Mediaboss Marketing

Grant Berardo, a Wall High School junior, saw his image digitally altered with a plain black T-shirt in his yearbook.

WALL - The school district settled a lawsuit withthe former high school teacherwho received harassmentfrom students and death threats from across the countryafter she digitally altered a yearbook photo to removea logo for former President Donald Trump's campaign a change she says was ordered by the school principal.

Susan Parsons, 66, filed a lawsuit against the school district in 2019, alleging that she faced death threats after digitally removing a campaign logo forTrump's 2016 presidential campaign from a student's T-shirt while editing the 2017 Wall High School yearbook.

In the lawsuit, she alleged the digital alteration and other cuts were ordered by the school principal's office.

"During these conversations, (Parsons) and the administration often disagreed about the direct edits and what (Parsons) believed to be improper censorship to the yearbook," the complaint states. "Directed edits included requests to Photoshop, crop and delete photos or content in the drafts of the yearbook pages."

Toms River: Student's Trump flag got him kicked out of class. Now his mom wants an apology

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

The amount of the settlement was not publicly disclosed. NJ Advance Media reported a total settlement award of $325,000, with $204,000 going to Parsons and the remainder to attorney fees.

In June 2017, the Wall High School yearbook became another battleground over the Trump presidency after three students reported that their Trump-related contributions to the yearbook were left on the cutting room floor most notably student Grant Berardo, who wore a navy T-shirt on school picture day with the Trump campaign logo, including the phrase "Make America Great Again."

The slogan was scrubbed from the published image.

Wall Township High School junior Grant Berardo's T-shirt was digitally altered in the school's yearbook. He wore a Donald Trump campaign shirt for his portrait.(Photo: Courtesy of Joseph Berardo, Jr.)

'Trump 2024': Asbury hunts vandals who spray painted anti-Biden, pro-Trump messages

When Berardo's parents complained to the school about the digital alteration and the story went viral Berardo appeared on national cable news talk shows to talk about the incident Parsons was immediately suspended. New yearbooks with the unaltered photo of Berardo were eventually ordered.

It wasn't the first time school officials requested yearbook alterations, Parsons said. In one yearbook, that included whiting out a bumper sticker that read"feminism is the radical notion that women are people," placing digitally rendered T-shirts onto shirtless students going swimming and removing writing on two students' upper chests, according to the lawsuit.

At the time:Trump thanks Wall students for 'standing up' to yearbook censorship

Parsons retired from the school district after the 2017-18 school year, during which she reported being "disrespected and ridiculed by students and other persons who believe she was responsible for editing the Trump T-shirt in the 2017 yearbook," according to the complaint.

Wall is a town with strong Republican ties, with every Republican presidential candidate carrying the town by over 60% until Trump's 2020 re-election campaign, which carried the town by 58%.

Parsons, a Trump voter in2016, alleged that her First Amendment rights were violated by formerSuperintendent Cheryl Dyer, who barred her from speaking to reporters after the scandal became a national story, leading to the death threats.

Wall Superintendent Tracy Handerhan declined tocomment.

Mike Davis has spent the last decade covering New Jersey local news, marijuana legalization, transportation and basically whatever else is going on at any given moment. Contact him atmdavis@gannettnj.comor@byMikeDavison Twitter.

Read or Share this story: https://www.app.com/story/news/education/in-our-schools/2021/03/18/wall-nj-high-school-donald-trump-yearbook/4746260001/

Link:
Wall BOE settles with former HS teacher over Trump yearbook censorship - Asbury Park Press

Amazons recent removal of Ryan T. Andersons book When Harry Became Sally is an attack by a major corporation on free speech. This restriction reinforces our duty to allow free speech to thrive in the pursuit of truth in our own social and academic spheres without letting our bias blind us to unintended social censorship.

After Amazon removed Andersons book without warning and then refused to explain its action, Sens. Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, Mike Braun and Mike Lee demanded that Amazons CEO Jeff Bezos explain this political censorship. Amazon responded on March 11, stating that Amazon has chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness. Ryan Anderson claims that his book does no such thing.

The debate rages on.

There stand the facts of controversy surrounding When Harry Became Sally. My concern lies with those of the Republican senators: what does the removal of this book mean for free speech?

Last interterm at the University of Dallas, I had the opportunity to re-read and study When Harry Became Sally under Andersons guidance in his Natural Law and Public Affairs class. Both times I read it, I found the book to be what Anderson claims it to be: a well-articulated, compassionate and well-researched critique of the continuing discussion over transgenderism.

Regardless of where you fall on the transgenderism discussion, Andersons book is a valuable source of exposure to one side of the conversation.

Amazons decision to pull this book from its cyber-shelves silences a valid and widely held opinion on an extremely important social issue and could prove to be devastating to American society.

Silencing people because they do not agree with us is a tragic error that damages our ability to discover what is actually true. If we allow this sort of behavior to continue unchecked from corporate giants like Amazon, we are beginning to concede our right to free speech.

I would be equally outraged if Amazon had removed a pro-transgenderism book of the same caliber as Andersons from its inventory. Regardless of your opinion or identity, we all share the same humanity, and we should be able to have a full and inclusive discussion encompassing both sides of the argument.

Since most of us do not have the information or time to research these questions to their full extent, we rely on scholars to present us with the facts and details so that we may draw conclusions based on our understanding of ourselves and the truth. Always, this discernment requires treating both sides of an issue with equal care.

Not only must we maintain this openness in a public and corporate sphere, we must also do so in our immediate culture and society. How can we expect respect and openness in a large sphere if we cannot maintain it on a small and personal one?

By nature of UDs religious and political orientation, we tend to attract Catholic, conservative students. With this demographic, the prevailing opinion on campus tends to be conservative. I challenge UD to open the door wider.

UD prides itself on being an institution that creates independent thinkers. We are lucky to have this haven of intellectual freedom where non-woke opinions can be engaged. But if we claim to be independent thinkers, we must live it out.

Let us encourage conversation from the students who do not hold the popular beliefs on campus. Let us welcome dissenting opinions. Let us engage with the other side of the conversation.

This openness to challenge and dialogue does not mean that UDs catholic identity will be compromised. UD can maintain its mission of being a Catholic university while simultaneously living up to its claim of producing independent thinkers.

The university does not have to endorse ideologies or opinions that are inconsistent with its mission or catholic doctrine. It does not need to codify these dissenting opinions in its institutional policies or procedures. UD can and should continue to stand up for what it believes is the truth.

I am not advocating for a compromise of UDs explicitly expressed values and beliefs (which I happen to share). I am simply pointing out that UD has a duty to its students, faculty and larger community to be a platform where the truth can be challenged and wrestled with.

The UD community should actively support conversations on campus that deal with both sides of any given issue. We students should be willing to listen to those who disagree with us in a respectful and attentive manner. If all we ever encounter on campus simply reaffirms existing beliefs, how can we call ourselves independent thinkers?

Willingness to discuss both sides of an issue reinforces the validity of our personally held opinions. Lack of exposure or simple refusal to have these conversations signifies that we are either afraid of being proven wrong or content to live in ignorance.

I do not get that impression from either UD or its students.

The independent, truth-seeking spirit of UD is becoming more important than ever, and we need to rise to that challenge as a community.

Amazons recent removal of Ryan T. Andersons book When Harry Became Sally is an attack by a major corporation on free speech. This restriction reinforces our duty to allow free speech to thrive in the pursuit of truth in our own social and academic spheres without letting our bias blind us to unintended social censorship.

After Amazon removed Andersons book without warning and then refused to explain its action, Sens. Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, Mike Braun and Mike Lee demanded that Amazons CEO Jeff Bezos explain this political censorship. Amazon responded on March 11, stating that Amazon has chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness. Ryan Anderson claims that his book does no such thing.

The debate rages on.

There stand the facts of controversy surrounding When Harry Became Sally. My concern lies with those of the Republican senators: what does the removal of this book mean for free speech?

Last interterm at the University of Dallas, I had the opportunity to re-read and study When Harry Became Sally under Andersons guidance in his Natural Law and Public Affairs class. Both times I read it, I found the book to be what Anderson claims it to be: a well-articulated, compassionate and well-researched critique of the continuing discussion over transgenderism.

Regardless of where you fall on the transgenderism discussion, Andersons book is a valuable source of exposure to one side of the conversation.

Amazons decision to pull this book from its cyber-shelves silences a valid and widely held opinion on an extremely important social issue and could prove to be devastating to American society.

Silencing people because they do not agree with us is a tragic error that damages our ability to discover what is actually true. If we allow this sort of behavior to continue unchecked from corporate giants like Amazon, we are beginning to concede our right to free speech.

I would be equally outraged if Amazon had removed a pro-transgenderism book of the same caliber as Andersons from its inventory. Regardless of your opinion or identity, we all share the same humanity, and we should be able to have a full and inclusive discussion encompassing both sides of the argument.

Since most of us do not have the information or time to research these questions to their full extent, we rely on scholars to present us with the facts and details so that we may draw conclusions based on our understanding of ourselves and the truth. Always, this discernment requires treating both sides of an issue with equal care.

Not only must we maintain this openness in a public and corporate sphere, we must also do so in our immediate culture and society. How can we expect respect and openness in a large sphere if we cannot maintain it on a small and personal one?

By nature of UDs religious and political orientation, we tend to attract Catholic, conservative students. With this demographic, the prevailing opinion on campus tends to be conservative. I challenge UD to open the door wider.

UD prides itself on being an institution that creates independent thinkers. We are lucky to have this haven of intellectual freedom where non-woke opinions can be engaged. But if we claim to be independent thinkers, we must live it out.

Let us encourage conversation from the students who do not hold the popular beliefs on campus. Let us welcome dissenting opinions. Let us engage with the other side of the conversation.

This openness to challenge and dialogue does not mean that UDs catholic identity will be compromised. UD can maintain its mission of being a Catholic university while simultaneously living up to its claim of producing independent thinkers.

The university does not have to endorse ideologies or opinions that are inconsistent with its mission or catholic doctrine. It does not need to codify these dissenting opinions in its institutional policies or procedures. UD can and should continue to stand up for what it believes is the truth.

I am not advocating for a compromise of UDs explicitly expressed values and beliefs (which I happen to share). I am simply pointing out that UD has a duty to its students, faculty and larger community to be a platform where the truth can be challenged and wrestled with.

The UD community should actively support conversations on campus that deal with both sides of any given issue. We students should be willing to listen to those who disagree with us in a respectful and attentive manner. If all we ever encounter on campus simply reaffirms existing beliefs, how can we call ourselves independent thinkers?

Willingness to discuss both sides of an issue reinforces the validity of our personally held opinions. Lack of exposure or simple refusal to have these conversations signifies that we are either afraid of being proven wrong or content to live in ignorance.

I do not get that impression from either UD or its students.

The independent, truth-seeking spirit of UD is becoming more important than ever, and we need to rise to that challenge as a community.

View original post here:
Amazon's censorship reminds us of UD's need to protect free speech - University of Dallas University News

PAYETTE COUNTY Nine weeks into the 2021 Idaho Legislative Session, the total number of bills that have been introduced this year has now reached 551 between the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The latest topics to be included among House legislation include transportation funding, public art, drivers education and even social media censorship. In the Senate, retail wine establishments, unemployment benefits and abortions have caught their attention.

Following are examples of legislation introduced since March 5. Actions listed are accurate as of Friday afternoon.

House Bill 298 by the Education Committee would require school officials to give certain information to parents, including exemptions, when they are asked about student immunizations.

Exemptions for preschool through grade twelve students exist in Idaho code 39-4802, its statement of purpose states. With the addition of this legislation, any notifications to parents or guardians regarding vaccinations must include a verbal description of their right to exempt their child.

Introduced March 5, the bill has been filed for a third reading.

Idahoans who appreciate public art may be interested in House Bill 311 by the Revenue and Taxation Committee; It would establish provisions for approval of property tax expenditures on such projects.

The purpose of this legislation is to adopt higher standards to fund public art display projects with taxpayer dollars, according to its statement. It will allow the public to be more involved in the decision-making process of taxpayer funded public art displays in their communities.

Introduced Monday, it has been recommended for placement on the General Orders canvas as of Thursday.

The ways and Means Committees revised House Bill 314 would amend Idaho Code 40-720 to increase the sales tax used to bond for the Transportation Expansion and Congestion Mitigation program from 1% to 4.5, with no less than $67 million to be put towards roads and bridges.

Its fiscal note states the move would allow the Idaho Transportation Department to bond at least $670 million for related projects, all the way up to $1.34 billion, without raising taxes already being paid.

The bill was introduced Tuesday and filed for a second reading with a Do-pass recommendation Thursday.

Pay attention, student drivers: House Bill 320 by the State Affairs Committee would replace mandatory drivers education law with these new provisions:

- Learners 14 years of age will need a learners permit and 50 hours of supervised driving experience by a licensed parent or guardian who is at least age 21.

- Learners 16 years of age will be able to apply for an intermediate license, conditioned upon passing the state driving exam and including rules for graduated drivers licenses.

[The rules] have been proven to be safer and more effective than drivers education classes, its statement reads.

No changes would be made to laws for drivers 17 years of age or older.

It was introduced Wednesday for a Thursday printing.

As social media companies crack down on user-generated content, House Bill 323 is giving some pushback against it.

This legislation protects against wrongful censorship by social media websites; providing definitions; providing that the owner or operator of a social media website is subject to a private right of action by certain social media users in this state under certain conditions; providing for damages; authorizing the award of reasonable attorney fees and costs; providing exceptions for the deletion or censorship of certain types of speech, according to its statement.

The bill was posted for a first reading by the State Affairs Committee Thursday.

For parents whose kids are just entering kindergarten, House Bill 331 aims to fund optional full-day Kindergarten so school districts and charter schools will have flexibility in paying for such without having to rely on student tuition and supplemental levies.

The bills impact on the general fund is expected to not exceed $42.1 million in fiscal year 2022 and will be ongoing. It was introduced for a first reading Thursday.

The bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, and Sen. Carl Crabtree, R-Grangeville.

Senate Bill 1171 aims to define a brewery, a retail wine establishment and clarify when a minor can be in a retail wine establishment and to make technical corrections.

Introduced March 5 by Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Boise, the bill has been filed with a do-pass recommendation for its second reading as of Wednesday.

Following a year of COVID-19 related strain on the State Unemployment Insurance Fund, Senate Bill 1182, introduced Monday by Sen. Christy Zito, R-Hammett, would adjust how funds are paid out to ensure the funds solvency. Payouts would still be tied to the overall health of the economy, but benefits would be reduced from 26 weeks to 20.

There is no direct cost to the State General Fund. However, there should be a net benefit to the State Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund, which has been pushed to the limit in the past year, even with a large influx of federal funding, its fiscal note states. By paying out fewer weeks of unemployment benefits, particularly during a good economy, the State Trust Fund will see a net reduction in spending.

The bill had its first reading Thursday. If passed, the bills sunrise provision would not put it into effect until July 1, 2022.

Senate Bill 1183, the Fetal Heartbeat Preborn Child Protection Act, would amend existing law to prohibit an abortion following detection of a fetal heartbeat.

A detectable heartbeat is a key indicator, in law and medical practice alike, of the existence of life, according to its statement. This legislation becomes effective upon the issuance of any decision upholding a restriction or ban on abortion of a preborn child with a heartbeat by any United States appellate court.

The bill was introduced by the State Affairs Committee for a first reading Friday.

Following are examples of bills which have seen significant action since March 5.

House Bill 216 by the Appropriations Committee, which provides an additional $369,764,100 to allow the Division of Medicaid to pay bills due in the current fiscal year under the current law, was signed by Little on Thursday after passing the House 37-31-2 on Feb. 25 and the Senate 29-5-1 on March 4.

Senate Bill 1137 by the Judiciary and Rules Committee, which would give justices of the Idaho Supreme Court a pay raise of 1.6%, for a new annual salary of $160,400 each, passed the Senate 33-0-2 on March 4. On Wednesday, it was filed for a second reading with a do pass recommendation.

See the rest here:
Immunizations, social media censorship on list of bill topics - Ontario Argus Observer

Although the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting brought all OTT platforms and digital news websites under its ambit in November 2020, the content streamed on these platforms remained out of its regulatory purview. This would now change with the news of the ministry working on a specific legislation, which reportedly would follow a three-tier mechanism the first two being self-regulation on the part of the platform and the third rumoured to be an inter-departmental committee established by the ministry for hearing grievances.

Most content generators, expectedly, believe that the backlash that followed the political drama series Tandav where Amazon Prime Video made voluntary cuts and apologised for unintentionally hurting anybodys sentiments had already blurred the line between self-regulation and censorship. In the absence of any regulation governing the OTT industry, this move by the makers of Tandav joins the thwarting-freedom-of-expression-and-creative-liberty list.

While there is a good reason for producers and artists to complain, but just how much does creative brilliance to depict reality, or latent rage amongst the masses, genuinely depend on, for want of a better term, shock value? To show real characters also means showing how they exist in reality. However, at times, this need transforms into something else as filmmakers argue that unless characters abuse or do something shocking, the narrative wont seem organic.

Many years ago, Dr Rahi Masoom Reza was criticised for repeatedly resorting to cuss words in his seminal Aadha Gaon (Half a Village), set around Indias Partition. It is believed that Reza lost out on popular awards because of the abusive text, but the author felt that people swore on the streets, and he drew his characters from real life.

Some of the greatest Hindi films that depicted societal rage in some form or the other such as Satyakam (1969), Namak Haram (1973), Garam Hava (1973), and Zanjeer (1973), rarely showed the protagonist abusing. Its ironic that Salim-Javeds Angry Young Man (AYM) character that set a new benchmark when showing onscreen rage never let go completely. Zanjeer is considered a precursor to not only the AYM seen in 1980s films like Arjun, remade in Tamil as Sathyaa (1988) or Meri Jung (1985), which was also remade in both Telugu and Tamil, but also art-house films like Ardh Satya (1983).

Unlike today, some of the greatest romantic or erotic moments on the silver screen rarely showed skin Nargis and Raj Kapoor in Awaara (1951) or Robert Redford and Meryl Streep in Out of Africa (1985). Forget the past, the success of Scam 1992 on the OTT platform has spun the entire argument surrounding the two significant tenets of the freedom of expression debate on OTT shown that abusive language or showing skin on its head.

Gautam Chintamanigautam@chintamani.orgFilm historian and bestselling author

Read more from the original source:
Of creative liberty and censorship - The New Indian Express

By Calvin Freiburger(Life Site News)

While Democrats dominate the federal government, state governments are taking the lead to combat anti-conservative censorship online, with several attorneys general detailing their efforts so far Wednesday.

The idea of censorship by Big Tech is one thats reached national proportion, Media Research Center (MRC) President Brent Bozell said at the online press conference. In at least 18 states, there is now activity taking place in one degree or another.

Organized by MRC, which hastaken a lead rolein the grassroots campaign against Big Tech, the conference featured Attorneys General Ken Paxton of Texas, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, and Lynn Fitch of Mississippi, each of whom detailed their concerns about Big Tech and the actions theyve taken in response.

Unless we address this soon, we may lose our ability to address it, warned Paxton, who isleading a lawsuitagainst Google for abusing its monopoly status to eliminate competition and control ad pricing. He also discussed thecivil investigative demandshis office issued to Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon Web Services, and Apple regarding their comment moderation practices particularly as it pertains to those companiesclaims that inadequate comment moderation was their justification for deplatforming alternative social network Parler.

In response to concerns about fines potentially being an insufficient deterrent to censorship, Paxton argued that a $10,000 fine per violation can add up, even to a company like Google.

Bozell then interjected to note that such enforcement actions are valuable not just for whatever direct deterrent effect they have, but also as evidence to bring before Congress to show that these arent objective platforms, but subjective publishers, and as such should lose their federal liability immunity and face antitrust action.

In addition to investigation, Rutledge explained that she has taken proactive action byintroducing legislationthat would hold the likes of Facebook and Twitter in violation of the states Deceptive Trade Practices Act and potentially be liable for damages if they take action against a user that is selectively enforced, in violation of their terms of service, or otherwise not made in good faith.

These social media platforms are the new town squares, and so we must protect freedom of speech and encourage the sharing of ideas, Rutledge said. We want to make sure that Arkansans thoughts and opinions are not edited out.

They choose to silence us just because they can, Fitch said of Big Tech. This affects everyone.

Fitch relayed her own recent experience of seeing ananti-human trafficking videoshe posted flagged by Twitter as potentially sensitive content. The minute-and-a-half-long video was taken down just 37 seconds after publishing, meaning a human could not have watched it in its entirety to fully assess its content.

Fitch, who has also joined legal action against Google, shared that her office is collect[ing] human stories that put a human face on censorship via[emailprotected].

The problem of online censorship and discrimination has steadily grown over the past four years, largely in response to the belief that former President Donald Trumps 2016 victory was due in part to his effective use of Twitter. Over the past year it has sharply accelerated, citing the twin pretexts of medical misinformation over COVID-19 and inflammatory political rhetoric. It is expected to intensify further still over the next four years, based onreportsthat the Biden administration wants to partner with Big Tech to clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed COVID-19 information.

Even so, Bozell expressed optimism for the future. This thing is growing, he said. It is going to be a forest fire against Big Tech in no time at all. I think you are going to see all fifty states emerging, because this is going too far.

See the original post here:
Conservative AGs lead the charge against Big Tech censorship: 'This thing is growing' - The Jewish Voice