Mediaboss Marketing

[ sen-ser-ship ]SHOW IPA

/ snsrp /PHONETIC RESPELLING

the time during which a censor holds office.

the inhibiting and distorting activity of the Freudian censor.

OTHER WORDS FROM censorshipanticensorship, adjectiveprecensorship, nounprocensorship, adjectiveself-censorship, noun

Dictionary.com UnabridgedBased on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2019

The CDA was passed not in the name of censorship but in the name of protecting children from stumbling across sexual material.

Jordan also banned it, and Malaysia, Egypt, and Indonesia subjected it to their censorship boards.

To many of us, that smacks of censorship, the highest offense to our pride in self-publicity.

So this startling move towards Internet censorship should come as no surprise.

Ironically, Trotter had succeeded in tightening a censorship bill but failed to stop the movie.

And here ends our melancholy tale, which the censorship of the press in Russia prevented from ever before being publicly related.

Thus far it seemed, on such news as the censorship permitted to come through, that Maritz stood alone.

It represented the breaking forth of the unconscious into expression, controlled by a censorship on the part of the poet.

The audiencia had general authority over the inspection and censorship of books which were printed in the colony or imported.

By devious ways it had broken through the censorship of the frontier in cunning cipher.

censorship

a policy or programme of censoring

the act or system of censoring

psychoanal the activity of the mind in regulating impulses, etc, from the unconscious so that they are modified before reaching the conscious mind

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

Excerpt from:
Censorship | Definition of Censorship at Dictionary.com

When a news-worthy event happens, you can learn about it in a matter of minutes even when it happened hundreds of miles away. However, with the power to access all kinds of information at the tips of your fingertips, dont you ever wonder if there are some things that you would be better off not knowing about? This is where the role of media censorship comes into light. Media censorship is the act of monitoring information and determining if it should be broadcast, published, or televised. This is done for different reasons, such as protecting a persons privacy and avoiding the release of information that can affect a nations security. What are the advantages and disadvantages of allowing media censorship?

1. It protects children from extremely violent and sexual material.The internet, mobile phones, and television have made it easier for kids to access all kinds of content, even those that can negatively influence them. With media censorship children can surf the web and watch TV with more freedom while being protected from pornographic and heavily violent material.

2. It limits advertisements that can be harmful.Some ads promote products that can be harmful to peoples health, such as those that can influence body shaming, unhealthy eating habits, and addiction. It is understandable why these types of advertisements should be censored.

3. It helps control hate.The media can censor information that is slandering certain religions, race, companies, or individuals. This is helpful in avoiding the development of prejudice or discrimination based on false information or propaganda.

4. It helps protect security.There are instances when sharing sensitive information may do more harm than good. By screening what is being reported and making sure it is published in a proper and timely manner, you can avoid panic and chaos.

1. It encourages ignorance.Ignorance is a tool that can be used to control people and keep them unaware about what is really going on in their community. Censoring information about corruption and injustices means people will continue to be victims and of abuse and exploitation.

2. It promotes manipulation for personal gain.If the government is in charge of censoring media, politicians can use it to their advantage by allowing the publishing of information or advertisements only of companies, organizations, and other affiliations that support their political goals.

3. It limits education and awareness.War, poverty, terrorism, epidemics, and climate change are some of the most pressing issues society is faced with today. Sugarcoating or screening the information presented to the public could prevent people from knowing what is really going on in the world and hinder them from preparing for or addressing global issues.

4. It takes away the freedom of speech.The First Amendment of the American Constitution protects the freedom of speech, and this freedom is what the U.S. is built upon. Limiting what can and cannot be said or published by the media is taking away this basic right.

Media Censorship is a double-edged sword that, if used the wrong way, can be harmful to the one at the tip of the blade and the one who is holding the sword. So it is an idea that should be considered carefully and fairly.

Mar 11, 2016-Flow Psychology Editor

See original here:
8 Pros and Cons of Media Censorship | Flow Psychology

In the wake of Facebook banning right-wing radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, President Trump on Saturday questioned why mainstream news outlets critical of his administration are permitted to operate on social networking services like Twitter and Facebook.

Why is @nytimes, @washingtonpost, @CNN, @MSNBC allowed to be on Twitter & Facebook, Mr. Trump tweeted. Much of what they do is FAKE NEWS!

Mr. Trumps complaint came on the heels of Facebook recently banning a handful of accounts associated with high-profile users considered in violation of the companys policies prohibiting dangerous individuals and organizations, including several affiliated with the unabashedly pro-Trump Infowars website operated by right-wing media personality Alex Jones.

I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms, Mr. Trump tweeted Friday evening. This is the United States of America and we have whats known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!

Mr. Trump subsequently shared Infowars content from his Twitter account Saturday morning, including a video filmed by Infowars during a 2018 Trump rally and two tweets from Infowars editor Paul Joseph Watson, whose Facebook account was among several purged from the social network this week.

Twitter declined to comment when asked by The Washington Times about Mr. Trumps tweets. Representatives for Facebook did not immediately return a similar inquiry.

Facebook accounts belonging to Infowars, Mr. Jones and Mr. Watson were all removed the platform Thursday, in addition to accounts belonging to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan; Paul Nehlen, a far-right politician; former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos and activist and self-described investigative journalist Laura Loomer.

Weve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology, said a Facebook spokesperson. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.

Speaking to The Washington Times, Mr. Jones said that the president has been way behind the curve on combatting social media censorship and called it one of his biggest failings

This is extremely dangerous, said Mr. Jones. We are having our First Amendment totally destroyed.

If people dont have the instinct to stand up then everybody is going to get what they deserve. Everybody. This is about the general public having their rights taken, Mr. Jones said in an interview. Ive been targeted because Im a flamboyant person they can take out of context hoping nobody stands up for me, and when nobody stands up for me then the dominoes start falling.

Go here to read the rest:
Trump 'monitoring and watching' social media censorship ...

One thing weve learned over the past three years of ever-tightening social media censorship is that where one tech giant goes, the others often follow.

Just look at the mass-ban of Infowars that occurred last September. At the urging of CNN and others, one Silicon Valley company after another dropped the controversial independent media outlet from their platforms. First Apple, then Facebook, then Spotify, then YouTube, then Twitter most of these in a 48-hour window.

Its a tech censorship domino effect. Remember that these companies are beset by constant pressure from left-wing advocacy organizations, from the mainstream media, and from their own far-left employees to censor and blacklist the right. When one company buckles, those forces have the ammunition they need to force other companies to buckle too.

Apple did something! Why arent we doing something too?

Thats probably how the conversation went among Facebook employees in the window between Apples ban of Infowars and Facebooks. Thus the domino effect began.

This time its Facebook raising the bar of censorship, with its introduction of politically motivated link-banning. Not only have they banned Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones personal account, but theyve also promised to delete any links to Infowars that appear on the platform, and ban anyone who tries to post them too often.

This is a formula not just for banning high-profile political targets, but masses of their supporters as well. Its a tool for culling the anti-establishment grassroots.

The second thing Facebook has done is set a public precedent for targeting individuals not just for alleged violations of the terms of service on their part, but also on the basis of their connections to banned figures.

According tothe Verge, a Facebook representative explained that one factor in yesterdays bans was the fact that the banned individuals had appeared in videos or praised people like Gavin McInnes and Tommy Robinson, who have previously been banned by the platform.

In other words, its not just posting links. If you praise the wrong person, pose for a selfie with them, or worse appear in a video with them you could be banned too.

This is censorship on a new scale, censorship Facebook-style. The platforms slogan was once connect the world now its using its knowledge of those connections to censor not just individuals, but entire social networks and movements.

The only question is, will other companies now follow suit? Will independent personalities on YouTube be banned for interviewing the wrong person? If you invite Alex Jones on your Periscope channel, will that be banned too? What about Amazon, Discord, Spotify? Game streaming platform Twitch is already ahead of the curve, having a person banned from Twitch on your Twitch stream can result in your own banning.

Remember, this is far-left Silicon Valley were talking about. You can practically hear the employees of those companies, berating their upper management.

Facebook took a stand against hate speech! Why arent we?

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow himon Twitter,Gab.aiandadd him on Facebook.Email tips and suggestions toallumbokhari@protonmail.com.

Read more:
Bokhari: Beware the Big Tech Censorship Domino Effect ...

Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

In HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship (Oxford University Press), the constitutional scholar Nadine Strossen recalls the first time she was subjected to an anti-Semitic slur. Although she was a well-educated young adult when targeted, she was nonetheless stunned into silence. That did not last long. Strossen later became a leading champion of freedom of expression. She has served as president of the American Civil Liberties Union (1991 to 2008) and has persistently propounded the key tenet of engaged pluralism More speech! against the reflexive upshot of fear and disgust Ban it! Now she has come forward with a splendid, accessible, instructive book that could not be more timely.

Strossen argues that, except in tightly defined circumstances, it is a mistake to attempt to deploy the coercive force of the government to eliminate so-called hate speech speech that expresses hostility, detestation, contempt, or any related animus against individuals or groups. She accepts governmental suppression of this category of speech in an emergency, when there is no opportunity for deliberation or counter-speech, or when a speaker is directly threatening or harassing an individual. She resists suppression, however, when the basis for it is a conclusion that the type of speech in question is too hurtful, too vicious, or too loathsome to allow.

She acknowledges, quoting the Supreme Court, that speech is powerful, that it can stir people to action and inflict great pain. She concedes that malevolent expression can scald sensibilities and intimidate the vulnerable. She insists, however, that the cure of censorship is worse than the disease of hate speech. Even worse than speechs potential power to harm individuals and society, she maintains, is governments potential power to do likewise, by enforcing hate speech laws. Predictably, this elastic power will be used to silence dissenting ideas, unpopular speakers, and disempowered groups.

Continue reading here:
Is the Cure of Censorship Better than the Disease of Hate ...