Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Facebook, Twitter Censor Trump Post Comparing COVID with the Flu – CBN News

The social media giants Facebook and Twitter on Tuesday censored President Trump's post and tweet, comparing COVID-19 and the flu.

Facebook removed Trump's post in which he claimed COVID-19 is less deadly "in most populations" than the flu.

The President wrote on Twitter: "Flu season is coming up! Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the Vaccine, die from the Flu. Are we going to close down our Country? No, we have learned to live with it, just like we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal!!!"

Twitter left the President's tweet in place, but added the following disclaimer:

"This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public's interest for the Tweet to remain accessible," the disclaimer read.

Axios reports Facebook has been criticized for not removing posts that violate community guidelines in a timely manner, yet the company took swift action when Trump posted information about the virus that "could contribute to imminent physical harm." Twitter took action about 30 minutes later.

A Facebook spokesperson told Axios, "We remove incorrect information about the severity of COVID-19, and have now removed this post."

A Twitter spokesman also told the website: "We placed a public interest notice on this Tweet for violating our COVID-19 Misleading Information Policy by making misleading health claims about COVID-19. As is standard with this public interest notice, engagements with the Tweet will be significantly limited."

The President's social media posts came after he tested positive for COVID-19 and spent three days at the Walter Reed Medical Center. While reportedly still contagious, he will continue his recovery at the White House, where he will be cared for 24/7 by a team of doctors and nurses.

Out of 7.4 million cases in the US, COVID-19 has killed almost 210,000 Americans this year, according to the CDC. For comparison, the CDC's website estimates 24,000 to 62,000 have died during the most recent flu season, out of 39 million to 56 million people who were sick from it.

STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FREE CBN NEWS APP!Click Here Get the App with Special Alerts on Breaking News and Live Events!

Read more here:
Facebook, Twitter Censor Trump Post Comparing COVID with the Flu - CBN News

Banned books week brings attention to the dangers of censorship – ConchoValleyHomepage.com

Highlighting the right to freely read or not read at will

by: Victor Glenn

SAN ANGELO, Texas September 27 through October 3, 2020 is banned books week across the United States. Books have been banned for many reasons, from objections over sexual education, to encouraging non-traditional family models. But censorship, is widely accepted as a hindrance to both freedom and expression.

In American society which is undergoing some dramatic changes right now, we have to realize, of course, that there is a need to respect the rights of other people, said Leah Barbee, a reference librarian and the Information Department Manager for the Tom Green County Library. Even though my family is a standard traditional kind of American family, other families are not. And we need to allow people to be what they are and to identify themselves in the books they read. Barbee is also a former teacher, and spoke about the power of choice in what one can read.

Drawing attention to the dangers of censorship, while celebrating the freedom to read or not read whatever one chooses, aims to ensure that the importance of that choice is not forgotten. For more information on banned books week, censorship and to choose something to read for yourself, visit your local library.

Here is the original post:
Banned books week brings attention to the dangers of censorship - ConchoValleyHomepage.com

Mark Levin accuses Facebook of censoring him in order to influence the election – TheBlaze

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

Reassessing censorship The Campus – The Campus

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

Elections Commission accused of Censorship of Chin Party election address via State-owned TVs and radios – Burma News International

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