enough, she may be able to save her unborn child with APR.

The protocol entails administering progesterone to counter the first abortion drug and is an updated application of a treatment used safely since the 1950s to prevent miscarriage. A 2018 peer-reviewed study showed positive results with APR, with 64%-68% of the pregnancies saved through the protocol, no increase in birth defects and lower preterm delivery rate than the general population.

The Abortion Pill Rescue Network answers more than 150 mission-critical calls each month from women who regret their abortion decision. Women consistently report having found the APRN online after starting the chemical abortion process and seeking answers for how to reverse the abortion pill's effects. Statistics show that more than 2,500 lives have been saved (and counting) through the Abortion Pill Reversal protocol.

Live Actions ads with Baby Olivia, a medically accurate animation of human development in the womb, were pulled as well. The pro-life group has been censored on social media in the past for its pro-life message.

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley (R) wrote Pichai one day earlier about Google pulling Live Actions ads and ads from Choose Life Marketing, a Missouri-based company. Hawley noted that Planned Parenthood advertising that violated Googles stated policy prohibiting using keywords related to getting an abortion were allowed by Google.

In a dramatic and unprecedented move, Google has sided squarely with extremist pro-abortion political ideology, banning the pro-life counterpoint and life-saving information from being promoted on their platform, Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action said. They arent hiding their bias anymore: Googles censorship baldly reveals that the corporation is in the pocket of the abortion industry.

The double standard decried by Live Action, Heartbeat, and the U.S. senators hinges on the fact that abortion drugs are still sold on the internet, despite the many safety risks. U.S. Food and Drug Administration health standards in place since the FDA approved the abortion pill in 2,000 stipulate an in-person exam and prescription by a certified healthcare professional in a clinical setting.

The group of 11 senators reference the abortion pills dangers and the double standard in the letter.

While banning pro-life APR ads, Google continues to allow ads for purveyors of the deadly abortion pill mifepristone by mail, despite the fact this drug has resulted in at least 24 mothers tragic deaths and at least 1,042 mothers being sent to the hospital, they wrote. Googles double standard on abortion is disingenuous and an egregious abuse of its enormous market power to protect the billion-dollar abortion industry.

The practical consequence of Googles abortion distortion is that pregnant mothers in crisis will only have the option to be marketed abortion drugs through Googles ad platforms, they said, while life-affirming alternatives are suppressed.

Tweet This: The practical consequence of Googles abortion distortion is that pregnant moms in crisis will only be marketed abortion drugs

Both Hawley and the 11 senators questioned Pichai about whether Google had recent contact with any pro-abortion entities. The Daines group wanted to know names if there was contact.

Hawley also asked about the rate at which ads from pro-life organizations are deemed ineligible and how Google ensures that its widely reported internal progressive bent does not affect ad eligibility decisions.

The Daines letter asked whether experts were on both sides of the abortion issue were consulted in the decision to ban the APR ads, or only those who promote abortion, and whether Google will also remove ads for the abortion pill mifepristone.

Again, we urge you to reverse Googles unjust and indefensible decision to suppress these pro-life life-saving APR information ads, the senators wrote, and we look forward to your prompt response to the above questions.

Editor's note: Heartbeat International manages theAbortion Pill Rescue Network (APRN) and Pregnancy Help News.

Read the original:
Congress members intervene in Google censorship of life-saving Abortion Pill Reversal - Pregnancy Help News