Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Call of Duty Pro Announces Break From the Game – Essentially Sports

Some players out there give it their all for the love of the sport. Doug Censor Martin is one such player who has been giving it his all for Call of Duty but has had a bad time in the League and has now decided to back out of it for a while.

In his career, Censor has been a part of some major teams, including Team Envy and FaZe. Censor was a substitute for the New York Subliners and was picked by the affiliate team but he was benched once again.

Censor took to Twitter to announce that hed be taking a break from the game. He has stated that hed not play Modern Warfare and would rather wait for the next Call of Duty title to drop.

I will not be playing at the Modern Warfare challengers champs. If you guys dont know I went on Triumph, we got fourth. I was not able to join another team. I was struck on Triumph for another week and a half. I had offers from top 5 teams. I couldnt accept it because I was still on Triumph.

I will be ready day one on the next Call of Duty. And hopefully, this never happens again because this was the worst and most stressful year ever as a Call of Duty competitor. And I know I got it, I know I can play in the top level. I couldnt literally prove it this year. I was forced to sit on the bench the entire year and there is nothing I can do about it.

The player only recently made the happy announcement and was rather very excited to play for his new team. Unfortunately, after the Call of Duty Challengers Circuit, Censor was dropped from the New York Subliners roster. The player even came out openly to say that his performance was underwhelming in that match.

The player is confident in his ability and would be looking forward to making his mark yet again. Tough times ahead for the player but the support from the community and his friends will surely assure his great comeback.

Source: Censor Twitter

Originally posted here:
Call of Duty Pro Announces Break From the Game - Essentially Sports

A Nollywood film about two women in love faces an uphill battle in a country where homophobia is rampant – The Philadelphia Tribune

Two women lay in bed in a tight embrace, one is stroking the other's hair and whispers that she is in love with her.

These intimate scenes wouldn't be out of place in a Hollywood movie, but in Nigeria's film industry, Nollywood, they are near taboo.

But Nigerian filmmaker Uyaiedu Ikpe-Etim says she is tackling the subject head-on in her new film titled "Ife," to create space for queer characters in the country's prolific movie industry.

"Ife'" means love in the Yoruba language, spoken in West Africa, and most prominently in southern Nigeria.

LGBTQ characters are described poorly in Nollywood and are viewed in problematic roles that encourage violence or judgment from viewers, Ikpe-Etim says.

"I'm queer so 'Ife' is dear to my heart. I wanted to represent LGBTQ characters in a different light than how they are shown in past stories, to change how heterosexuals view them," she explained.

Homophobia in Nigeria

The story centers on two women Ife and Adaora and the uncertainty surrounding their relationship. It is created in partnership with Equality hub, an NGO in Nigeria focused on fighting social injustices against sexual minorities.

"They come into problems when they are not certain of the future of their relationship considering that these two women live in Nigeria which is a homophobic country," she said of the storyline.

In the West African nation where homophobia runs rampant,Ikpe-Etim is anadvocate for the country's lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ) community.

Homosexuality is illegal in Nigeria. The Same-Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act of 2014 says anyone found guilty of homosexuality faces up to 14 years in prison.

A 2019 survey by The Initiative for Equal Rights (TIERS), a Nigerian human rights organization, found that 75% of people in the country support the continued enforcement of the anti-gay laws.

Censorship of queer films

Ikpe-Etim, 31, says "Ife" has no fixed release date yet but will be out before the end of the year.

What is certain is that it faces an uphill battle with Nigeria's film censors, who have said they may "go after the producers," if they find that the film promotes homosexuality.

Adedayo Thomas, executive director of the NFVCB, told CNN the board will not approve films that promote themes that don't conform with the country's "constitution, morals and traditions."

"We are monitoring the progress of the movie, and if it goes against the law by promoting homosexuality, we will be forced at some point to go after the producer and executive producer," he added.

According to Thomas, Ife was never submitted to the NFVCB before its trailer was released, making it impossible to classify or censor the film.

"We look at the content of the film and we look at the end. For example, in a movie that glorifies fraud, we look at how it ends, did the fraudster meet their waterloo? How the movie ends will determine our censorship. You wouldn't watch your kid to watch a film that glorifies fraud," he told CNN.

"Ife's" producer Pamela Adie says agencies like NFVCB suppress the creativity of filmmakers.

"If there is a demand for films like Ife and if people want it, and the censor's board does not approve then it means they are indirectly stifling the creative powers of filmmakers. To deny a film simply because of queer characters is discrimination," she said.

Stereotyping queer characters

Nollywood has always had a problematic relationship with its queer characters, portraying them as mentally ill, under the influence of witchcraft or troubled.

In Emotional Crack, a 2003 film, one of the lead characters, Camilla falls in love with Crystal, a married woman who suffered domestic abuse from her husband.

Both women kicked off a relationship that eventually ended when Crystal became unsure of remaining in a same-sex relationship.

While the film was one of the country's early introductions into LGBTQ relationships, it repeated damaging stereotypes like branding Camilla as violent, predatory, and suggested that Crystal's lesbianism was as a result of being mistreated by a man.

Similarly, in a 2010 film, "Men in Love," the affair of the lead couple was explained away by a "strong satanic bond."

Adie told CNN that she wants to challenge other filmmakers in Nollywood to create more nuanced queer stories devoid of the usual stereotypes.

"My hope is that Ife shapes things up, and mainstream Nollywood starts to think about stories that portray the reality of LGBT Nigerians," she explained.

The 36-year-old added that "Ife" is one of few films with a focus on lesbians in Nigeria, "a lot of representation has been geared towards gay men," she says.

Outpouring of support

Nigeria is not the only country with strict rules regarding films with strong LGBTQ representation.

In April 2018, Rafiki was banned by Kenya's Film and Classification Board (KFCB) because of its intent to "promote lesbianism," in the East African nation.

Despite the challenges around creating queer centered films in Nigeria, Adie says there has been an outpouring of support for "Ife" from audiences in the country.

"It is something that is groundbreaking. We have received support, from when we released the poster to the trailer. It feels like people didn't know they wanted this kind of content till now."

Read this article:
A Nollywood film about two women in love faces an uphill battle in a country where homophobia is rampant - The Philadelphia Tribune

John Milton, Tom Cotton and censorship: Why the great defender of freedom might have shut that down – Salon

John Milton, the greatest English poet of the 17th century, was alsothe great champion of press freedom, and "Areopagitica"(1644), his impassioned plea for "unlicensed printing," begins every course of the history of censorship.So Milton's pamphlet provides an excellent guide for thinking about whether The New York Times should have published Sen.Tom Cotton's op-ed, "Send in the Troops."

On the one hand, Milton fills "Areopagitica" with stirring exhortations about the necessity of free thought and speech. "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience." Truth "has more shapes than one," and anyway, who wants everyone "to be of one mind"? Censorship is a "manifest hurt" that is an "affront" to learning. Milton's larger point is that repressing views you don't like takes away choice, and the only way to know good is by evil. Milton, it seems, would fully support the publication of Cotton's op-ed, not because he might agree with Cotton's views, but because readers are adults, and should be trusted to make up their own minds.

But in fact, his argument is more complicated than that.

Milton is not against censorship per se, but against pre-publication censorship.The author can publish whatever he or she wants. But the Church and the government must keep a "vigilant eye [on] how books demean themselves," and if they misbehave, then the authorities must "confine, imprison, and do sharpest justice on them."

What does a book have to do to merit suppression? Here's where Milton meets what Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt call "safetyism," the notion that we must be protected from ideas or speech that might cause not just physical, but emotional damage. Milton's benchmark for when a book becomes a "malefactor" is a little unclear. Books, he says, are like mythical dragon's teeth, that could turn into "armed men." While Milton is speaking in metaphors, it seems clear that he means a book must cause actual, not potential, harm. It must inspire someone to actually commit violence.

It would not be enough to assert, as Roxane Gay tweets, that "Running this [op ed[ puts black @nytimes writers, editors and other staff in danger."You would have to prove that the article really did palpable harm.An abstract threat is no threat at all.So, again, it seems that Milton would agree with the initial decision to publish Cotton's op-ed. Spiking Cotton's opinions, no matter how noxious, as both Ross Douthait and Bret Stephens have said, would mean repressing an argument you don't like because you don't like it. Milton would probably agreethat's not a legitimate reason.

Except there's a twist at the end of Milton's argument.

After Milton writes that nobody has a monopoly on truth, he draws a line in the sand: "I mean not tolerated popery and open superstition." In context, Milton means Catholicism, which Milton considered, for good reason, an activemilitary threat to Protestant England, and probably also Judaism and Islam. There are some ideas, some concepts, some opinions, that are beyond the pale. These are justly suppressed.

The question, then, is whether Cotton's views belong to that category. Does his proposal for "an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers" so offend our collective values that it "proves a monster" and so should be "sunk into the sea"? A few days before the Times published his op ed, Cotton tweeted that the military should do "whatever it takes" to restore order. Even worse, he called for "no quarter," which in military-speak suggeststhe "lawbreakers"should all be killed, even if they surrender.

Milton reminds us that no right is absolute, that freedom of speech has its limits, both legal and by social convention. You cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater; you cannot threaten violence against the president; and white people cannot say the n-word. All of these are forbidden. Does Cotton's op-ed cross the line? Arguably, yes. The op ed is factually challenged ("Antifa," did not "infiltrate" the demonstrations, as Cotton claims, mainly because no such organization exists) and the spectacle of a senator proposing to sic the full might of the U.S. military against demonstrators is repellent.

So yes, Milton would agree that The New York Times erred in commissioning and publishing Cotton's screed. In this case, the great defender of press freedomwould approve of consigning this op-ed to oblivion.

Continued here:
John Milton, Tom Cotton and censorship: Why the great defender of freedom might have shut that down - Salon

The little book, Portnoy’s Complaint, that changed censorship and the pioneer activist who says we should still be concerned – ABC News

"We published a poem to highlight hypocrisy. Then all hell broke loose."

Many years have passed since Wendy Bacon's university days. But when you're taking on a government it's something you don't forget too easily.

"We didn't set out to campaign against censorship, we just really valued an opportunity to put our ideas out there."

This act of defiance publishing a profanity-ridden poem was one of many. It would plunge the now-investigative journalist in the midst of a campaign against Australia's strict censors.

And while 2020 presents a completely different world to that which she originally rallied against, Wendy has a warning: censorship is something we should still be concerned about.

Australia has a long and controversial relationship with censorship.

"By the time Australia federated in 1901," Patrick Mullins writes in his new book, The Trials of Portnoy, "there existed already a thicket of laws to prevent publication and dissemination of the indecent and the obscene."

Within 10 years of Federation, Australia was one of the most censorship-heavy nations in the world.

Customs officials were given speed-reading courses and tasked with weeding out blasphemy, sedition and obscenity from Australia's bookshelves.

"One of the things we do in this country is we forget about our history, Mullins told The Drum.

"We look back on change and regard it as inevitable, we regard it as easy. In this case, overcoming the censorship system was a long battle."

A 1969 Roy Morgan poll showed 60 per cent of the public supported maintaining or increasing censorship in the country.

"This idea of protecting the decency of Australians was a really strong one," Mullins says.

Famous works of fiction like DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover and Ulysses by James Joyce were blacklisted in 1929.

Two decades later, Catcher in the Rye and James Baldwin's Another Country joined them.

Through the 1960s and into the 1970s, against a backdrop of activism and changing attitudes, publishers challenged censorship boundaries.

New South Wales courts were being clogged with cases relating to breaches of obscenity laws, thanks in large part to UNSW student newspaper Tharunka and its editor, Wendy Bacon.

"There'd been an awful lot of self-censorship in Australia leading up to the early '70s and in fact literary journals wouldn't publish anything that was too risky," she told The Drum.

"So we had a view that censorship had to be broken down by direct action. That is, publishing material."

Naked bodies and coarse language featured prominently and often in Tharunka's pages.

Ms Bacon's campaigning continued into the courtroom, and on two occasions even landed her in prison.

In one instance, she and others turned up in nuns' habits emblazoned with sexually explicit poetry. They were accompanied by a man in a gorilla costume, handing out copies of the poem that was the subject of the court case.

"We really believed that the court had no place at all in limiting what we were publishing, so we sort of turned the court into a theatre," she says.

In the courtroom directly next door, another censorship battle was taking place, albeit in a different form. It would go on to change the Australian censorship landscape forever.

Publisher Penguin Books was facing off against the authorities, after illegally publishing Philip Roth's 1969 novel, Portnoy's Complaint.

The book, which chronicles the therapy sessions of a compulsive masturbator, is salacious even by today's standards.

It was an instant bestseller in the United States, selling 200,000 copies within two months of its release.

But in Australia, "the censors looked for sex and four-letter words," writes Mullins, "and they found them in abundance".

Portnoy's Complaint was added to Australia's list of prohibited imports. Penguin decided to publish it anyway, printing and distributing the books in secret, and coordinating their release on one day in August 1970.

Mullins describes it as the boldest act of censorship defiance in Australian publishing history.

"This was a moment where the cream of Australia's literary elite, where journalists, writers, academics and publishers stood up and said 'enough is enough'."

Ultimately the Publications Classification Board took control of censorship in Australia, and its attention pivoted from literature to imagery.

Following the election of the Whitlam Government in 1972, restrictions were loosened further.

Half a century on, Bacon says the publishing landscape has changed, but the issue of censorship persists.

"There are really serious issues that we certainly wouldn't have been concerned about in the 1970s. Secret trials, raids on the ABC a huge array of national security laws that really do limit the capacity of journalists to investigate," she says.

She cites a recent incident, in which a mural depicting a police van in flames was painted over by police almost immediately after it went up on a wall in a Redfern alleyway.

"When we look at the Black Lives Matter movement and the issue of deaths in custody, I was shocked it would be painted over," Bacon says.

"Political censorship is alive and well in Sydney today."

The chair of Deadly Inspiring Youth Doing Good, Samara Jose, told The Drum First Nations People continue to have much of their history written out of school curriculums.

"We've been censored for such a long time," she says.

"In our schools, our histories aren't being taught Young people still struggle with understanding First Nations histories, and they're fresh out of high school.

"This is why the Uluru Statement from the Heart asks for a Makarata Commission to specifically talk about truth-telling."

Bacon says she still believes the best way to tackle censorship is through direct action.

"You have to do it," she says.

"It involves risks, but where possible, you should just publish."

The Drum airs weeknights on ABC and News Channel.

See the original post:
The little book, Portnoy's Complaint, that changed censorship and the pioneer activist who says we should still be concerned - ABC News

Facebook And Twitter Keep Censoring President Trump As A Way To Prepare For The Upcoming Election. Heres Why Im Worried – Forbes

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 24: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a joint news conference with Polish ... [+] President Andrzej Duda in the Rose Garden of the White House on June 24, 2020 in Washington, DC. Duda, who faces a tight re-election contest in four days, is Trump's first world-leader visit from overseas since the coronavirus pandemic began. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

I have a few fringe beliefs.

One is that aliens really do exist. How could they not, in a galaxy this big? I also happen to think Elon Musk is a once-in-a-century genius who will probably become President one day (all we have to do is change the rules about birthplace restrictions).

Now, those views are not that uncommon. They wont get me kicked out of the local country club. If I posted them on Twitter right now, no one would blink an eye.

The problem is that its extremely difficult to define a fringe belief.

Recently, President Trump has posted a few callous remarks on Twitter and an offensive symbol on Facebook.You could easily call them mean-spirited. He mentioned how he will show force to protestors in Washington. Twitter and Facebook have marked these posts, hid them, or flagged them in some other way as an alert to social media users. It all seems pretty legit and purposeful. I like that social media companies are doing something to address misinformation and online abuse.

Heres an example of a tweet that was flagged:

I never make political comments, and Im not about to step up on a soapbox about free speech, censorship, and the rights of users to share false information. Its a thorny issue and one that wont be resolved anytime soon. My main issue with the flags and blocks is that it might be a sign of things to come.

Thats not a political statement. Its a lesson from a college course.

Way back when, I took a philosophy course about logic and persuasion and it really stuck in my synapses. I remember specific sections of the textbook and the lectures, but the one that really took hold is called the slippery slope fallacy. Its illogical because small adjustments dont always lead to major changes. In the logic class, the professor said its a false conclusion. Taking tiny sips of beer as a teenager wont automatically make you an alcoholic in a month. Increasing the speed limit a little doesnt mean were all going to start driving like crazy animals.

Except for one minor problem. Time and time again, the slippery slope is far from a fallacy. Sometimes, small slips do lead to major slides. (Studies show that teens really should avoid sipping any alcoholic drinks. Also, we do drive like crazy animals.)

Twitter and Facebook are making tiny steps. Hold on for the ride.

My question on this topic is not political in nature: How fringe does it need to be? Also, how do we define misinformation? When is it a nastygram and when is it abuse? My issue is not with the current flags and warnings. Its that social media companies might not be the best arbiters of what should be flagged. They are supported by advertising. They dont really make anything or sell anything. Also, social media is a breeding ground for fringe ideas they are the ones that get the most attention.

Where is this all heading? Will we see more and more flags?

The answer appears to be yes, according to some experts.

You will continue to see them make adjustments as we get closer and closer to a volatile election, says digital marketer Matt Ray from ChatterBlast Media, a digital marketing company. Facebook and Twitter are not subject to the same rules and regulations as our radio or television airwaves.

Ray argues that its an important step and required as we head into the election cycle, but stopped short of agreeing with me that its a dangerous pattern.

Social media platforms are becoming more aggressive with the material they are allowing to populate their sites, he says. And much more aggressive in their review of that material. They have to. People are angry with them. Facebook and Twitter are owned by publicly-traded companies, and a majority of Americans are concerned with social media's ability to manage divisive speech, fake news, and propaganda.

Another expert told me the problem is not going to go away.

Getting people to trust the Internet is becoming more difficult because there is no arbiter of truth and everyone can find their own echo chamber, adds Kevin Lee, the Trust and Safety Architect at digital trust company Sift. Were witnessing the exact same controversies on misinformation, hate speech and free speech that we saw in the 2016 presidential election.

Will flagging content like this work? Im not sure. Flagging outright abuse is far easier than judging whether something is just a fringe belief.

Im watching how this unfolds and theres no question were going to see more of these flags in the future with Trump other candidates this election season.

You might like what you see so far, depending on your political views, but its just a matter of time before social media companies start flagging more and more content and start politicizing the ads and posts from the candidates (and for everyone else).

Looking further ahead it might end when we cant say anything.

Continue reading here:
Facebook And Twitter Keep Censoring President Trump As A Way To Prepare For The Upcoming Election. Heres Why Im Worried - Forbes