Mediaboss Marketing

Almost 60 years ago, Lady Chatterleys lover brought sex and lust into the courtroom and changed the way we thought about censoring literature.

What is it about literature and censorship? Some of the most influential books ever written have been censored because someone thought they were an affront to common decency, whatever that means. John Miltons Areopagitica (1644) was banned for political reasons; Mark Twains The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) was banned for being racially insensitive; JD Salingers The Catcher in the Rye (1951) apparently undermined morality. Melvilles Moby Dick (1851), Steinbecks The Grapes of Wrath (1939), Baldwins Another Country (1962), Orwells Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), Nabokovs Lolita (1955), all banned. As recently as 1987, Toni Morrisons Beloved (1987), Salman Rushdies The Satanic Verses (1988) and Dan Browns The Da Vinci Code (2003) were banned in some countries. In 2015 copies of Bret Easton Elliss American Psycho (1991) were confiscated from Australian bookshops because they werent shrink-wrapped.

So many books, so many bans.

One book had a massive impact on the public perception of censorship: Lady Chatterleys Lover, DH Lawrences most famous or perhaps infamous work, which was finally published in Britain in 1960, thirty-two years after hed finished it and thirty years after Lawrence himself died from tuberculosis at the age of 44.

Lady Chatterleys Lover was published in Italy back in 1928, but its sexual explicitness was quickly labelled unmitigated smut; the book was declared obscene and banned in Britain and the United States.

It wasnt Lawrences first brush with the censors. The Rainbow (1915), the novel that followed his remarkable 1913 work Sons and Lovers was also judged obscene and banned after publication. Copies of The Rainbow were unceremoniously seized and burned, the authorities outraged at Lawrences candour regarding sexual attraction and yearning. Such notoriety made it difficult for him to find a publisher for Women in Love, published in 1920, three years after hed written it. Next came Lady Chatterleys Lover.

The story revolves around Connie, the free-thinking wife of an aristocrat whose wartime injuries have left him paralysed from the waist down. She has a few flings, but when the new gamekeeper Oliver arrives on the estate, Connie is instantly aroused. Just the sight of him sensuous, muscular, masculine is enough. Oliver exudes the vitality her husband lacks. At first he rejects her advances, mindful of the social divide that separates them, but before long their encounters are pretty torrid, Lawrence describing fiery loins, helplessly desiring hands and orgasms. It was all a little too much for the establishment.

The novel is about sex and sexual desire, but its also about class and social divides and the very real search for intimacy. And importantly, its also about the aftermath of World War I, which left so many men crippled either physically, emotionally or both. As well, its said to reflect elements of Lawrences own situation with his wife Freida, a complicated relationship to say the least. Freida had affairs, claiming Lawrence was impotent; they fought, they made up. But were not going into that here.

For a week during late 1960, publishers Penguin Books had to fight at the Old Bailey for the right to publish Lawrences novel banned under the Obscene Publications Act as a cheap paperback, which would make it affordable for most people. The prosecution maintained the ban should stay, that its pornographic elements far outweighed any consideration of literary merit, and that the liberal use of certain Anglo-Saxon four-letter words was disgusting. They felt it was far too raunchy for the masses to read.

Naturally, the defence argued that the books literary qualities and the novelists status as an author of significance should take precedence over prudish notions of what constituted obscenity. The defence called some 35 witnesses, among them academics and writers (including noted authors EM Forster, Cecil Day-Lewis and Rebecca West) to attest to the literary and inherently moral value of the controversial book. An eminent bishop testified that Lawrences depictions of sex were the equivalent of an act of holy communion.

The prosecuting lawyer was a pillar of the priggish upper class, which was in many ways far more horrified by the notion of inter-class adultery than by the use of obscene language. Generally speaking, the legal profession at that time was overly concerned with public morality; lawyers felt they had a duty to protect the public from perceived filth. He read out many descriptions of lovemaking from the book clearly meant to shock listeners, but was informed by witnesses that such descriptions, including the use of the words fuck, shit, arse etc were entirely appropriate in the circumstances. His next question was met with absolute hilarity in the court:

Would you approve of your young sons, young daughters because girls can read as well as boys reading this book? Is it a book you would have lying around your own house? Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?

Not many people had servants in 1960; juries were made up of ordinary working people (this particular jury included a butcher, a labourer and a machinist), and how out of touch was this man who had seemingly only recently discovered that girls could read as well as boys? He misjudged that one; the jury took a mere three hours to determine that Lady Chatterleys Lover did not contravene the Obscene Publications Act.

The beginning of the 1960s saw conservative attitudes beginning to take a back seat. Young people were moving away from the staid and proper behaviour of their parents and grandparents. Outlooks were changing. Even attitudes towards the trial were liberal, some newspaper editorials suggesting the money spent on prosecuting a work of literature would have been better spent in the investigation of actual exploitative pornography.

But social change is slow and there were many who were thoroughly outraged by the decision. They lodged official complaints and there were incidents of book burning. Some worried their children would be corrupted by the book.

Reports say that three million copies of Lady Chatterleys Lover were sold in the few months following the trial, people keen to see what all the fuss was about and no doubt looking forward to some titillation. Over the years, Lawrences lurid descriptions of sex have lost some impact were almost bombarded with sex these days but as already touched upon, the novel isnt just about a blistering liaison. Lawrence examines the impact of industry in post-war England and has much to say on the apparent differences between the aristocracy and the working class. Its this, as much as his characterisations and explorations of what makes people tick that make him an author of renown.

Looking at the case now, its clear that Penguins victory had a lasting impact. For one thing, the governments jurisdiction over personal morality had weakened. Censorship was now being seen as an infringement of individual judgement and private ethics. Interestingly, in 1971 when the Australian-born editors of Oz magazine were tried and convicted under the Obscene Publications Act, their conviction was quickly overturned.

Lady Chatterleys Lover was in a way a victory for liberalism, the notion that a book could lead people to live a debauched lifestyle dismissed out of hand.

Can certain literature truly corrupt us? Or does it just make for expensive court cases?

Read more from the original source:
Lady Chatterley's censor: Almost 60 years ago, a court case looked to save us from ourselves - The Big Smoke Australia

The coronavirus pandemic may threaten press freedom and worsen the crises that reporters around the world are facing, according to this years World Press Freedom Index, which evaluates the landscape for journalists in 180 countries and territories.

The report, published on Tuesday by the media watchdog group Reporters Without Borders, said the United States and Brazil were becoming models of hostility toward the news media. It also singled out China, Iran and Iraq for censoring coverage of the coronavirus outbreak.

The pandemic has already redefined norms. New laws that some governments have passed with the ostensible goal of slowing the spread of the virus ones that broaden state surveillance, for instance have raised concerns about long-term negative effects on the news media and freedom of expression.

The pandemic has allowed governments to take advantage of the fact that politics are on hold, the public is stunned and protests are out of the question, in order to impose measures that would be impossible in normal times, Christophe Deloire, the secretary general of Reporters Without Borders, said in a statement.

Press freedom in the United States continued to suffer under President Trumps administration, according to the report, which ranked the country 45th out of 180, up three spots from last year. A dangerous anti-press sentiment as well as the arrest, physical assault, public denigration and harassment of journalists had trickled down to the local level, the report said.

China ranked 177th, the same as last year. Last month, China said it was expelling American journalists working for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, weeks after the Trump administration limited to 100 the number of Chinese citizens who could work in the United States for five state-run Chinese news organizations that are widely considered propaganda outlets.

Reporters at foreign news outlets in China were among those who aggressively reported on the coronavirus outbreak, including in the early days when the Chinese government sought to play down its severity.

In Iraq, officials this month fined Reuters and temporarily suspended the news agencys license after it published a story that said the government was underreporting coronavirus cases.

The report also referenced oppressive policies in some countries in the Balkans and the European Union. In Hungary last month, lawmakers gave Prime Minister Viktor Orban the power to sidestep Parliament and suspend existing laws. The new legislation, which will further limit freedom of expression, may give Mr. Orbans government more leeway to persecute journalists, critics say.

Still, Europe continued to be the continent where the news media had the most freedom, with Norway ranking first for the fourth consecutive year and Finland and Denmark in second and third place. Sweden fell to fourth place because of an increase in the online harassment of reporters.

At the bottom of the index, there was little change. North Korea fell one spot, taking over last place from Turkmenistan. Eritrea, which ranked third to last, was the lowest-ranked country in Africa. Haiti fell 21 spots to 83rd, the steepest drop of any nation. Journalists there lack financial resources and institutional support, and have been victims of intimidation and physical violence, particularly while covering protests, the report said.

Go here to see the original:
Coronavirus Threatens Press Freedom Around the World, Report Says - The New York Times

All winged swarming things that walk on fours shall be an abomination for you. Leviticus 11:20 (The Israel Bible)

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. (Frederic Legrand COMEO / Shutterstock.com)

One theory about the origins of the coronavirus is that a naturally occurring virus being studied in a microbiology lab in Wuhan, China escaped. The virus escaped from a laboratory researching dangerous pathogens. Once labeled a conspiracy theory, evidence to indicate this may have been the case is piling up and the U.S. State Department recenty announced they were actively investigating this possibility.

WUHAN LAB

An article by Steven Mosher, an internationally recognized authority on China and population issues, published on February 22 in the New York Post suggested that this was indeed the case. The article noted that Chinese leader Xi Jinping held an emergency meeting on February 14 to discuss the need to contain the coronavirus and set up a system to prevent similar epidemics in the future. At the meeting, Xi described lab safety as a national security issue. The next day, the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology released a new directive titled: Instructions on strengthening biosecurity management in microbiology labs that handle advanced viruses like the novel coronavirus.

The article by Mosher noted that the only BSL-4 microbiology laboratory in China that fits the Ministrys description of being able to handle advanced viruses like the novel coronavirus is located in Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak: BSL-4 labs have to be equipped with airtight hazmat suits or special cabinet workspaces that confine viruses and bacteria that can be transmitted through the air to sealed boxes that scientists reach into using attached high-grade gloves. There are about 54 BSL-4 labs worldwide and the National Biosafety Laboratory, part of the Wuhan Institute of Virology is one of only two bioweapons research labs in all of China. The Wuhan lab is also equipped for animal research.

The Wuhan laboratory was constructed in 2015 and opened in 2017 while still undergoing testing. It was the first of a planned five to seven Biolabs designed for the purpose of studying high-risk pathogens, including Ebola and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) viruses.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE BATS

In a subsequent article, Mosher noted that the outbreak was attributed to bats sold for human consumption at a wet market in Wuhan. Mosher noted that the market was, in fact, a seafood market and did not sell bats. He also claimed that none of the first people infected had visited the seafood market. Mosher cited a report by two scientists who work for the state-run South China University of Technology that claimed that the COVID-19 virus is from the same family of coronaviruses carried by the Horseshoe Bat. The report claimed that there are no known colonies of this species of that bat within 560 miles of Wuhan. That report, originally published on Research Gate, is no longer available on that site. Acording to the report, the Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention (WHCDC), located 280 meters from the wet market, had imported several hundred bats for the study of the coronavirus. About 7 miles away was the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which was also conducting research on the same bats.

In 2015, the WIV published an article in the journal Nature Medicine noting that the coronavirus found in the Chinese Horseshoe Bat thrived in human cells and, based on research on mice, could infect and replicate in primary human airway cells. A letter in the same journal responded to the article, expressing concern that the risk of such research was outweighed by the risks.

DENIAL

The head of the labs bat-coronavirus research, Shi Zhengli, was alerted about the epidemic in Wuhan at the end of December and arrived on scene to determine whether the outbreak could be traced back to her lab. In an article in the South China Morning Post reported Feb. 6, she concluded that there was no connection between her experiments and the outbreak.

It should be noted that anyone who attempts to share Moshers articles about COVID-19 on Facebook is issued an automatic warning telling them the article contains false information and the preview is obscured.

An article in the New York Post contesting this labeling noted that one of the independent researchers who determined that the reasoned arguments in Moshers opinion article constituted false information was Danielle E. Anderson, assistant professor, Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore. The Post noted that Anderson regularly works with the researchers from the Wuhan lab.

One response to this tweet posted by the highly-respected journalist Sharyl Atkisson noted that due to their governments campaign of misinformation, most Chinese people are convinced the coronavirus has its origins in the U.S.

The other Facebook fact-checker labeled Moshers claims as false information because any responsible government would strengthen safety and security procedures in high-containment labs even while admitting that the SARS virus had escaped Chinese labs in the past.

It could be argued that Facebook has a vested interest in diverting blame from China. Despite being banned from China in 2009, China remains Facebooks second-largest market, generating $5-7 billion, or teen percent of its ad revenue, annually. Facebook is opening a new engineering team in Singapore in the hopes of expanding their Chinese operations.

CHINAS UGLY HISTORY OF VIRUSES ESCAPING FROM LABS

This is not to say that COVID-19 was manufactured in a laboratory. A U.S. study of the coronavirus genome published in March found no signs it had been engineered. By comparing the available genome sequence data for known coronavirus strains, we can firmly determine that SARS-CoV-2 originated through natural processes, co-author Kristian Andersen, from Scripps Research in California, said at the time.

Shockingly, the Washinton Post reported last week that U.S. Embassy officials warned in January 2018 about inadequate safety at the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab and passed on information about scientists conducting risky research on coronavirus from bats.

Pandemics have begun as a result of naturally occurring viruses escaping from a Chinese laboratory. In 2010, it was revealed that Human H1N1 virus that struck China and then the Soviet Union before spreading to the entire world in 1977 was due to a laboratory escape of a 1949-50 virus.

In 2004, four cases of an escape of the SARS virus from the same laboratory at the Chinese National Institute of Virology were discovered. The outbreak spread to 29 countries, causing more than 8,000 infections and at least 774 deaths.

In March, the Chinese government responded to accusations by diverting blame to the U.S. Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry wrote that It could have been the US army that brought the epidemic to Wuhan America owes us an explanation!. The accusation was based on the flimsy premise that members of the U.S. military participated in in the World Military Games held in Wuhan last October, which brought together representatives from over 100 nations.

CHINA BLOWING SMOKE WHILE THE U.S. WANTS ANSWERS

Last week, China foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian addressed the matter at a news conference, telling journalists the World Health Organizations officials have said multiple times there is no evidence the new coronavirus was created in a laboratory.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday that Chinese authorities themselves, when they started investigating the virus, considered whether the WIV was, in fact, the place where this came from.

We know theyve not permitted the worlds scientists to go into that laboratory to evaluate what took place there, whats happening there, whats happening there even as we speak, he said in a radio interview.

In an interview on Saturday with Michael Knowles, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TEX) noted that speculation that the COVID-19 virus had escaped from a Chinese laboratory was tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory nutjobbery.

Senator Cruz referred to the two labs in Wuhan conducting studies on viruses in bats and the State Department concerns that safety standards in those labs could lead to an escape and pandemic.

But the real bombshell revelation was his next statement.

The U.S. government was funding the Chinese research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Cruz cited a just-released report of the National Institutes of Health which stated that in fiscal year 2019, the funding for the Wuhan Institute of Virology $76,301 as part of an overall $3.7 million funding program that went to six years in sites in China, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Myanmar. The project included studying viral diversity in animal (bats) reservoirs, surveying people that live in high-risk communities for evidence of bat coronavirus infection, and conducting laboratory experiments to analye and predict which newly discovered viruses pose the greatest threats to human health.

Cruz added that the NIH report specified that the funding at the Wuhan lab went to study the coronavirus.

We dont have confirmed evidence that [the epidemic] did come from the lab, Cruz added.What we know is that U.S. taxpayer dollars were going to the Chinese government to fund this research on bat coronaviruses, on how they could be infectious to humans, how they could be transmitted to humans, how they could be dangerous to humans, at the same time the State Department was raising real concerns about the safety and security protocols at the lab that were partially funding.

Cruz concluded with a powerful demand.

The Chinese government needs to answer the question right now; were they studying the novel coronavirus, this virus, the virus that has killed over 140,000 people worldwide. Was that the virus studied at one or both of the labs in Wuhan?

Read more here:
Facebook is Censoring News Sites Criticizing China's Management of Covid-19. Here's the Real Reason Why - Breaking Israel News

Daryl Hannahs bare behind in Splash isnt the only thing being censored by Disney Plus and its family-friendly streaming service, as a few other shows and films have received subtle edits.

Although Splash had been streaming since February, sharp-eyed viewers noticed Hannahs hair had been CGId to cover her bare butt as her character goes running off into the ocean. A Disney spokesperson did confirm that a few scenes in the film have been slightly edited to remove nudity.

1999s Toy Story 2 had its post-credits sequence edited for an inappropriate scene when the film was re-released on DVD to tie in with Toy Story 4.

The censors removed a casting couch joke where Stinky Pete (Kelsey Grammer) flirts with two Barbie dolls hinting that he can get them into movies. You know, Im sure I could get you a part in Toy Story 3, Stinky Pete says.

The scene was deleted in light of the #MeToo movement. The original scene is below and does not appear in the streaming service version.

But Disney Plus did have a change of heart, it seems, over animated series Gravity Falls. Creator Alex Hirsch tweeted back in November 2019 about its decision to remove a symbol from Stanley Pines initial fez. Hirsh said, Lol apparently the geniuses over at Disney+ decided to remove Grunkle Stans fez symbol for no reason, but then accidentally left it in the thumbnails.

The symbol appears to be back on Stanleys fez, at least for American audiences.

Screencap Courtesy of Disney Plus

Lilo and Stitch audiences have noticed a subtle change to one of its scenes. After fighting with her sister, Lilo runs into the laundry room and climbs into a clothes dryer. In the edited version, Lilo climbs into something that looks like a pizza box.

The rest is here:
Disney Plus Censors Casting Couch Joke in Toy Story 2 and Other Subtle Edits - Variety

Over the course of the semester, the Lanthorn will be conducting an editorial series titled News on News revolving around how news is consumed today, the concept of fake news and the fight journalists continue to fight to have their voices be heard.

Over doing this editorial series, I learned a lot about how journalists think and learned some helpful lessons as to how to react to institutional pressures.

I highlighted the importance of the #FreeIgnace movement, the beninese journalist who is sadly still incarcerated for simply doing his job. I talked to students who have experienced censorship, both in their time at GVSUand in the Ukraine.

I learned some important lessons from journalists who continue to fight the good fight, whether it be Matthew Kauffman leading the charge to free Ignace Sossou or Raymond Joseph continuing to investigate a corrupt South African lottery system.

These journalists and students speaking out against the powers that be has always been important, but is crucial now more than ever, as Americans everywhere are staying in their homes trying to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

While journalists are not doing the work of essential workers and nurses and doctors working the front lines to fight the virus, those spreading news to the public are in the next tier below. Now more than ever, citizens around the world are looking towards local and national news.

As journalists, we have a responsibility to give the public accurate news, especially in this time of crisis. One of my roles as a part-time assignment editor at Fox 17 is to answer the phone of nervous viewers. Here are what the majority of those calls have consisted of the past few weeks:

Hey, my boss is making us go in to work, but my wife and I are nervous about me getting infected. What do I do to report them?

How do I file for unemployment?

Im about to run out of rent money ever since I lost my job, where can I turn to if I end being homeless in the next few weeks?

My daughter needs her heart medicine to survive. Is it even safe to go into pharmacies right now?

The Walmart by me is not practicing social distancing. Is there anything you guys can do about that?

While it can be nice to provide people with certain resources to help them get what they need in this worldwide pandemic, its a lot of pressure to try to help these people, who appear to have nowhere else to go.

I am nowhere near a guidance counselor or a life coach or a motivational speaker, but I have had to play all of those roles in these phone calls. While I struggle to sleep at night thinking of the thousands of people struggling just in West Michigan alone, its through these phone calls that I have realized that journalists are more than writers, editors, reporters, broadcaster and anchors: we have a job to help people in this time of crisis.

Phone calls such as the ones above are the reason why I am confident I will stay in journalism. As Kauffman and Gamble and Joseph advised in our interviews, journalists need to have thick skin; not just in dealing with criticism and institutional censorship and threats, but also helping those in need, whether that be in providing accurate information, conducting an investigation, or simply giving news consumers a guiding light and someone to talk to.

Through this editorial series, it has been reiterated to me that thick skin and a refusal to back down is a crucial skill that every young journalist needs to develop.

We will face criticism. We will face threats. We will be called pigs and biased, and our writing will be deemed as fake news and thats on the tame end of the criticism. But for every negative message towards us, the positive support comes through tenfold, and knowing that we have a truly important role informing and helping people makes this job more worth it than I ever could have imagined.

Read the original post:
News on News: Reflecting on institutional censorship and the conversations with the experts - Grand Valley Lanthorn