Mediaboss Marketing

From Pokemon to Gumball, sometimes cartoons just push it too far and end up getting pushed back by the censors.

There are tons of cartoon innuendos that happened in older shows, fromSpongebobtoInvader Zim, and honestly, it's a very surprising fact that some of these jokes even made it into the shows at all. There are some shows likeRen And Stimpy orMr. Meaty that made their living off of Gross-Out humor and body horror, which doesn't seem like a sustainable model for a kids' show in the first place.

RELATED:15 Cartoon Episodes That Were Too Controversial To Air

Invader Zim was particularly bad about this since Nickelodeon specifically did a call for a television show that would cover their 12-16 year old demographic. Let's take a look at some scenes like this that didn't quite make it to air.

Ren And Stimpy was always known for pushing the envelope, so much so that eventually John Kricfalusi got fired from his own show. John K. was fired for plenty of other reasons, but the scene that got him canceled wasn't the first time he had gotten a scene pulled from the show.

The first scene that Nickelodeon got rid of was in an episode where Ren's cousin Sven comes over, and Stimpy and Sven spend the day together. The issue is when they hide in a closet together, and Stimpy decides they can play a game called "Sword Swallower".No need toextrapolate that point, but that's why the scene was pulled (although it's available on DVDs for any curious fans).

Denno Senshi Porygonis probably one of the most infamous cartoon episodes ever to air. It's the 38th episode of the 3rd season, in which something is wrong with the Pokeballs, so the team enters them to figure out what's going on.

The worst offender in the show is when Pikachu delivers a thunderbolt to a cyber missile, after which the screen rapidly flashes between red and blue. This event gave seizures to tons of people across Japan, putting about 685 people in the hospital. It was known in the Japanese press as the Pokemon Shock. Stocks fell by about 5%, the episode was pulled from the rotation for all time, and it's never been aired again.

This is the actual episode that got John K. fired, in addition to the fact that he was notoriously hard to work with and did so many edits of the show that were already completed that episodes were frequently turned in well past their airing deadline. In the episodeMan's Best Friend, we see Ren savagely beat a man with an oar.

RELATED:Parks & Rec: 10 Controversies That Almost Killed The Show

The man who was beaten is named George Liquor for some reason, which is already pretty weird for a kid's show. There's a sequence where Ren very visibly snaps in a very realistic and dark way, with surreal, splotchy backgrounds behind him. After this, he beats the man until he's black and blue, swollen, with bulging eyes.

For whatever reason, thePowerpuff Girls show decided it needed to take the George OrwellAnimal Farm route with one of their episodes, in which for some reason, a gnome shows up who starts a cult in which they have sacrificed happiness for peace.

The show has an incredibly biased depiction of what Communism is, and regardless of anyone's view on the economic system, it gets into some pretty weird and heavy topics for a kids' show about 3 little girl superheroes. He's also one of the only characters in the series who has straight up been killed, aside from some sentient broccoli and the Rowdy Rough Boys.

Rocko's Modern Life is pretty well-known for having some pretty racy jokes thrown into the mix more or less all the time. There was one episode where Rocko was a phone operator for an adult phone line, an episode where the word "hell" is plainly shown in text.

In the very second episode of the show, the first segment is entitled "Leap Frogs". The whole plot of the episode is already pretty weird, which can be summed up by saying that his neighbor Beverly Bighead is feeling unfilled in her relationship. She then invites Rocko over to "help her out around the house". She appears naked in the episode, shares an adulterous kiss with Rocko, and they watch a tape of frog mating together.

As with every anime that exists, Pokemon has a beach episode. Weirdly enough though, this might just be one of the more risque beach episodes that's happened in an anime that's aired for children. There's a pretty frequent thing in the show where Jessie and James seem to enjoy dressing in drag pretty frequently, generally for the sakes of a disguise.

RELATED:The 10 Most Controversial Animated Disney Movies, Ranked

The issue isn't with the crossdressing, thee issue enters into the equation when James for some reason decides to don a bikini complete with an inflatable chest. Misty, who is a minor, also partakes in a bikini contest, and the fact that James' chest isn't as flat as hers is played for laughs since it's demoralizing.

In the 1984Spider-Man television series, for whatever reason, they decided that they wanted to bring in Morbius as a villain. The censorship that happens with this character is pretty dumb, but at the same time, it's pretty odd that they decided to include this character in the series anyway. Morbius, for anyone who doesn't know, is a vampire. A vampire who drinks blood.

For some reason, there's some weird restriction (or was) against saying the word "blood" or showing a character sucking blood in a children's cartoon. Their solution to this was to make Morbius drink plasma, and he uses suction cups in his hands to acquire it.

Daria was a series that kind of pushed the limits for its time, both on MTV and on a relic of the early 2000s, called The N. The show frequently explored themes of drugs and sexuality, and despite the fact that it was a cartoon specifically meant for adults and for teenagers, the fact that the show was a cartoon made both censors and parents uncomfortable with the concept of the show exploring such mature themes.

RELATED:15 Controversies That Almost Ended Pixar

Another issue is that a lot of the sexuality hinted at was not of the heterosexual variety, making homophobic parents in the 90s extremely upset. It's ludicrous that this type of thing would be censored, but it definitely put a damper on the show.

Heff In A Handbasket is an episode ofRocko's Modern Life. The show was already well known for going too far pretty frequently, already having the episodeLeap Frogs on this list. Apparently, they didn't learn their lesson, because the episodeHeff In A Handbasket happened.

There was already an episode where the show explored Hell pretty heavily, but this episode took the Satanic hell imagery to another level. For whatever reason, censors have a major problem with anything that could present Christianity in a questionable light, which is a reason that a lot of Japanese RPGs have been censored when being ported over.

Happening in season 1 ofThe Amazing World Of Gumball, Darwin and Gumball share a kiss with each other and then go on to talk about how great it was. Having characters kiss in really any kid's show is pretty weird in the first place, but for a lot of censors in other countries, the fact that it was shared by two boys is again what put it over the top.

For some reason, there's still tons of censorship when it comes to LGBTQ+ themes, which in our current year is pretty sad. Oh, the kiss was also an accident and it's played for laughs anyway, so it really makes no sense that it was cut.

NEXT:15 Controversies That Almost Ended Great TV Shows

Next 10 Things About SpongeBob SquarePants That Make No Sense

Cody is an author from Ohio. When he's not writing, he enjoys improv comedy, making music with friends, and consuming whatever media he can. Before working for Valnet mainly on the Screen Rant site, he got his writing experience in doing music reviews and comic book scripts.

View post:
10 Scenes From Classic Cartoons That Didn't Make It Past Censors - Screen Rant

Facebook censored two advertisements from the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony Lists, claiming the videos contained partly false information about Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden and VP Nominee Kamala Harriss views on late-term abortions.

The ads, which focus on the Democratic Partys position in support of abortion on demand and up until the moment of birth, were labeled by independent fact-checkers who claim to look carefully into claims from elected officials, reports from the media, and disinformation on social media to help you understand whats true and whats not.

The independent fact-checker, was NeverTrump website, The Dispatch, which labeled the ads as partly false because Biden has not explicitly stated that he supports late-term abortions, even though he has repeatedly said he wants no restrictions on a womans right to choose.

Biden has not expressed support for late-term abortionswhich, while not being a medical term, generally refers to abortions performed at 21 weeks or later. And neither candidate has voiced support for abortion up to the moment of birth, the fact-check reads.

Both Biden and Harris, however, have been very clear that they do not want restrictions on abortions, implying that late-term abortions would be approved.

Despite his flip-flopping on the issue, Biden now supports the revoking Hyde Amendment which would allow taxpayer-funding of abortion and advocates for federal funding of Planned Parenthood. He even claimed that he would make Roe v. Wade the law of the land if he is elected in November.

The only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation makingRoe the law of the land, said Biden. Thats what I would do.

The Dispatchs explanation of SBA Lists claims even quotes Biden saying that he votes for no restrictions on a womans right to be able to have an abortion under Roe v. Wade.

As National Reviews Ramesh Ponnuru notes, both Biden and Harris have sponsored bills that appear to keep abortion late in pregnancy legal even if the Supreme Court were to change its mind.

Harris supported the Womens Health Protection Act, which would codify Roe v. Wade and remove state restrictions on abortions and remove a prohibition on abortion after fetal viability. As a senator, Biden sponsored legislation to make abortion legal after viability in cases needed to protect health, but without ever defining what health protections that entailed.

The censorship comes just two days after Facebook announced it would be limiting distribution of the New York Posts bombshell story detailing former vice president Joe Bidens knowledge of his son Hunter Bidens foreign business dealings.

Big Tech and the media are teaming up to run interference for the Biden-Harris campaign on what is a losing issue for Democrats their shameful support for abortion on demand through birth, said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. This is the latest example of Facebook censoring political speech and is perfectly timed to shut down SBA Lists vital digital communications as we work to reach eight million voters in key battlegrounds in the final days before Election Day.

This is not the first time the pro-life advocates were censored by Facebook. In 2018, SBA List ran an ad criticizing Democratic Senate candidate Phil Bredesen for his abortion position, urging voters to consider the Republican candidate and now-Senator Marsha Blackburn. The ad was originally shut down by Facebook, but eventually reinstated.

When Facebook shut downsimilaradsof ours in 2018, they were forced to admit we were wrongly censored andapologized, Dannenfelser said. Now they have outsourced their censorship to the anti-Trump press, continually waging a suppression campaign specifically targeting pro-life conservative voices. We refuse to be silenced.

The group also keeps a running list on their website which shows almost 20 times pro-life information was censored by big tech.

Update: Shortly after this article was published, the Dispatch issued a statement claiming that the fact check was still in draft form and was accidentally published by the editorial staff.

The fact-check was published in error and in draft form, before it had been through final edits and our own internal fact-checking process, Editor and CEO of the Dispatch Stephen Hayes wrote. As a result, the viral post was assigned a partly false rating that we have determined is not justified after completing The Dispatchfact-checking process.

The Dispatch says that they have lifted the rating from the ads and apologized to the Women Speak Out PAC.

Despite their claims that the publication of the fact check was an accident, the Dispatch received backlash for retweeting the fact check article, which was posted to social media by the reporter three days before it was taken down.

Internal Facebook fact-checking procedure also requires fact-checking tags to be directly assigned by a person, which means that this partly false rating along with the link back to the Dispatchs article was personally approved by someone at the Dispatch or Facebook.

Anti-Trumper Jonah Goldberg, the Dispatchs editor-in-chief, however, failed to claim personal responsibility for the previously stated editorial error.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Follow this link:
NeverTrump Website The Dispatch Colludes With Big Tech To Censor SBA List's Pro-Life Ads - The Federalist

Even as the world wrestles with a pandemic and overbearing public health measures, some legislative bodies are taking the opportunity to tighten the screws on speech they don't like. Several bills have passed, others are pending, and one was gutted by court review, but all represent new fronts in government efforts to impose censorship.

For free speech advocates, the luckiest break might have been the fate of a law passed by the French National Assembly in May. While existing requirements give companies 24 hours to take down content alleged by the government to glorify terrorist activity or to constitute child pornography, the new law would have changed that to one hour. In addition, online publishers would have been allowed a day to remove so-called "hate speech."

"The same 24-hour obligation would have applied to content reported for violation of a law that criminalizes speech that promotes, glorifies, or engages in justification of sexual violence, war crimes, crimes against humanity, enslavement, or collaboration with the enemy; a law that criminalizes sexual harassment; and a law that bans pornography where it could be seen by a minoramong others," reports Jacob Schulz at Lawfare. "The law did not carve out any exceptions; the 24-hour rule would have applied even in the case of technical difficulties or temporary surge in notifications."

In June, France's Constitutional Court struck down the vast majority of the law as an unconstitutional threat to freedom of expression. That's really the only good news to report so far.

France's blocked hate-speech law was inspired by Germany's notorious NetzDG law, which makes online platforms liable for illegal content.

"Germany's Network Enforcement Law, or NetzDG requires social media companies to block or remove content that violates one of twenty restrictions on hate and defamatory speech in the German Criminal Code," Diana Lee wrote for Yale Law School's Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic. "In effect, the NetzDG conscripts social media companies into governmental service as content regulators," with millions of euros in fines hanging over their heads if they guess wrong.

That model of delegated censorship has proven to be as infectious as a viral outbreak, taking hold in over a dozen other countries.

"This raises the question of whether Europe's most influential democracy has contributed to the further erosion of global Internet freedom by developing and legitimizing a prototype of online censorship by proxy that can readily be adapted to serve the ends of authoritarian states," Justitia, a Danish judicial thinktank, warned in a 2019 report.

It's no surprise when countries like Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela emulate intrusive legislation from elsewherethey don't need much encouragement. But we've already seen that French legislators followed in Germany's lead, and lawmakers in the U.K. are poised to do the same.

"In the wrong hands the internet can be used to spread terrorist and other illegal or harmful content, undermine civil discourse, and abuse or bully other people," fretted a 2019 British government paper on "online harms." The paper specifically cited NetzDG as a potential legislative model.

Last week, British lawmakers debated the very broad powers that the government seeks.

Their proposals "introduce a new concept into law'legal but harmful' for online speech," cautions Ruth Smeeth of Index on Censorship. "It's conflating what is already illegal, such as incitement and threat, with speech which we may disagree with, but in a free society is, and should be, legal."

Austria is also considering a NetzDG-inspired law that would require the removal of "content whose 'illegality is already evident to a legal layperson'" explains Martin J. Riedl, a native Austrian and Ph.D. student at the University of Texas at Austin's School of Journalism and Media. The law would further encourage compliance by "forbidding their debtors (e.g., businesses who advertise on platforms) to pay what they owe to platforms" that don't conform to the law.

That's expected to encourage even more "overblocking" by platforms worried that they'll face a financial death penalty if they guess wrong as to content's legal status.

Still, Austrians may not be able to out-flank their role models. Germany this summer moved to make NetzDG even more restrictive by adding mandatory "hate speech" reporting requirements.

Brazilian lawmakers, too, are considering legislation that started as NetzDG-inspired before morphing into a campaign against so-called "fake news" (because, apparently, any excuse for controlling speech is a good excuse when you work in government).

"It is vague on the matter of what's considered fake news, which it describes as false or deceptive content shared with the potential to cause individual or collective harm," wrote Brazilian journalist Raphael Tsavkko Garcia for the MIT Technology Review. "This ambiguity leaves it to the state to decide what kind of content is considered false or potentially harmful, and could allow those in power to manipulate the definition for political gain."

The U.S. faces its own speech- and privacy-threatening legislation in the form of the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act of 2020. The legislation, which was introduced in the House of Representatives last month, invokes children and the dangers of child pornography on its way to threatening platforms with the loss of Section 230 protection against liability for content posted by users if they don't adopt government-dictated "best practices."

"The EARN IT bill would allow small website owners to be sued or prosecuted under state laws, as long as the prosecution or lawsuit somehow related to crimes against children," warns the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "We know how websites will react to this. Once they face prosecution or lawsuits based on other peoples' speech, they'll monitor their users, and censor or shut down discussion forums."

This world-wide wave of censorship legislation piggy-backs on pandemic-related concerns about the quality of information and the safety of communications available to people confined to their homes. It has sometimes been passed by legislatures empowered by health-related states of emergency. Yet again, a crisis eases the way for governments to accumulate powers that would face greater resistance in happier times.

"Governments around the world must take action to protect and promote freedom of expression during the COVID-19 pandemic, which many States have exploited to crack down on journalism and silence criticism," the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression warned in July.

That timely heads-up is hampered only by the fact that governments are well aware of the situationand consider it a feature, not a bug.

Read the original post:
German-Style Internet Censorship Catches On Around the World - Reason

The New York Times Guild, the union of employees of the paper of record, tweeted a condemnation on Sundayof one of their own colleagues, op-ed columnist Bret Stephens.Their denunciationwas marred by humiliating typos and even more so by creepy and authoritarian censorship demands and petulant appeals to management for enforcement of company rules against other journalists. To say that this is bizarre behavior from a union of journalists, of all people,is towoefullyunderstate the case.

What angered the union today was an op-ed by Stephens on Friday which voiced numerous criticisms of the Pulitzer Prize-winning 1619 Project, published last year by the New York Times Magazine and spearheaded by reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones. One of the Projects principal arguments was expressed by a now-silently-deleted sentence that introduced it: that the countrys true birth date is not 1776, as has long been widely believed, but rather late 1619, when, the article claims, the first African slaves arrived on U.S. soil.

Despite its Pulitzer, the 1619 Project has become a hotly contested political and academic controversy, with the Trump administration seeking to block attempts to integrate its assertions into school curriculums,while numerousscholars of history accuse it of radically distorting historical fact, with some, such as Brown Universitys Glenn Loury, calling on the Pulitzer Board to revoke its award. Scholars have also vocally criticized the Times for stealth edits of the articleskey claims long afterpublication, without even noting to readers that it made these substantive changes let aloneexplaining why it made them.

In sum, the still-raging political, historical, and journalistic debate over the 1619 Project has become a majorcontroversy. In his Friday column, Stephens addressed the controversy by first noting the Projects positive contributions and accomplishments,then reviewed in detail the critiques of historians and other scholars of its central claims, and then sided with its critics by arguing that for all of its virtues, buzz, spinoffs and a Pulitzer Prize the 1619 Project has failed.

Without weighing in on the merits of Stephenss critiques, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not, it is hardly debatable that his discussing thisvibrant multi-pronged debate issquarely within his functionas a political op-ed writer at a national newspaper. Stephens himself explained that he took the unusual step of critiquing his ownemployerswork because the 1619 Projecthas become, partly by its design and partly because of avoidable mistakes, a focal point of the kind of intense national debate that columnists are supposed to cover, contending that avoiding writing about it out of collegial deference is to be derelict in our responsibility to participate insocietys significant disputes.

But his colleagues in the New York Times Guildevidentlydo not believe that he had any right to express his views on these debates. Indeed, they are indignant that he did so. In a barely-literate tweet that not once buttwice misspelled the word its as its not a trivial level of ignorance for writers with the worlds most influential newspaper the union denounced Stephensand the paper itself on these grounds:

It is a short tweet, as tweets go, buttheyimpressively managed to pack it with multiple ironies, fallacies, and decreestypical of the petty tyrant. Above all else, thisstatement, and the mentality it reflects, is profoundly unjournalistic.

To start with, this is a case of journalists using their union not to demand greater editorial freedom or journalistic independence something one would reasonably expect from a journalists union but demanding its opposite: that writers at the New York Times be prohibited by management from expressing their views and perspectives about the controversies surrounding the 1619 Project.In other words: They are demanding that their own journalistic colleagues be silenced and censored. What kind of journalists plead with management for greater restrictions on journalistic expression rather than fewer?

Apparently, the answer is New York Times journalists. Indeed, this is not the first time they have publicly implored corporate management to restrict the freedom of expression and editorial freedom of their journalistic colleagues. At the end of July, the Guild issued a series of demands, one of which was that sensitivity reads should happen at the beginning of the publication process, with compensation for those who do them.

For those not familiar with sensitivity reads: consider yourself fortunate. As the New York Times itself reported in 2017, sensitivity readershave been used by book publishers to gut books that have been criticized, in order tovet the narrative for harmful stereotypes and suggested changes. The Guardian explained in 2018that sensitivity readers are a rapidly growing industry in the book publishing world to weed out any implicit bias or potentially objectionable material not just in storylines but even in characters. It quoted the author Lionel Shriver about the obvious dangers: there is, she said, a thin line between combing through manuscripts for anything potentially objectionable to particular subgroups and overt political censorship.

As creepy as sensitivity readers are for fiction writing and other publishing fields, it is indescribably toxic for journalism,which necessarily questions or pokes at rather than bows to the most cherished, sacred pieties. For it to be worthwhile, it must publish material reporting and opinion pieces thatmight be potentially objectionable to all sorts of powerful factions, including culturally hegemonic liberals.

But thisis a function which the New York Times Union wants not merely to avoid fulfilling themselves but, far worse, to deny their fellow journalists. They crave a whole new layer of editorial hoop-jumping in order to get published, a cumbersome, repressive new protocol for drawing even moreconstraining lines around what can and cannot be said beyond the restrictions already imposed by the standard orthodoxies of the Times and their tone-flattening editorial restrictions.

When journalists exploit their unions not to demand better pay, improved benefits, enhanced job security or greater journalistic independence but instead as an instrument for censoring their own journalistic colleagues, then the concept of unions and journalism is wildly perverted.

Then there is the tattletale petulance embedded in the Unions complaint. In demanding enforcement of workplace rules by management against a fellow journalist they do not specify which sacred rule Stephens allegedly violated these union members sound more like human resources assistant managers or workplace informants than they do intrepid journalists. Since when do unions of any kind, but especially unions of journalists, unite to complain that corporate managers and their editorial bosses have been too lax in the enforcement of rulesgoverning what their underlings can and cannot say?

The hypocrisy of the Unions grievance is almost too glaring to even bother highlighting, and is the least ofits sins. The union members denounce Stephens and the paper forgoing after one of its [sic] own and then, in the next breath, publicly vilify their colleagues column because, in their erudite view, it reeks. This is the same union whose members, just a few months ago, quite flamboyantly staged a multi-day social media protest a quite public one ina fit of rage becausethe papers Opinion Editor, James Bennet, published an op-ed by U.S. Senator Tom Cotton advocating the deployment of the U.S. military to repress protests and riots in U.S. cities; Bennet lost his job in the fallout. And many of these same union members now posturing as solemn, righteous opponents of publicly going after ones colleagues notoriously mocked, scorned, ridiculed, and condemned, first privately and then publicly, another colleague, Bari Weiss, until she left the paper, citing these incessant attacks.

Clearly this is not a union that dislikes public condemnations of colleagues. Whatever principle is motivating them, that is plainly not it.

Ive long been a harsh criticof Stephenss (and Weisss) journalism and opinion writing. But it would never occur to me to take steps to try to silence them. If they were my colleagues and published an article I disliked or expressed views I found pernicious, I certainly would not whine to management that they broke the rules and insist that they should not have been allowed to have expressed what they believe.

Thats because Im a journalist, and I know that journalism can have value only if it fosters divergent views and seeks to expand rather thanreduce the freedom of discourse and expression permitted by society and by employers. And whatever one wants to say about Stephenss career and record of writing and Ive had a lot of negative things to say about it harshly critiquingyour own employers Pulitzer-winning series, one beloved by powerful media, political and cultural figures, is thetypeof challenge to power that many journalists who do nothing but spout pleasing, popular pieties love to preen as embodying.

Therehas never been a media outlet where I have worked or where I have been published that did not frequently also publish opinions with which I disagree and articles I dislike, including the one in which I am currently writing. I would readily use my platforms to critique what was published, but it would never even occur to me take steps to try to prevent publication or, worse, issue pitiful public entreaties to management that Something Be Done. If youare eager to constrict the boundaries of expression, why would you choosejournalism of all lines of work? Itd be like someone whobelieves space travel to be an immoral wasteof resources opting to becomean astronaut for NASA.

Perhaps these tawdry episodes should be unsurprising. After all, one major reason that social media companies which never wanted the obligation tocensorbut instead sought to be content-neutral platforms for the transmission of communications in the mold of AT&T turned into active speech regulators was because the public, often led by journalists, began demanding that they censor more. Some journalists even devotesignificant chunks of their careerto publicly complaining thatFacebook and Twitterare failing to enforce their rules by not censoring robustly enough.

A belief in the virtues of free expression was once a cornerstone of the journalistic spirit. Guilds and unions fought against editorial control, notdemandedgreater amountsbe imposed by management. They defended colleagues when they were accused by editorial or corporatebosses of rules violations, not publicly tattled and invited, even advocated for, workplace disciplinary measures.

But a belief in free expression is being rapidly eclipsed in many societal sectors by a belief in the virtues of top-down managerial censorship, silencing, and enhanced workplace punishment for thought and speech transgressions. As this imperious but whiny New York Times Guildcondemnationreflects, this trend can be seen most vividly, and most destructively, in mainstream American journalism. Nothing guts the core function of journalism more than this mindset.

Update: Oct. 11, 2020, 8:40p.m. ETThe New York Times Guild moments ago deleted its tweet denouncing Stephens and the paper, and thenposted this:

See the rest here:
The New York Times Guild Once Again Demands Censorship Of Colleagues - The Intercept

Since late May, fact checks, censors, warnings and even removals have appeared on President Trumps social media posts. Throughout the pandemic, social media companies have been exposed for censoring all kinds of voices, like medical professionals, politicians, event organizers and even the president.

The problem many have with this censorship is that the majority of these voices appear to be conservative-leaning. Is it true that companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are silencing those with opinions they dont agree with? Is big tech truly infringing upon the First Amendment and taking away individuals and the presidents right to free speech?

While this narrative has been effective in stirring the emotions of those who agree with the voices being censored, its most likely not the case.

The censorship, which began as far back as March, was introduced by most big social media companies as a method to combat dangerous misinformation regarding the pandemic.

Misinformation is one of the biggest problems related to the pandemic and has made an incredibly complicated issue even more so. Removing harmful, incorrect information from social media sounds like a great step to prevent dangerous underreaction or overaction on a large scale.

However, this was much easier said than done.

Almost immediately, people started to take issue with new censorship policies when posts on Facebook were mistakenly blocked by a bug in their anti-spam system. The blocked posts included sources many thought to be legitimate and well recognized like Buzzfeed and USA Today. The bug was soon corrected, but the conspiracy theories had just begun.

Fox News Tucker Carlson spoke about a viral video on TouTube by doctors who were suggesting that the COVID-19 death count was heavily inflated and that serious policy changes were necessary. The video was taken down by YouTube, and Carlsons main argument was that media giants were silencing any form of dissent from the opinions of those in power. This may sound like something to be seriously worried about, but its actually the exact kind of misinformation that threatens our safety.

The doctors statements, thought by many to be a credible source of information, have since been completely debunked and proved to be filled with a variety of statistical errors. YouTube was right to censor this information as it was false and had it been spread any further, it couldve persuaded the millions who saw it to take the pandemic much less seriously and act accordingly.

On May 26, 2020, Twitter placed the first fact check warning on one of Trumps tweets. The president and many of his supporters were outraged, as it seemed as though Twitter was participating in partisan bias and trying to silence Trump for a difference in political views.

However, when the information contained in the tweet and the surrounding situation is examined closely, it becomes clear why this censorship was justified and necessary for American safety. The tweet was an argument for the theory that mail-in ballots are completely untrustworthy and shouldnt be used in the upcoming election. The reason Trump made this argument wasnt that it was true, but because he knows his supporters are more likely than the opposition to disobey quarantine standards and come out in larger numbers for an in-person event, as they have been for months, to protest the quarantine laws.

The tweet was a political move filled with misinformation that could still put people in danger. This is exactly the kind of censorship that isnt done because of partisan bias, but because false information could put our national health in danger.

Shortly after Trumps tweet was censored, a federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit claiming that these social media agencies were suppressing conservative views.

Evan Holden is a sophomore political science major. Contact Evan at holdened@dukes.jmu.edu.

Here is the original post:
Opinion | Is big social media censoring those they disagree with? - The Breeze