Mediaboss Marketing

The study of censorship blossomed in the mid-1960s, amidst broader cultural and political changes. In the United States, this occurred at the same time that the long-running, self-regulatory Production Code was winding down to be replaced by a Ratings Code in 1968 that is still in use. Carmen 1966 surveys legal decisions up to that point in the United States, Randall 1968 looks closely at the functioning of city and state boards in the United States, while Hunnings 1967 offers a more comparative study (one of the few in studies on censorship, and this is something of a lacuna in current scholarship). The study of legal decisions in the United States is pursued in more recent scholarship: Jowett 1990 offers an excellent overview, DeGrazia and Newman 1982 gives details of a number of court cases (the former was a lawyer actively involved in censorship cases), and Wittern-Keller 2008 helpfully examines the long history of the legal record, using the files of state censors. The broader contexts for battles over the cinema and the functioning of self-regulatory bodies are addressed in two excellent collections of essays: Bernstein 1999 focuses on Hollywood before the 1968 Ratings Code went into effect, and Couvares 2006, an essential collection, covers a longer history, beginning with the emergence of cinema and culminating with the so-called culture wars of the 1980s.

Bernstein, Matthew, ed. Controlling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1999.

E-mail Citation

Very useful collection that carefully gathers together a number of previously published essays, combining them with two newly commissioned pieces, to examine movie censorship in the United States from the Supreme Courts important 1915 decision on the legitimacy of state censorship to the emergence of the Ratings Code in 1968.

Carmen, Ira H.. Movies, Censorship and the Law. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966.

E-mail Citation

Account of significant court cases in the United States and the impact of these on the existence and functioning of various city and state censor boards operative in the 1960s.

Couvares, Francis G., ed. Movie Censorship and American Culture. 2d ed. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006.

E-mail Citation

Couvares insightfully situates movie censorship as a central node within broader culture warsbattles about defining cultural value and deciding what is legitimate to see and hearthat are connected to questions of hegemony and power. Essays examine examples from the United States across the 20th century and are the best point of entry for undergraduate and graduate students.

DeGrazia, Edward, and Roger K. Newman. Banned Films: Movies, Censors, and the First Amendment. New York: R. R. Bowker, 1982.

E-mail Citation

Overview of movie censorship that also includes a useful detailed account of 122 court cases involving the censorship of films in the United States from 1908 to 1981.

Hunnings, Neville March. Film Censors and the Law. London: Allen and Unwin, 1967.

E-mail Citation

The material here on the emergence and functioning of censorship in Britain is useful, but the book is most valuable for the chapters on the history and (then) contemporary functioning of censorship in other countries, including the United States, India, Canada, Australia, Denmark, France, and Soviet Russia.

Jowett, Garth. Moral Responsibility and Commercial Entertainment: Social Control in the United States Film Industry, 19071968. Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and Television 10.1 (1990): 331.

DOI: 10.1080/01439689000260011E-mail Citation

Good overview of the censorship situation in the United States until the late 1960s by a significant media historian.

Randall, Richard. The Censorship of the Movies: The Social and Political Control of a Mass Medium. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968.

E-mail Citation

Randalls book delineates the legal contexts and the procedures of state and city prior restraint censorship, as well as more informal mechanisms, as they operated in the 1960s. Written amidst the broad social, cultural, and political changes of the 1960s, the book was published the same year the Ratings Code went into effect.

Wittern-Keller, Laura. Freedom of the Screen: Legal Challenges to State Film Censorship, 19151981. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2008.

E-mail Citation

Wittern-Keller outlines the judicial attitudes toward film censorship and the responses by individuals and the film industry as they sought to challenge legal restrictions.

Originally posted here:
Censorship - Cinema and Media Studies - Oxford ...

Francisco Martn Moreno is one of Mexicos best-known writers, and several of his more than two dozen historical novels have been national bestsellers. So I was surprised when he told me that his latest book a thinly disguised novel about President Andres Manuel Lpez Obrador is not getting any traction.

The novel, titled Ladrn de Esperanzas (Thief of Hopes), is about a fictional Mexican president named Antonio M. Lugo Olea. His initials are AMLO, just like those of Mexicos president.

In the book, his predecessor is another fictional character, Ernesto Pasos Narro. His initials, EPN, are the same as those of former Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto. The books cover shows a picture, taken from behind, of Mexicos real-life AMLO.

The novels AMLO is a well-meaning but messianic and somewhat unhinged leader who lies constantly, unaware of it most of the time. These are some of the same things critics say about Mexicos current leader.

Sign Up and Save

Get six months of free digital access to the Miami Herald

This is my first journalistic novel written in real time, Martn Moreno told me. And Im having a lot of problems to publicize it.

He said that he is having a hard time getting journalists to interview him about his new book, in sharp contrast to what happened when he launched previous work.

I must have sent about 60 letters to radio and TV presenters, and only four or five have invited me to their shows, he said. When I wrote my previous book, which dealt with the history of the henequn plant in Yucatan, they swamped me with interview requests.

Asked if he believes the AMLO government is trying to censor his book, Martn Moreno told me that, Its not censorship, but rather self-censorship. Journalists are panicking about this man. Fear is spreading at a phenomenal pace.

It may be fear of AMLO, fear of his supporters or simply fear of going against the current.

AMLO was elected with 53 percent of the vote a landslide by Mexican election standards and his popularity has skyrocketed since. A new poll by the daily Reforma this week shows that he has a 78 percent approval rate, with only 18 percent rating him unfavorably.

During his first 100 days in office, AMLO has, among other things, raised the minimum wage by 16 percent and sharply increased Social Security payments for seniors.

But most economists fear that AMLOs honeymoon wont last long, because as often happens with populist presidents the economy eventually will fizzle. The International Monetary Fund and most major financial institutions have already downgraded Mexicos growth forecasts for this year.

Much like President Trump, AMLO routinely attacks the press and derides his critical media as la prensa fifi, or the elitist media.

In recent days, he lashed out against the daily Reforma, accusing it falsely of silencing corruption scandals in the 1990s. Reforma also reported that its main stockholder has been summoned by tax authorities for questioning over a trivial tax bill, in apparent retaliation for the newspapers recent investigative reports.

Whats just as troubling, there are well-organized armies of AMLO supporters in social media who routinely attack and intimidate journalists who dare ask hard questions to the president, or who criticize him. A study by Mexicos Signa Lab media lab confirmed that this week, but said it could not determine whether these social media campaigns are spontaneous, or government-directed.

Perhaps as a result of these intimidation tactics, AMLOs daily press conferences have become a podium for laudatory statements masked as questions. Many of these pseudo-questions are posed by journalists who represent largely unknown media outlets.

All of these are ominous signs for Mexicos future. If there is a climate of intimidation against critical journalists at a time when AMLOs popularity is at 78 percent, what will happen when it drops to 30 percent or 40 percent, as it probably will once the president runs out of money to give wage increases?

Mexico still has a significant reserve of courageous journalists, but the danger is that they and novelists like Martn Moreno soon might be overshadowed and silenced.

At a time when Mexicos president has almost unprecedented powers including a huge majority in Congress an independent press may be the best hope to preserve a system of checks and balances. Without it, Mexico may soon have an imperial populist presidency.

Dont miss the Oppenheimer

Presenta TV show Sundays at 8 pm Miami time on CNN en Espaol. Twitter: @oppenheimera

Here is the original post:
Is censorship making a comeback in Mexico? Its early yet ...

Internet censorship is the ability to restrict specific websites or online content from being viewed. It may come in the form of an edit, regulation, or law issued by the government. It could also occur privately is an ISP objects to the content that certain individuals wish to view.

The advantage of allowing internet censorship is that content which is violent, obscene, or dangerous can be immediately blocked. This protects children from inadvertently viewing content that could be scary or harmful to them, such as the murder and decapitation videos which have made their way to sites like Facebook and Twitter in recent years.

The disadvantage is obvious: internet censorship is a restriction on a persons ability to view the content they wish to see, when they wish to see it.

Here are some additional internet censorship pros and cons to discuss.

1. It creates the chance to set common sense limits. There are some things that just arent part of what a society would deem to be healthy. A simple search right now on an unfiltered public search can provide anyone with access to numerous videos that purport to show real murders in progress. High-profile cases, such as the murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, were broadcast on-air and then a first-person video of the event made its way through social circles afterwards. Restricting this content sets a common-sense limit on the content that van be viewed.

2. It limits access to harmful activities. There are dark areas of the internet where anything goes right now. Access to illicit drugs, sex trafficking, human trafficking, and child pornography can be accessed with relative ease by those who seek out such things. By restricting content that can be accessed, it limits the opportunities that predators can create to reach out to find new victims.

3. It could lessen the impact of identity theft. One of the fastest growing crimes in the world today is identity theft. NBC News reports that more US citizens were victims of identity theft in 2016 than any year before. More than 15.4 million reports of identity theft were compiled by Javelin Strategy and Research, which reflects a 16% increase in the total number of reports from 2015 figures. Restricting content that would allow identity information to be easily shared could lessen the impact that identity theft causes to a society.

4. It may provide a positive impact on national security. Although hacking will occur no matter what internet censorship laws may be in place, by creating internet censorship regulations with strict and mandatory penalties for a violation, it could become possible to reduce the number of hacking incidents that occur. That could have a positive impact on national security because the restrictions would possibly prevent alleged incidents like what occurred during the 2016 US Presidential election.

5. It stops fake news. Claims of fake news increased dramatically in 2017. Fake news websites promote false reports for money through clicks because readers think the news is real. Internet censorship would provide another level of discernment which could possibly stop divisive incidents that are based on events that never occurred.

1. Who watches the watchers? Even if internet censorship is directly supervised and ethically maintained, someone somewhere is deciding on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for society to see online. At some level, someone does not have anyone to whom they report regarding their censorship decisions. With that kind of power, one individual could influence society in whatever way they chose without consequence.

2. It stops information. Although fake information can be restricted through internet censorship, so can real information. According to the World Economic Forum, 27% of all internet users live in a country where someone has been arrested for content that they have shared, published, or simply liked on Facebook. 38 different countries made arrests based solely on social media posts in 2016.

3. It is a costly process. According to research from Darrell West, VP and Director of Governance Studies and the founding director of the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings, internet shutdowns cost countries $2.4 billion in 2015. The decision to cut connectivity in Egypt came at a cost of $90 million. Censoring content is costly and it will come at the expense of taxpayers.

4. It provides a negative economic impact. What happens if a business has their website blocked because it doesnt meet an arbitrary standard of goodness? Allowing the government or some other entity to declare what is good or bad for the internet can have a dramatic economic impact at the local level. If a business cannot promote themselves online or sell their goods on an e-commerce platform, then they are placed in a disadvantageous state compared to industry competitors who would be allowed to sell online.

5. It shifts where responsibilities lie. If the government is dictating what individuals can see online, then people are no longer as responsible for the decisions they make. It cedes that control over to the government. Once that control is ceded, it becomes easier to cede more control over responsibility because the action was normalized.

6. It prevents individuals from accessing a freedom of expression. A free internet allows individuals to post what they want. It gives them the chance to freely express their thoughts, opinions, and views. Laws may already exist in many jurisdictions that would allow for the prosecution of individuals who share illegal content already, such as child pornography, so placing additional restrictions would simply create another layer of bureaucracy.

7. A lack of truth leads to ignorance. In 1984 by George Orwell, people in this dystopian environment are kept under tight control so that specific societal results can occur. Once people in this society begin to discover love, they discover truth. That truth prevents them from living in ignorance. With internet censorship, there is a lack of truth which exists in such a policy. That means there is a societal ignorance in place that a ruling party could attempt to control.

8. It limits entrepreneurial opportunities. In a world of internet censorship, entrepreneurs would be forced to have their ideas approved by an oversight committee, board, or individual instead of pursuing the idea immediately on their own. If a business in the same industry as the entrepreneur has enough wealth or influence, they could potentially restrict the entrepreneur from pursuing their opportunity. Such an action would limit innovation in many sectors.

These internet censorship pros and cons show us that what can be used for good can also be used for selfish intent. Who do you think should determine if content is inappropriate? Should it be a government, an oversight committee, or yourself?

Continued here:
13 Internet Censorship Pros and Cons Vittana.org

For nearly as long as the written word has existed, it has been a target for censorship. Religion was the most frequently cited reason for the censorship of written works. In 14th century England, for example, reading the Wycliff Bible was forbidden by the clergy for fear that the translation had corrupted or misinterpreted the original text. In the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church placed Machiavellis The Prince on the Index of Prohibited Books in the banned absolutely category for its heretical content.

But book-banning isnt really an issue in the United States anymore, right? Wrong.

Literary works are still challenged, censored and banned for many different reasons. Books as varied as Judy Blumes Forever, Vladimir Nabokovs Lolita, and Maya Angelous I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings have been challenged by parents and school boards who deem certain sexual passages inappropriate for young people. Works such as Its Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris and Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman, among others, frequently face demands for removal from library shelves for their focus on gay/lesbian issues. And the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling and the Scary Stories series by Alvin Schwartz, among others, have been challenged by dozens of parents, administrators, and clergy for their scary, violent or occult themes.

Written works on evolution have also faced censorship, as have books that represent race in a way that is deemed objectionable by certain groups.

Types of Objections against Books

Profanity: Books are often challenged for the language they contain, even though profanity is often used in literature to convey social or historical context, local dialect or simply to better depict reactions to real-life situations. Books such as Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck and Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut have been challenged or banned due to objections to profanity.

Sex: Books as varied as Toni Morrisons Beloved and Maureen Johnsons The Bermudez Triangle, among many others, have been challenged by parents and school boards who deem certain sexual passages inappropriate for young people. Works such as Its Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris and Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman, among others, face demands for removal for their frank discussion and focus on gay/lesbian issues.

Violence: Objections to violent content are often based on the idea that these works trivialize violence or desensitize readers to its effects. Books challenged on these grounds include One Fat Summer by Robert Lypsyte and Native Son by Richard Wright.

Religion: Religious grounds have long been cited as reasons for censoring books. Reading translations of the Bible was once forbidden. Today, parents and ministers often object to works which discuss topics such as sex and evolution or witchcraft or occult themes.

Here is the original post:
Books - ncac.org

The Provisional Government that succeeded the tsars in March 1917 abolished censorship. However, two days after the Bolsheviks seized power in November 1917, they reintroduced censorship and extended it to films, art, and music. Though labeled a temporary measure, censorship lasted until the late 1980s. Even labels on bottles were subject to censorship; the knowing eye could discern the censors individual number, stamp, and date of issue. Violation of censorship rules could be construed as divulging state secrets, a crime punishable by imprisonment.

Soviet censors worked with a large volume called Perechen svedenii ne podlezhashchikh opublikovaniiu v otkrytoi pechati (List of Information Not Suitable for Publication in Open Sources). It was informally referred to among censorsmany of whom were Jewsas the Talmud. Among the items not suitable for publication were crime statistics, reports of natural and man-made disasters (such as airplane crashes), price increases, individual incomes, the names of many officials, and the identities of their spouses. The censorship system was administered by Glavlit, established in 1922 as the Chief Directorate for Literature and Publishing Houses at the Peoples Commissariat for Education (Narkompros). Immediately following the Bolshevik Revolution, works on Judaism and almost all publications inHebrew were banned. Foreign Jewish literature was strongly censored in the 1920s and thereafter. By the 1930s, the list of forbidden subjects included Lenins Jewish ancestry on his mothers side. Although in 1936 work critical of antisemitism was passed by the censor, at the same time Jewish themes began to disappear from Soviet prose and poetry, except in Yiddish. By 1938 brochures critical of antisemitism that had been published just a few years before were removed from libraries. The recording of Lenins 1919 speech condemning antisemitism was removed from record sets. It was reported that a six-cornered star, used as an illustration in a geometry text, had to be excised before the text could be published.

A comparison of a story published in 1936 and republished in 1940 illustrates the policy of diminishing Jewish visibility. In the story The Blue Cup, Arkadii Gaidar writes of a city in Germany, Dresden, from which a worker, a Jew, fled from the Fascists. Four years later, following the 1939 SovietNazi pact, the same sentence reads: Theres a city somewhere abroad, and from there a worker fled from the bourgeoisie. In May 1940, Bezbozhnik (Godless), the magazine of the Militant Atheists, wrote that the major achievement of the Third Reich was the Nazi attack on Judaism, and that Soviet atheists should cooperate with their allies in the struggle against religion. At the same time, antifascist books published from 1933 to 1939 were relegated to special collections, some of them never to reappear.

In the first years of World War II Jewish themes and characters reappeared in Soviet literature, but in 1942, the Agitation-Propaganda department of the Communist Partys Central Committee took up the question On the recruitment and promotion of cadres in the arts, resolving that there was a disproportionate representation of non-Russian peoples (mostly Jews) in these fields. The number of Jews in leading artistic institutions and mass circulation newspapers began to fall, and from 1948 until Stalins death in 1953, their numbers plummeted drastically.

Among Jewish themes that were censored was the Holocaust, which, while never denied, was submerged in the general and terrible suffering of many Soviet national groups. Some Yiddish writers dealt with the Holocaust by transferring the locale of the events beyond Soviet borders, especially to Poland, but the subject was rarely raised in Russian publications. As is well known, the Black Book of Soviet Jewry, edited by the distinguished Jewish war correspondents Vasilii Grossman and Ilya Ehrenburg and documenting the experiences of Soviet Jews during the war, was about to be published when the order came not to release it; the book did not appear in Russia until 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union. By 1949, a review of evreiskaia literaturawhich can mean Jewish or Yiddish literaturein the Lenin library concluded that it was littered with bourgeois-nationalist, Zionist, and clerical material. Glavlit told all Soviet organs at the republic level to purge the Jewish book holdings of libraries and in light of the special immediacy of these measures, it asked the Party Central Committee to assume special responsibility and supervision.

Despite the thaw and a certain political relaxation in the post-Stalin era, former Soviet publication officials testify that censors would ask, Are there not toomany Jewish names among the authors and characters in journals and magazines? Many Jewish authors responded by writing under non-Jewish pseudonyms. The secretary of the Union of Writers, Aleksei Surkov, inquired of the Central Committee in 1955 whether works of Jewish national literature could be published, and was told that only a small series of classic and contemporary Yiddish works could be republished. Glavlit also consulted the Central Committee about objectionable passages in Ilya Ehrenburgs memoirsfor example, where he said that he had been attacked by both Fascist and Soviet authorities who forbade him to write about Jewish combatants in the Red Army. Ehrenburg was told that publication was not recommended unless he removed the offending passages, which he did.

A well-publicized instance of Soviet censorship of Jewish themes was the poem Babi Yar by Yevgeny Yevtushenko, published on 19 September 1961 in Literaturnaia gazeta. His protest against the silence that enveloped the Jewish tragedy in World War II and his criticism of the antisemitism he perceived in the Soviet Union aroused a storm of condemnation. When Dmitri Shostakovich featured the poem in his Thirteenth Symphony, first performed in 1962 and only three years later in the composers native city, Leningrad, further public controversy ensued. Anatolii Kuznetsov published a heavily censored novel, Babi Yar, in 1966. Since an uncensored edition was published abroad some years later, it is possible to see which offensive passages had been changed or removed by the censors.

Following the 1967 Middle East war, anything pertaining to Israel or Zionism was heavily censored and politicized. Works of writers who emigrated or who were expelled from the USSR were removed from bookstores and libraries. Only in the final years of Mikhail Gorbachevs perestroika was censorship relaxed, permitting the publication of formerly banned Russian, Jewish, Ukrainian, and other writers. Within the Soviet and post-Soviet intelligentsia these works found a very receptive audience, but by the middle of the 1990s many Russian and other readers no longer found much interest in them.

Arlen V. Blium, Evreiskii vopros pod sovetskoi tsenszuroi, 19171991 (St. Petersburg, 1996); Arlen V. Blium, Zensur in der UdSSR, trans. Jurij Elperin, 2 vols. (Bochum, Ger., 1999), vol. 2 is comprised of archival documents in Cyrillic; Marianna Tax Choldin, A Fence around the Empire: Russian Censorship of Western Ideas under the Tsars (Durham, N.C., 1985); Marianna Tax Choldin and Maurice Friedberg, eds., The Red Pencil: Artists, Scholars, and Censors in the USSR(Boston, 1989); Martin Dewhirst and Robert Farrell, eds., The Soviet Censorship (Metuchen, N.J., 1973); T.M. Goriaeva, Z.K. Vodopianova, et al., eds., Istoriia sovetskoi politicheskoi tsenzury: Dokumenty i kommentarii (Moscow, 1997); Harold Swayze, Political Control of Literature in the USSR, 19461959 (Cambridge, Mass., 1962).

Read this article:
YIVO | Censorship: Censorship in the USSR