Mediaboss Marketing

Conservative commentator Mark Levin slammed Facebook for censoring his page and accused them of trying to influence the election to help Democrats.

Levin posted the screenshot of a message he received from Facebook accusing him of publishing fake news and throttling the distribution of his posts.

"Facebook has just sent us this message. It's a clear effort at censorship. Every link I post is from a legitimate source," he tweeted.

"Your Page has reduced distribution and other restrictions because of repeated sharing of false news," the notice from the social media giant read. "People will also be able to see if a Page has a history of sharing false news.

Levin, who is also a BlazeTV host of the "LevinTV" show, continued his criticism in a second tweet.

"But because so many people are seeing what I'm posting and we're within weeks of the election it's clear that Facebook is trying to influence the election's outcome," Levin tweeted.

"It's also clear Facebook is pushing a leftwing agenda," he added.

Facebook has been criticized by many on the right for censoring content and content creators who dissent from the liberal agenda. The social media giant has also been criticized on the left for not censoring right-wing voices enough.

In a statement about reducing fake news, Facebook explained their use of third-party fact-checkers to censor specific news outlets.

"If the fact-checking organizations identify a story as false, it will get flagged as disputed and there will be a link to a corresponding article explaining why. Stories that have been disputed also appear lower in News Feed," they explained.

In 2018, PragerU accused Facebook of removing their videos and censoring other posts. The social media company later apologized and said their actions were made in error. "It's deliberate censorship of conservative ideas," said PragerU.

Mark Levin: If We Don't Teach Children to Love This Country, We Won't Survivewww.youtube.com

(H/T: The Right Scoop)

Continued here:
Mark Levin accuses Facebook of censoring him in order to influence the election - TheBlaze

The word censorship is laden with negative connotations, bringing to mind dystopian threats to the right to freedom of speech and expression. Allowing censorship in a society can absolutely open up a can of worms that may lead to injustice or even be a form of injustice in itself. Still, I would resist the idea that censorship is inherently unacceptable. In fact, I would argue that more censorship in American society could be beneficial to our social and political world.

Although the word censorship sounds and often is scary, there are a variety of different forms of censorship that already exist in our society, permeating our lives without impinging upon our personal freedoms. A prime example would be the precedent set by the Schenck v. United States Supreme Court decision, which ruled that the First Amendment is not applicable to incendiary language which could lead to actual danger, panic or harm. The classic example of such a statement is yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Another sense in which we already accept censorship is the restriction of the use of slurs over time. Of course, this restriction exists largely on a personal basis, and there are many people who still weaponize problematic terms as a means of oppression. Still, recent years have brought about a greater social stigma for using slurs, which does act as a deterrent to many. Because it is now possible to face consequences ranging from losing your employment or scholarships to being relentlessly harassed on social media, using offensive language is not a protected freedom; thus, it is censorship.

Just because telling people to not use slurs is a form of censorship does not mean that we should all be free to use offensive language in fact, my point is the antithesis of that sentiment. I mean to articulate that this limitation is a restriction of freedom of speech, but not a restriction of freedom of people. Rather, by restricting use of slurs, the people to whom the words refer can enjoy greater freedom. Thus, in this instance, censorship is beneficial.

A parallel argument could be made for the censoring of the expression of the rhetoric which underlies slurs. Any writing or speech that is definitively racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or otherwise intolerant to particular identities must be handled very carefully. Although understanding hateful discourse is a necessary part of overcoming or combatting it, the act of interpreting written or spoken information is inherently subjective, and there is no way to ensure that people can be trusted to understand a given text fully. Think about it: there are people who read J. D. Salingers The Catcher in the Rye and thought Holden Caulfield was a cool guy, someone to admire rather than someone to try to avoid becoming, effectively missing the point of the entire novel.

Exposure to information can help harmful ideas take root in a persons mind, even if the piece itself aims to be critical of the harms presented. Socrates made a similar argument in his critique of writing as a whole: because writing is open to interpretation, it cannot refuse to be read, or answer to questions or concerns of the reader. For this reason, he argued that some people should not read certain things, as it runs the risk of dilution or bastardization of ideas.

As crazy as it might sound, I am with Socrates on this one. For example, I think it is dangerous for a high school teacher to disperse racist texts to a classroom of students for the purpose of acknowledging the role of racism in literary history. The students, whether they desire to be hateful or may simply subconsciously adopt detrimental ideals, now have in their minds a model for expressing hateful rhetoric. Of course, some level of critical analysis can mitigate this potential harm; still, this is risky business, considering that literary interpretation is difficult and cannot be a baseline expectation in a classroom setting.

Because the circulation of oppressive ideologies through language has and will continue to contribute to the perpetuation of hatred, we need to prioritize and provide a platform for historically marginalized voices. This cannot happen without first deplatforming the voices of those who have historically have done the marginalizing. I would personally support the idea of banning old white men, for example, from publishing novels until racial and sexual discrimination are not so prevalent in our society.

This proposal is controversial, and I imagine you might object that surely there are some old white men who have written important novels that either werent racist and sexist or could be taught responsibly. I reply simply that they have had all of history to speak freely; censoring them could allow for other voices to be present in the public collective consciousness. Of course, there are individuals who dont fit all dimensions of that identity who produce harmful content. J.K. Rowling, a white female transphobe, is a perfect example of this. Still, by restricting the right to publish writing of old white men, we could at least prevent the perpetuation of rhetoric which is oppressive along all those identity axes J. K. Rowling can still produce hateful writing, but at the very least, it wont be as sexist as that which a man might create.

Censorship is always a slippery slope, but that does not mean that it is always bad. The question of who or what should be censored is nuanced and never going to be universally agreed upon. It still stands that we already do accept certain forms of censorship, yet paradoxically believe that we have a right to freedom of speech. I, for one, dont see an issue with restricting the freedom of speech of people who have had literal centuries to express themselves, especially in the name of making our society an environment that can be conducive to positive social change. Let marginalized identities speak and write freely, and perhaps our world will come to let this formative influence shape society into something better for all.

View post:
Reassessing censorship The Campus - The Campus

The Chin National League for Democracy (CNLD) said it has withdrawn its election address for State-owned TV as the Union Election Commission (UEC) has censored key policy statements and deleted them from their election address declared, Salai Ceu Bik Thawng, General Secretary of the CNLD.

We oppose it as this amounts to barring the political parties from freely expressing their political policy and this violates he democratic norms and fails to respect the political stance of the ethnics he added.

In the last week of September, the Peoples Party led by U Ko Ko Gyi who is an 88 Generation Student Leader said his party was also victims of censorship by the UEC. The People's Party declared they would not telecast its election address via the State-owned TV as its policy and program were censored.

Salai Ceu Bik Thawng, general secretary of the CNLD recalls this is not the first time they have been victims of the UEC deleting parts of their program.

The UEC removed many words in the 2017 By-Election The CNLD general secretary continued, Now we face a similar problem again. The party decided not to carry out the broadcast. The deleted paragraphs are the partys major policy and program aimed at the entire Chin people, according to the statement released on October 3.Salai Ceu Bik Thawng specified The main point is our ethnics, parties and armed organizations support the policy of the ethnic-based state as a key characteristic of a federal system. The Chin State is an ethnic-based state. There can also be a Bamar-based State.

While the 2008 constitution would have to be reformed to accommodate this Chin proposal, it is hard to imagine how the UEC can justify their decision to water down the essence of the CNLD manifesto.

The CNLD draft for broadcast also mentioned Local armed conflict is due to the fact that the ethnic minorities feel that they are overwhelmed by the Bamar Chauvinism.

It is understandable that the UEC whose composition is based on Bamar, the majority ethnic group in Myanmar, would not like the CNLDs criticism of Bamar Chauvinism. But all ethnic minorities expect the election commission to be independent, neutral and serving the entire nation.

In the 2020 General Election, the CNLD formed with three Chin parties will compete in 57 constituencies in Sagaing Region, Magway Region, Arakan State and Chin State.

See the article here:
Elections Commission accused of Censorship of Chin Party election address via State-owned TVs and radios - Burma News International

"It's laughable to put talking about alternatives to capitalism on par with racism."

Youth organisations and democracy activists have hit out at new teaching advice for schools in England, which critics say risks censoring left-wing perspectives.

A coalition of organisations and activists has written to the Education Secretary Gavin Williamson, to challenge new guidance for Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) released last week.

The DfEsPlan your relationships, sex and health curriculumdocument urges schools against using resources produced by organisations that take extreme political stances. Examples cited by the Department for Education include a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections, SchoolsWeek reported.

Now a letter coordinated by Shout Out UK, an educational platform and social enterprise which works with young people, warns that the new guidance risks creating a culture of censorship.

The 31 signatories include the Association for Citizenship Teaching, the Centre for Education and Youth, Young Citizens, as well as progressive campaigners including LGBT+ campaigner Peter Tatchell and Compass director Neal Lawson.

It is not clear how many schools ever draw on explicitly anti-capitalist resources in the RSE teaching.

The Socialist Educational Association said it was strange that a document which purports to be about guidance in implementing RSE suddenly lurches off into diktats about the dangers of exposing children to material promoting extreme political positions, adding: What is the government trying to achieve? The guidance has been seen as a new plank of the governments culture war against cancel culture, no-platforming, and trans issues.

In response to a question from Left Foot Forward, Keir Starmers spokesman said: Gavin Williamson should stop seeking cheap headlines and start sorting out the crises he has overseen in his department.

Matteo Bergamini, CEO and Founder of Shout Out UK, told LFF: I am proud to be leading a coalition of organisations in the political education and democracy promotion sectors in response to the latest RSE guidelines. Its laughable to put talking about alternatives to capitalism on par with racism. Learning about alternatives enhances positive debate and democracy. Censorship solves nothing.

Letter in full

Dear Mr Williamson,

We write this joint open letter as a coalition of organisations in the political education and democracy promotion sectors to raise our concerns about the Departments guidance on relationships, sex and health education (RSE) issued on Thursday 24th September 2020.

We acknowledge that this guidance has been issued to schools in the context of RSE, not the PSHE umbrella it sits within, but we are nonetheless concerned about the precedent this may set for other aspects of the curriculum, and the impact it may have on teachers confidence to cover political topics.

The guidance states that: Schools should not under any circumstances use resources produced by organisations that take extreme political stances on matters, and provides a non-exhaustive list of examples. Our concerns revolve around this point in particular.

As advocates for widening access to education about political issues, we implore the government to consider that this regulation has the potential to censor the already minimal discussion of politics in schools.The guidelines serve to deny students the opportunity to engage with material from extreme sources in a classroom environment, precluding informed debate and discouraging critical thinking.Political education continues to be either inadequate or completely absent for most students in the UK; we want to ensure that any window of opportunity to discuss politics is as wide as possible.

With respect to this guidance, which is non-statutory implementation guidance, we seek urgent clarification on the following points:

Students must be armed with the Political and Media Literacy skills to ensure that they can understand and discuss political issues with a critical mindset. Extreme political organisations will exist whether or not schools are allowed to discuss them in the classroom, but this guidance deprives students of the chance to tackle them head-on. Politics necessitates dialogue and the continual contestation of ideas. Schools should be a safe place for this to happen without fear of recrimination or censorship.

Signed By

The views expressed in this letter represent those of the signatories and not necessarily their organisations or employers.

Josiah Mortimeris co-editor of Left Foot Forward.

As youre here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But theres a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the rights hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

Were not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isnt free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as 1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, were so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

See the original post here:
Education figures hit out 'censorship' of anti-capitalism in new teaching guidance - Left Foot Forward

By Deneeka Baker, Crystal Lopez and Hailey Roy

Some might argue that Labor Day is the only holiday in September, however, those of us who work in libraries know better. Because of all the hoopla surrounding this important 2020 election, many probably dont realize that we recently had Banned Books Week. Books are banned for a variety of reasons. Racism, violence, negativity, and point of view are a few of them, but is censorship helpful? Why ban books about controversial topics we, as a human society, are bound to experience at least once in our lifetime? Literature helps us navigate our world by bringing light to uncomfortable and challenging topics.

This years American Library Association theme is Censorship is a dead end. Find your freedom to read. We with all of the turmoil presently in our country, we encourage you to read a banned book to open your mind to new ideas even if you dont agree with them. Books on the banned list include:

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie;

Bone (series) by Jeff Smith;

The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger;

Captain Underpants (series) by Dav Pilkey;

The Handmaids Tale by Margaret Atwood;

Internet Girls (series) by Lauren Myracle;

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee;

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou;

Its a Book by Lane Smith;

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck;

Skippyjon Jones by Judith Byron;

So Far from the Bamboo Grove by Yoko Kawashima Watkins.

Google the Top 100 Most Banned and Challenged Books: 2010 - 2019.

In some cases, one of us thinks the temporary banning of books is appropriate. Parents may restrict their underage children from reading explicit content. In most cases, we all agree that we must educate ourselves through the power of books to prevent ignorance and one-dimensional views.

The 1982 court case of Island Trees School District v. Pico stemmed from a parent group complaint that the school board was too lenient with its library book policies. The school removed the books by authors Langston Hughes, Kurt Vonnegut and more. Students challenged this decision all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled, on First Amendment grounds, that school officials were not allowed to ban books in libraries because of subject material. Banned Books Week began in the 1980s, but, unfortunately, books are still being banned today.

Deneeka Baker, is Library Assistant/College Student; Crystal Lopez, is Library Assistant/College Student; and Hailey Roy is Shelver/High School Student at the SONO branch of the Norwalk Public Library.

Read more:
Opinion: Open your mind to new ideas Read a banned book - Thehour.com