Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

SFMOMA employees accused the institution of racism and censorship in an open letter. – Artsy

A group of current and former employees of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) have criticized the museum for what they consider to be deep institutional inequities, citing recent layoffs and the censoring of a former staff member on social media. The open letter, which includes input from more than 12 former workers, calls for changes in leadership and an artist boycott.

Yesterday, some former SFMOMA staffers posted a letter to Instagram in support of Taylor Brandon, a Black staff member in the institutions communication department whose comment calling out SFMOMAs response to the recent Black Lives Matter protests on the museums Instagram page was censored. Her comment, which was posted last month, stated that museum leadership has a history of using black pain for their own financial gain. It was swiftly deleted by the museum.

SFMOMA director Neal Benezra has since made a public apology for the removal of Brandons comment. Benezra wrote in a statement quoted by ARTnews: The decision to limit comments was not consistent with our values as a museum. I take full responsibility for the museums actions. Brandon, the sole Black communications staff member at SFMOMA until April, recently launched an organization called No Neutral Alliance. Spurred in part by the current events at SFMOMA, Brandon started the alliance with the intention of holding museums responsible for their unjust treatment of Black employees, artists, and supporters.

This letter comes as cultural institutions across the country face demands from current and former employees for increased diversity and inclusion in the workplace, as well as long term commitments to examining their institutional role in perpetuating systemic racism. Earlier this week, curators at the Guggenheim Museum issued a letter to museum leadership demanding more equitable practices within the institution. Employees at the Jewish Museum in New York have also addressed a letter to museum director Claudia Gould making similar demands.

See original here:
SFMOMA employees accused the institution of racism and censorship in an open letter. - Artsy

Fox News Host Tucker Carlson Blasts Alleged Big Tech Censorship: By Offensive, They Mean The Left Doesnt Like It – Deadline

Fox News host Tucker Carlson has blasted several big social media sites, saying their warning labels and other tactics amount to censorship of conservative voices. He warned of a slippery slope that could lead to erasing points of view from the landscape.

In his monologue Friday night on Tucker Carlson Tonight, the commentator issued a sarcastic apology about his airing of a parody travelogue video on the Seattle Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ)

I want to apologize if you found what you just saw, hateful, disgusting, [or] if you were traumatized by watching it, Carlson said. Twitters very concerned you might be. We posted that fake ad on Twitter. Twitter flagged it as potentially sensitive content and then they hid it from view.

What were they saying? They were saying, Beware, keep your kids from watching this. Whats the justification for warning people of that? We have no idea, Carlson said. Probably that its edited video. Of course, they never flag a clip from The Onion or The Daily Show. Obviously, you know why.

Carlson also talked about prior YouTube notes on his June 1 show, which discussed the widespread protests across America in the wake of George Floyds death.

It says this, The following content has been identified by the YouTube community, whatever that is, as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences, Carlson said. By offensive, they mean that the left doesnt like it. And that is the new standard. And theres only one response under that standard: Silence the person who disagrees with you. Thats why censorship is now everywhere. Its why the tech companies started censoring the president. Its why theyre getting more and more aggressive in silencing you.

Carlson then warned about the progression of such censorship.

Today, its offensive content labels, soon you know whats going to happen? Itll be erased. Its digital, its not hard to erase it, Carlson said. Well never give in, obviously. The lefts goal is to make dissent invisible and therefore irrelevant. Meanwhile, these same tech companies make it very easy for 12-year-olds to watch hardcore pornography. They have no problem with that at all.

But political views they disagree with?No, Carlson added. Gone with the Wind? Too scary. Tells you everything about what they care about and who they are.

Watch the video for the complete monologue.

Originally posted here:
Fox News Host Tucker Carlson Blasts Alleged Big Tech Censorship: By Offensive, They Mean The Left Doesnt Like It - Deadline

Opinion – The Daily Orange

This letter is in reference to The Daily Oranges recent removal of a conservative columnist. Read our editor-in-chiefs response here.

Dear Editors,

I recently read on the Fox News website an article by Brian Flood about a student journalist, Adrianna San Marco, who was fired as a columnist at The Daily Orange for claiming in LifeZette that institutional racism is a myth. I know, of course, that Fox News is biased. But if the facts as stated are true, I find them very disturbing. It seems to me a clear example of censorship.

Although I believe that racism is systemic in America if by that is meant a phenomenon that is deeply rooted in American history and very widespread, San Marco is entitled to her opinion. Her firing by The Daily Orange, I understand, is not a violation of the First Amendment: The Daily Orange is not a government entity. I also know that a racially charged atmosphere has of late prevailed at Syracuse University (which, as an alumnus, saddens me) and that there are those who would be disturbed by San Marcos comments. Yet I believe that a university is a place where differing views should be open for reasoned debate because this facilitates learning.

To fire San Marco for her opinion implies that The Daily Orange is the guardian of truth or right, and that those who deviate from current orthodoxy as defined by the newspaper must be banned. To me, this seems anti-intellectual and is reminiscent of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

Would it not be better to have San Marco write a column for The Daily Orange in which she must present evidence in support of her thesis that institutional racism is not systemic in America, and an opposing column following hers that presents the evidence that institutional racism is systemic in America? This would be a learning experience for SU students. Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion on this issue.

James M. Donovan

Professor of History

Penn State Mont Alto

Syracuse University PhD, 1982

Published on June 22, 2020 at 1:23 pm

Here is the original post:
Opinion - The Daily Orange

Exclusive: Why Hong Kong political artist Kacey Wong is optimistic despite the looming threat of censorship – Hong Kong Free Press

In an exclusive live interview with HKFP, artist Kacey Wong has said that the future of Hong Kong dissident art will be new, alternative platforms, adding that the national security law will only galvanise creativity in Hong Kong.

The Cornell-educated artist who describes himself as a cultural fireman is known for his political performance art. He has targeted issues including the Tiananmen Massacre, Chinese censorship and the national anthem law. His 2018 protest performance piece, The Patriot, shows him playing the Chinese national anthem on an accordion from inside a red cage outside the Chinese Government complex of Hong Kong.

Addressing fears surrounding the looming national security law and its potential effect on political art, Wong said the law was instead likely to be targeted at seizing capital from the citys wealthy. For people like you and me, they will just send police and hooligans to beat us up, he says, Thats how it works in the mainland: they rule by fear.

He added that the fear of offending China within the Hong Kong art world existed long before the introduction of the national security law: We have been seeing [within] government-run art institutions, curators and higher management self-censoring. This is understandable, as most museums are under LCSD [Leisure and Cultural Services Department], which is under Home Affairs.

Wong said that the recent government promotional campaign in favour of the national security law may result in tighter self-censorship. The Home Affairs is basically a local propaganda machine Can museums and critical [decision makers] bypass their influence? I think the answer is no. [Museums] will watch which kinds of artists they are hiring and exhibiting very closely.

In the near future, Wong well known for his public performance art eyes alternative and online platforms for exhibiting art to keep pushing the boundaries of what art and where art can be.

If you continue to think in the old paradigm you will never be able to have true freedom.

Since the 2014 pro-democracy Umbrella Movement, Wong has sought to push the boundaries of art as a means of political dissent on the streets. Im not saying art on the street is better than traditional art galleriesbut its important to think out of the box. This is how we can do something authentic [for] the society. Art is about how artists feel about the spirit of the time.

The popularity of the growing number of grassroots art spaces, like Parallel Space in Sham Shui Po gives him hope: These spaces are very smallbut if you go there you see the queue waiting to go in. They go around the block, almost.

Were in a stage where we dont have to rely on traditional venues, he adds. Authenticity and genuine care and love are more valuable than a prestigious venue. This is why you see so many peopleeven under the conditions of a pandemic queue [ing] up to support the yellow economy. This is a game changer for business and culture.

According to Wong, the future of Hong Kong dissident art also lies outside of the city. Since the [2014] Umbrella Revolution, there was a lot of concern abroad. A lot of genuine curiosity about how the Hong Kong people fight for freedom and liberty in support of democracy. They want to learn from us.

He has exhibited his work about the Hong Kong struggle internationally in the past year, with exhibitions in Paris, Japan and Taiwan.

We have to continue to test the water. In the past five years, I have been experimenting. He points to his work from 2018, when he joined the July 1 protests in a pink tank. But that time of freedom is already gone, its not possible right now. The streets are becoming more and more dangerous.

Wong is not just referring to police brutality: Im talking about the blue ribbon uncles [who] will suddenly beat you upor the triads. This is a very disturbing time. he says. In terms of my own art, I [have] started to do hidden performances, rather than with props. The reason is very practical, when shit hits the fan, you can run really fast.

Commenting on the recent cancellation of an RTHK comedy programme and the value of satire, Wong believes the form is a fundamental part of Hong Kong identity. I think its in the spirit of all Hong Kong people. In the 80s, Hong Kong was super famous for producing silly, satirical movies we exported around the world, he says, this [has been] part of our lives since day one.

Wong thinks the attempt to quash comedy is futile. Once you start to stop people from laughing, there are two possible reactions. One is you laugh even harder, he says.

The power of comedy and satire is that it helps people to relax, he adds, If you let people vent out their anger by laughing, the anger will dissipate If you stop them from laughing, they get angrier and angrier. This is whats happening in Hong Kong. It doesnt help the society.

When asked how the new law will affect the future of art in Hong Kong, Wong is optimistic. I have been teaching for 16 years and something Ive learnt about creativity it needs limitation. The greater the limitation, the greater the creativity.

Im so glad to see so many brave young HK artist who are stepping up against this unjust law. Thats why you see all these nice, interesting shows popping up everywhere in Hong Kong right now. Even if they pass [national security law], theyll just change the code a bit.

SIGN UP to HKFP Dim Sum a weekly summary of our best content

Emails are sent every Friday. Unsubscribe at any time. HKFP will not share your details with third parties.

Success! You've joined the HKFP Dim Sum mailing list

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

He is confident the oncoming security law wont be a deterrent: You cant stop people from laughing, its like stopping them from breathing. Theyll laugh more.

Additional reporting: Tom Grundy.

Read more:
Exclusive: Why Hong Kong political artist Kacey Wong is optimistic despite the looming threat of censorship - Hong Kong Free Press

Trials of Portnoy: when Penguin fought for literature and liberty – The Conversation AU

One grey morning in October 1970, in a crowded, tizzy-pink courtroom on the corner of Melbournes Russell and La Trobe Streets, crown prosecutor Leonard Flanagan began denouncing a novel in terms that were strident and ringing.

When taken as a whole, it is lewd, he declared. As to a large part of it, it is absolutely disgusting both in the sexual and other sense; and the content of the book as a whole offends against the ordinary standards of the average person in the community today the ordinary, average persons standard of decency.

The object of Flanagans ire that day was the Penguin Books Australia edition of Portnoys Complaint. Frank, funny, and profane, Philip Roths novel about a young man torn between the duties of his Jewish heritage and the autonomy of his sexual desires had been a sensation the world over when it was published in February 1969.

Greeted with sweeping critical acclaim, it was advertised as the funniest novel ever written about sex and called the autobiography of America in the Village Voice. In the United States, it sold more than 400,000 copies in hardcover in a single year more, even, than Mario Puzos The Godfather and in the United Kingdom it was published to equal fervour and acclaim.

But in Australia, Portnoys Complaint had been banned.

Read more: Philip Roth was the best post-war American writer, no ifs or buts

Politicians, bureaucrats, police, and judges had for years worked to keep Australia free of the moral contamination of impure literature. Under a system of censorship that pre-dated federation, works that might damage the morals of the Australian public were banned, seized, and burned. Bookstores were raided. Publishers were policed and fined. Writers had been charged, fined and even jailed.

Seminal novels and political tracts from overseas had been kept out of the country. Where objectionable works emerged from Australian writers, they were rooted out like weeds. Under the censorship system, Boccacios Decameron had been banned. Nabokovs Lolita had been banned. Joyces Ulysses had been banned. Even James Bond had been banned.

There had been opposition to this censorship for years, though it had become especially notable in the past decade. Criticism of the bans on J.D. Salingers The Catcher in the Rye and Norman Lindsays Redheap had prompted an almost complete revision of the banned list in 1958.

The repeated prosecutions of the Oz magazine team in 1963 and 1964 had attracted enormous attention and controversy.

Outcry over the bans on Mary McCarthys The Group and D.H. Lawrences Lady Chatterleys Lover had been loud and pronounced, and three intrepid Sydney activists had exposed the federal government to ridicule when they published a domestic edition of The Trial of Lady Chatterley, an edited transcript of the failed court proceedings against Penguin Books UK for the publication of Lady Chatterleys Lover in Britain in 1960.

Read more: Friday essay: the Melbourne bookshop that ignited Australian modernism

Penguin Books Australia had been prompted to join the fight against censorship by the three idealistic and ambitious men at its helm: managing director John Michie, finance director Peter Froelich, and editor John Hooker.

In five years, the three men had overhauled the publisher, improving its distribution machinery and logistics and reinvigorating its publishing list. They believed Penguin could shape Australian life and culture by publishing interesting and vibrant books by Australian authors.

They wanted Penguins books to engage with the political and cultural shifts that the country was undergoing, to expose old canards, question the orthodox, and pose alternatives.

Censorship was no small topic in all this. Those at Penguin saw censorship as an inhibition on these ambitions. Wed had issues with it before, in minor ways, Peter Froelich recalled, and wed have drinks wed say, Its wrong! How can we fix it? What can we do? How do we bring it to peoples attention, so that it can be changed?

The answer emerged when they heard of the ban placed on Portnoys Complaint. Justifiably famous, a bestseller the world over, of well-discussed literary merit, it stood out immediately as a work with which to challenge the censorship system, just as its British parent company had a decade earlier.

Why not obtain the rights to an Australian edition, print it in secret, and publish it in one fell swoop? As Hooker who had the idea put it to Michie, Jack, we ought to really publish Portnoys Complaint and give them one in the eye.

The risks were considerable. There was sure to be a backlash from police and politicians. Criminal charges against Penguin and its three leaders were almost certain. Financial losses thanks to seized stock and fines would be considerable. The legal fees incurred in fighting charges would be enormous. Booksellers who stocked the book would also be put on trial. But Penguin was determined.

John Michie was resolute. John offered to smash the whole thing down, Hooker said, later. When he was told what was about to happen, federal minister for customs Don Chipp swore that Michie would pay: Ill see you in jail for this. But Michie was not to be dissuaded.

In July 1970, Penguin arranged to have three copies of Portnoy smuggled into Australia. In considerable secrecy, they used them to print 75,000 copies in Sydney and shipped them to wholesalers and bookstores around the country. It was an operation carried out with a precision that Hooker later likened to the German invasion of Poland.

The book was unveiled on August 31 1970. Michie held a press conference in his Mont Albert home, saying Portnoys Complaint was a masterpiece and should be available to read in Australia. Neither he nor Penguin were afraid of the prosecutions: We are prepared to take the matter to the High Court.

The next morning, as the trucks bearing copies began to arrive, bookstores everywhere were rushed. At one Melbourne bookstore, the assistant manager was knocked down and trampled by a crowd eager to buy the book and support Penguin. It was a stampede, he said later. A bookstore manager in Sydney was amazed when the 500 copies his store took sold out in two-and-a-half hours.

All too soon, it was sold out. And with politicians making loud promises of retribution, the police descended.

Bookstores were raided. Unsold copies were seized. Court summons were delivered to Penguin, to Michie, and to booksellers the whole country over. A long list of court trials over the publication of Portnoys Complaint and its sale were in the offing.

So the trial that opened on the grey morning of October 19 1970, in the Melbourne Magistrates Court, was only the first in what promised to be a long battle.

Neither Michie nor his colleagues were daunted. They had prepared a defence based around literary merit and the good that might come from reading the book. They had retained expert lawyers and marshalled the cream of Australias literary and academic elite to come to their aid.

Patrick White would appear as a witness for the defence. So too would academic John McLaren, The Age newspaper editor Graham Perkin, the critic A.A. Phillips, the historian Manning Clark, the poet Vincent Buckley, and many more. They were unconcerned by Flanagans furious denunciations, by his shudders of disgust, and by his caustic indictments of Penguin and its leaders.

They were confident in their cause. As one telegram to Michie said:

ALL BEST WISHES FOR A RESOUNDING VICTORY FOR LITERATURE AND LIBERTY.

This is an edited extract from Trials of Portnoy by Patrick Mullins, published by Scribe.

More:
Trials of Portnoy: when Penguin fought for literature and liberty - The Conversation AU