Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Trials of Portnoy: when Penguin fought for literature and liberty – The Conversation AU

One grey morning in October 1970, in a crowded, tizzy-pink courtroom on the corner of Melbournes Russell and La Trobe Streets, crown prosecutor Leonard Flanagan began denouncing a novel in terms that were strident and ringing.

When taken as a whole, it is lewd, he declared. As to a large part of it, it is absolutely disgusting both in the sexual and other sense; and the content of the book as a whole offends against the ordinary standards of the average person in the community today the ordinary, average persons standard of decency.

The object of Flanagans ire that day was the Penguin Books Australia edition of Portnoys Complaint. Frank, funny, and profane, Philip Roths novel about a young man torn between the duties of his Jewish heritage and the autonomy of his sexual desires had been a sensation the world over when it was published in February 1969.

Greeted with sweeping critical acclaim, it was advertised as the funniest novel ever written about sex and called the autobiography of America in the Village Voice. In the United States, it sold more than 400,000 copies in hardcover in a single year more, even, than Mario Puzos The Godfather and in the United Kingdom it was published to equal fervour and acclaim.

But in Australia, Portnoys Complaint had been banned.

Read more: Philip Roth was the best post-war American writer, no ifs or buts

Politicians, bureaucrats, police, and judges had for years worked to keep Australia free of the moral contamination of impure literature. Under a system of censorship that pre-dated federation, works that might damage the morals of the Australian public were banned, seized, and burned. Bookstores were raided. Publishers were policed and fined. Writers had been charged, fined and even jailed.

Seminal novels and political tracts from overseas had been kept out of the country. Where objectionable works emerged from Australian writers, they were rooted out like weeds. Under the censorship system, Boccacios Decameron had been banned. Nabokovs Lolita had been banned. Joyces Ulysses had been banned. Even James Bond had been banned.

There had been opposition to this censorship for years, though it had become especially notable in the past decade. Criticism of the bans on J.D. Salingers The Catcher in the Rye and Norman Lindsays Redheap had prompted an almost complete revision of the banned list in 1958.

The repeated prosecutions of the Oz magazine team in 1963 and 1964 had attracted enormous attention and controversy.

Outcry over the bans on Mary McCarthys The Group and D.H. Lawrences Lady Chatterleys Lover had been loud and pronounced, and three intrepid Sydney activists had exposed the federal government to ridicule when they published a domestic edition of The Trial of Lady Chatterley, an edited transcript of the failed court proceedings against Penguin Books UK for the publication of Lady Chatterleys Lover in Britain in 1960.

Read more: Friday essay: the Melbourne bookshop that ignited Australian modernism

Penguin Books Australia had been prompted to join the fight against censorship by the three idealistic and ambitious men at its helm: managing director John Michie, finance director Peter Froelich, and editor John Hooker.

In five years, the three men had overhauled the publisher, improving its distribution machinery and logistics and reinvigorating its publishing list. They believed Penguin could shape Australian life and culture by publishing interesting and vibrant books by Australian authors.

They wanted Penguins books to engage with the political and cultural shifts that the country was undergoing, to expose old canards, question the orthodox, and pose alternatives.

Censorship was no small topic in all this. Those at Penguin saw censorship as an inhibition on these ambitions. Wed had issues with it before, in minor ways, Peter Froelich recalled, and wed have drinks wed say, Its wrong! How can we fix it? What can we do? How do we bring it to peoples attention, so that it can be changed?

The answer emerged when they heard of the ban placed on Portnoys Complaint. Justifiably famous, a bestseller the world over, of well-discussed literary merit, it stood out immediately as a work with which to challenge the censorship system, just as its British parent company had a decade earlier.

Why not obtain the rights to an Australian edition, print it in secret, and publish it in one fell swoop? As Hooker who had the idea put it to Michie, Jack, we ought to really publish Portnoys Complaint and give them one in the eye.

The risks were considerable. There was sure to be a backlash from police and politicians. Criminal charges against Penguin and its three leaders were almost certain. Financial losses thanks to seized stock and fines would be considerable. The legal fees incurred in fighting charges would be enormous. Booksellers who stocked the book would also be put on trial. But Penguin was determined.

John Michie was resolute. John offered to smash the whole thing down, Hooker said, later. When he was told what was about to happen, federal minister for customs Don Chipp swore that Michie would pay: Ill see you in jail for this. But Michie was not to be dissuaded.

In July 1970, Penguin arranged to have three copies of Portnoy smuggled into Australia. In considerable secrecy, they used them to print 75,000 copies in Sydney and shipped them to wholesalers and bookstores around the country. It was an operation carried out with a precision that Hooker later likened to the German invasion of Poland.

The book was unveiled on August 31 1970. Michie held a press conference in his Mont Albert home, saying Portnoys Complaint was a masterpiece and should be available to read in Australia. Neither he nor Penguin were afraid of the prosecutions: We are prepared to take the matter to the High Court.

The next morning, as the trucks bearing copies began to arrive, bookstores everywhere were rushed. At one Melbourne bookstore, the assistant manager was knocked down and trampled by a crowd eager to buy the book and support Penguin. It was a stampede, he said later. A bookstore manager in Sydney was amazed when the 500 copies his store took sold out in two-and-a-half hours.

All too soon, it was sold out. And with politicians making loud promises of retribution, the police descended.

Bookstores were raided. Unsold copies were seized. Court summons were delivered to Penguin, to Michie, and to booksellers the whole country over. A long list of court trials over the publication of Portnoys Complaint and its sale were in the offing.

So the trial that opened on the grey morning of October 19 1970, in the Melbourne Magistrates Court, was only the first in what promised to be a long battle.

Neither Michie nor his colleagues were daunted. They had prepared a defence based around literary merit and the good that might come from reading the book. They had retained expert lawyers and marshalled the cream of Australias literary and academic elite to come to their aid.

Patrick White would appear as a witness for the defence. So too would academic John McLaren, The Age newspaper editor Graham Perkin, the critic A.A. Phillips, the historian Manning Clark, the poet Vincent Buckley, and many more. They were unconcerned by Flanagans furious denunciations, by his shudders of disgust, and by his caustic indictments of Penguin and its leaders.

They were confident in their cause. As one telegram to Michie said:

ALL BEST WISHES FOR A RESOUNDING VICTORY FOR LITERATURE AND LIBERTY.

This is an edited extract from Trials of Portnoy by Patrick Mullins, published by Scribe.

More:
Trials of Portnoy: when Penguin fought for literature and liberty - The Conversation AU

Shroud and Censor Urge Valorant Pro to Grind – Essentially Sports

The Censor Treatment has now become a thing in the Call of Duty. This term is now well known among players as well as pros. Doug Censor Martin is a pro player who has been trying to make it big in the top tier Call of Duty competitive scene. He had also managed a spot as a substitute player in the New Year Subliners team, although he was seldom picked in the playing roster.

Censor struggled a lot and ultimately gave up a few weeks back. He said that he will be going back to playing in the challenger system.

For those who not know, the challenger system is the base camp for becoming a pro. It is the amateur, or rather the build-up scene, where people begin and the good ones rise from there and make it big in the top-tier scene in Call of Duty.

Read more: Call of Duty Charity Tournament Winners Accused of Cheating

The Twitch streamer Michael Sonii Sherman recently posted a tweet saying that he might be getting the censor treatment since he does not have a long time CS: GO or tactical FPS experience. A major reason for this is that he is a major Battle Royale player/streamer for the Korean organization T1.

What he means by Censor Treatment is that he will be looked down upon by certain snobs at any game who will definitely not let him in into the top-tier scene. Just like what happened to Censor.

He adds in this tweet that he has had only one month of Valorant and tactical FPS experience. Still, he is already playing with some pretty big names in the scene.

As a reply to this tweet, Censor said some really positive words to Sonii.

We know that Censor is, in fact, saying this from experience. Censor had to struggle, or grind, really hard to even reach the sub spot at New York Subliners. After he brought himself down to the challenger system, it is as if he wanted to build himself until he has earned his spot in the big league. This would be his answer to the ones who looked down upon him.

Even Shroud commented on Soniis tweet. He too asked Sonii to keep working hard for his spot among the big names. Shroud went into a full dad-mode, inspiring Sonii to keep up his grind:

Soniis tweet got a lot of wholesome replies and it is always nice to see that even though there are a lot of toxic streamers or players out there, there are people like Shroud too. For example, heres what Lucas Mendo Hkanssonc, from Team Liquid, replied on Soniis tweet.

All these players have themselves struggled really hard to be where they are now, and they are rooting for Sonii in his own struggle to the top. A lot of other players have also supported Sonii saying that they have been following his stream and have witnessed his improvement. Sonii is known for streaming a lot of games and if he keeps working hard for a spot among the big guys, he can surely earn it.

Read the rest here:
Shroud and Censor Urge Valorant Pro to Grind - Essentially Sports

Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President – Techdirt

from the sorry-charles dept

Lawyer Charles Harder (who, yes, was once the lawyer for the guy who sued us) has built up a nice reputation now of the lawyer who tries and fails to stop people from saying stuff that upsets President Trump. You may recall that Harder, representing the president, threatened former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for his supposed quotes to author Michael Wolff. More recently, Harder, representing the Trump Campaign, has sued the NY Times, the Washington Post and CNN over various articles (often opinion pieces) that portray the President negatively.

His latest move, representing Donald Trump's brother, Robert Trump, is to sue Mary Trump, Donald Trump's niece, over her new book that is quite critical of the President. The argument in the lawsuit? That Mary Trump was violating a confidentiality clause that was part of the settlement of a legal dispute over the estate of Fred Trump -- another of Donald's brothers, and Mary's father. It took all of about a day for the judge to reject the lawsuit, basically because Charles Harder messed up the filing.

At the outset, the court finds that the submissions suffer from several improprieties. First, a preliminary injunction is an order obtained by motion in a pending action or special proceeding... The caption utilized refers to a probate proceeding which terminated in 2001 by entry of a decre and is, therefore, non-existent. Consequently, a motion seeking injunctive relief may not be made in that proceeding. To the extent the accompanying petition, bearing the same caption, is supposed to provide the jurisdictional basis for said motion, it cannot do so as that petition is fatally defective.

Beyond that, they picked the wrong forum for this request:

Insofar as the petition seeks a declaratory judgment, this forum is presumptively improper as such relief should be obtained by means of an action in the Supreme Court and not a special proceeding in this court....

Of course, it appears that Harder is planning to just keep going and try again by fixing his mistakes:

Today, the Surrogates Court ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over the dispute, Harder said in a statement. Therefore, Robert Trump will proceed with filing a new lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court.

Mary Trump's lawyer, Ted Boutrous, said he hoped that Harder would stop, but recognizing that's unlikely, points out that no court may violate the 1st Amendment by imposing prior restraint and blocking publication of a book that is "core political speech."

Given Harder's history, it seems unlikely that he much cares about the 1st Amendment.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, charles harder, donald trump, free speech, mary trump, prior restraint, robert trump, venue

Go here to read the rest:
Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President - Techdirt

Zoom will continue censoring calls at China’s request – Quartz

Zoom is the latest technology company to find itself caught between the competing demands of growing its business, upholding the ideals of an open internet, and acceding to censorship requests from China.

In a statement yesterday, the US-based video-conferencing company admitted to shutting down meetings held to commemorate those who died during the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown in China, and suspending the accounts of two activists and Humanitarian China, a US-based organization of exiled Chinese activists at the direct request of Beijing, who said the meetings were illegal. There are no Chinese laws stipulating that activities related to the June 4 massacre are illegal, but people in China, except Hong Kong, have been banned from holding any vigils or posting words related to the incident online. The accounts were suspended between late May and early June, according to the activists.

The statement, which gives outsiders a rare glimpse into how Chinese censorship of American firms take place, explains that of the four meetings flagged by Chinese authorities, three were shut down because a significant number of participants were based in mainland China. The fourth, which didnt have attendees located in China, was left uncensored.

Particularly noteworthy is Zooms evident attempt at threading a fine needle: within a span of a few short paragraphs, it simultaneously chastised governments for censoring their own citizens, while pledging to improve its own censorship mechanisms to better address censorship requests from different states. It sounded a contrite note over its inability to be surgically precise in its censorship, saying it could have anticipated this need to block participants by country, which would have allowed them to keep the meetings running despite significant repercussions.

While news of Zooms censorship has sparked an uproar, some say its actions are par for the course. This is honestly fairly standard for all the tech companies, said Lokman Tsui, assistant professor of journalism at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. [Zoom was] caught off guard because they were growing so fast and didnt foresee the need for this kind of technology. So this is just part of their growing pains. The technology to target specific users based on location will only get more sophisticated because it is hugely lucrative for the advertising industry, he added, and the same technology can be co-opted and appropriated for censorship reasons.

Zooms compliance with Beijings censorship requests raises a number of pressing questions about what users can expect of the service going forward. James Millward, a professor of Chinese history at Georgetown University, is concerned about the safety of Chinese students studying abroad and their families at home. And if other countries make their own censorship demands on Zoom, one could plausibly foresee a messy matrix of different rules for different Zoom users, potentially disrupting the companys mission of making global communications frictionless.

Zooms statement could use some clarification of what they are going to do with features, and of course we have to see what those features look like in action, said Rui Zhong, a program associate at the Wilson Center, a think tank, in Washingon, DC. But for Chinese users, this is the latest chapter in a series of tech feature limitations that goes back to the mid 2000s, when Facebook and Google and Twitter were shut out via the firewall.

In a statement to Quartz, a Zoom representative said the company regrets that participants both inside and outside of China were negatively impacted and important conversationsdisrupted, but that [i]t is not in Zooms power to change the laws of governments opposed to free speech. The representative added that for situations where local authorities block communications for participants within their borders, Zoom is developing additional capabilities that protect these conversations for participants outside of those borders.

China has imposed a virtual firewall that forbids its citizens from accessing major foreign websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube since 2006. In reality, some Chinese internet users are still browsing foreign websites with the help of the virtual private networks which can circumvent the firewall, although this practice has become increasingly dangerous and difficult in recent years.

US-based Zhou Fengsuo,president of Humanitarian China, said he was not satisfied with Zooms statement. Although it acknowledged that the company had made a mistake in suspending the accounts, Zoom needs to give more information such as which Chinese department had raised the suspension requests to them, he told Quartz.

Zhou, a former student leader during the Tiananmen protests, said that he did not wish to see Zoom use a geography-based censorship mechanism because that would amount to the company bowing to Beijing, as well as enhancing Chinas firewall and consolidating the segregation of the internet.

Wang Dan, another US-based former Tiananmen student leader who also had his account temporarily suspended, told Quartz that he has hired a lawyer and is considering taking legal action against Zoom. Lee Cheuk-yan, a Hong Kong politician who organizes the citys annual June 4 candlelight vigil, is the second individual activist who saw his account suspended. All three accounts have been reinstated after Zoom realized they were based in Hong Kong and the US, according to the statement.

Zoom is certainly not the first American tech company to find itself in such a situation. Apple, for example, does significant business in China, but is at the same time expected to preach Western standards on issues like freedom of speech. Recently, it came under fire for removing a Hong Kong protest app from its app store. Microsoft-owned Skype, before it was completely removed from app stores in China in 2017, also had a China-only version of its software that censored a specific list of words.

At the core of the issue is whether those companies should uphold their American values even if that means they giving up on the lucrative China market, as Google did, or continue their operations in the country by compromising certain practices such as adopting advanced censorship systems. Google, which initially accommodated Chinese censorship requests in 2006 in order to operate there, eventually decided to shutter its search product in China in 2010 after it detected attempts from China to hack into Gmail accounts, including those of human-rights activists.A plan to re-enter the market with a censored version of its search engine was scrapped last year.

Zhou said he agrees with the path that Google chose when faced with Chinas restrictions, but also noted that as it is difficult for a single American company to stand up to Beijing, the US government should help, for example, with countermeasures to force China to open up its internet.

Read more:
Zoom will continue censoring calls at China's request - Quartz

Removing ‘Gone With the Wind’ from HBO Max is censorship – Los Angeles Times

To the editor: I am shocked that screenwriter, director and novelist John Ridley demanded the elimination of Gone with the Wind from the HBO Max streaming service, and that HBO caved.

Yes, Gone with the Wind portrays slavery in a benign light, and it could not be remade today without a major rewrite to dramatize the horrors of slavery and include multidimensional Black characters. It is also a major landmark in film history and one of the most popular movies ever made.

Censorship is wrong, even if its done by anti-racists demanding to suppress a film that, for all its glorification of the lost cause, also presents a heroine who grows from a shallow schemer into a woman of strength and power. Besides, removing Gone with the Wind prevents viewers from seeing the first performance by a Black actor to win an Academy Award.

Mark Gabrish Conlan, San Diego

..

To the editor: Thank you for publishing Ridleys timely essay about the 1939 film Gone With the Wind. Many of my elders considered this film nonfiction, depicting the truth about the Civil War.

Rebel soldiers like Ashley Wilkes were dashing, romantic heroes to them. They truly believed that the so-called cause the Confederacy fought for was righteous and sacred.

Bravo to HBO for its decision to pull it from their lineup. I agree with Ridley: The film should be shown, but with panel discussions and interviews to help viewers understand the harm this kind of propaganda has caused.

Marcia Harlan, Idyllwild

..

To the editor: I appreciated Ridleys piece urging HBO not to show Gone With the Wind.

In 2001, a parody novel was published entitled The Wind Done Gone, a retelling of the story of Gone With the Wind from the standpoint of one of the slaves. I wonder if there has been any consideration of making a movie based on that novel.

John T. Donovan, Hacienda Heights

Excerpt from:
Removing 'Gone With the Wind' from HBO Max is censorship - Los Angeles Times