Mediaboss Marketing

Dont Delete Artsmanifesto is live and seeking signatures. This banner features artwork by Gala Garrido that was removed from Instagram. (image courtesy Dont Delete Art)

Launched in 2020, the artist- and activist-led project Dont Delete Art (DDA) targets social media platforms using suppressive content moderation algorithms that impact the visibility of the worlds most vulnerable creators. Recently, the projects collaborators produced a manifesto calling on artists who use social media to demand change from these platforms now that Internet visibility has largely superseded in-person art experiences.

Social media corporations have become cultural gatekeepers with unprecedented power to determine which artworks can freely circulate and which ones are banned or pushed into the digital margins, DDAs manifesto reads.

In an interview with Hyperallergic, DDAs Editor-at-Large Emma Shapiro detailed the projects goals and spoke about how content moderation polices women-identifying, LGBTQ+, BIPOC, and disabled artists from achieving the same metrics when they use their bodies in their work in a way that pushes the boundaries of what Meta (the company that owns Facebook and Instagram) considers objectionable or explicit content. Shapiro, a Hyperallergic contributor and arts writer who has covered the Free the Nipple movement at length, said that while there are many overlaps between DDA and #FreeTheNipple, censored artwork isnt always body-oriented.

Theres definitely some artists who are voicing certain politics with their artwork who are being hit with certain kinds of suppression based on the text that goes with their artwork, Shapiro noted, specifying that the text-based suppression occurs from both uploaded images as well as what is written in the post captions. Were also seeing that Instagram can and will shadowban people, effectively suppressing them without outright suspending their accounts, Shapiro added.

When a social media user is shadowbanned, their content and account are deemed un-recommendable; therefore, their account information wont show up via Instagrams search function, their posts are suppressed by the algorithm, which decimates the number of impressions and interactions on their content, and their posts are no longer viewable under certain hashtags or Instagrams Explore page. Shadowbanned accounts are also not notified that their content is being restricted, leaving users confused about their metrics and the sudden lack of interaction.

Shadowbanning was originally used to thwart spammers by making their content invisible instead of outright banning them so that they wouldnt feel compelled to find a workaround, but the feature has gone on to impact artists, activists, sex workers, and occasionally regular old netizens.

Despite the fact that Instagrams post guidelines explicitly allow nudity in artwork, many artists report that their body-oriented paintings or sculptures were mis-flagged by the platforms content moderation algorithm. Shapiro herself even experienced a shadowban after posting a photo of a drawing containing a nude body.

Many people can misunderstand our focus on social media censorship as something thats pretty frivolous and like unimportant, Shapiro continued. But the truth of the matter is the landscape of internet regulation is changing really fast, and these companies who have not already created the framework to protect artistic expression and already at-risk artists will be very prone to continue to kick us off platforms.

Shapiro asks us to further consider the implications of Internet censorship against artists beyond visibility. Are these creators being passed over for opportunities? Are galleries whose social media accounts are penalized for posting a specific artists work going to reconsider whom they invest in moving forward to protect their brand? Will partisan politics capitalize on these modes of censorship to continuously encroach on the freedoms of women and trans artists who have a web presence?

Were specifically calling on social media companies to give artists a seat at the table for content moderation guidelines and how these decisions get made, Shapiro explained.

Meta has not yet responded to Hyperallergics request for comment.

Cofounded by Savannah Spirit and Spencer Tunick, and backed by the National Coalition Against Censorship, PEN Americas Artists At Risk Connection, and FreeMuse, DDA offers censorship evasion and account appeal resources for artists as well as an online gallery supported by a promotional newsletter that showcases artist submissions of artwork that was previously flagged, suppressed, or outright removed from social media through content moderation.

So far, the manifesto has over 1,400 individual signatures since its inception in mid-February. Shapiro told Hyperallergic that the next step is to get more institutional support through signatures and awareness from artist residencies, museums, galleries, collectives, and other community-wide companies and organizations who have a stake in the cause, whether they know it or not.

We want to see the support from the major voices of the art community for this very specific and powerful concern that we have before we present this to social media platforms and demand a seat at the table, Shapiro concluded.

See the original post here:
On Social Media, Art Censorship Is Alive and Well - Hyperallergic

In 2014, journalist and novelist Yuriy Lukanov was reporting from Kramatorsk, Ukraine. He remembers trying to open a bottle of red wine with friends that they bought from the only store open in the deserted city. They couldnt find a corkscrew and ended up using a cleaning rod to push the cork into the bottle and enjoy the wine. To him, this was more than an inconvenience. It is a metaphor for how disruptive war can be.

Lukanov told this story during a presentation he gave hosted by the Love School of Business and Vitaliy Strohush, Elon professor of economics. Lukanov emphasized the dangers of a censored press in Russia and the role novels can play in honest and creative storytelling.

Elon sophomore Hunter Siegel was in the audience and said the wine and cork story resonated with him.

I think it showed humanity, and one of the main points is that not everything can be wrapped up in a report. That there is a human aspect underneath it all something that is very easy to forget, Siegel said.

Siegel is a political science and international global studies double major. He tries to listen to as many speakers as he can because he likes learning outside the classroom.

It puts all of this abstract knowledge that many people at Elon have and is taught in many political science and international and global studies classes into its proper life context, Siegel said.

While Lukanov thought it would be unprofessional for him to print this story in the newspaper, he thought it was a small window into a bigger issue how little habits were altered by the war. Lukanov said thats why he decided to write fiction and finds that it allows for more creativity, inclusion and expression. Lukanovs visit to campus is a part of his book tour for his new novel, Reporter Volkovsky.

During his presentation, Lukanov tried to bring context to the current war in Ukraine. He said its rooted in the annexation of Crimea in 2014 where Russia successfully took the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. It was then Lukanov noticed the influence of Russian censorship in the media when Russia used propaganda to paint a false picture of Ukraine.

They are attacking free journalism. They are destroying freedom of speech. They are destroying opportunity to receive truthful information, Lukanov said.

This incident prompted him to write his first book, The Press: How Russia Destroyed Media Freedom in the Press. He wants people to notice the censorship as he did.

You have a right to listen what whomever you want, but usually, Russians lie. Listen, other nations Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Georgians, Maldovians, and so on, and other nations who were a part of the Soviet Union and Russians describe them as miserable nations. But in fact, many of them have cultural, which is much deeper than Russian culture, Lukanov said.

Lukanov also said the misinformation he sees in Ukraine now is more aggressive than what he saw when he first entered the field of journalism.

I would say when I [am] watching their television it is absolutely stupid now, Lukanov said. It's absolutely stupid, not flexible, absolutely brutal.

Yet, he said Ukrainians are getting better at recognizing it as propaganda, so Russias agenda isnt as effective as it once was. Still, Lukanov said Ukranians must fight against it as best they can.

Elon junior Taylor Barbadora is a journalism major and came to hear Lukanov speak as a part of her JOU 3100: Reporting for the Public Good class. She said she was surprised to learn how much censorship there is in Russia.

It was sad to hear but really interesting to see the difference and hear how it is, Barbadora said. I was trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who lives in Russia and is going through that and things being fed to you so strategically is really hard to think about.

Censorship and propaganda are two ways to control the narrative, according to Lukanov, but the other way Russia is doing it is by going after journalists directly. In the last 31 years, 82 journalists have died in Russia according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. At least 38 of them were murdered.

Lukanov said he would like to see Putin punished for these murders and other crimes, but he thinks it is only possible if the rest of the international community can be united behind that goal. He said Russias ambitions must be stopped.

Their high mission is to renew the Soviet empire, Lukanov said. I think the democratic world should provide, should continue to provide, sanctions against Russians to make them give up their nuclear weapons and so on and so on.

See the article here:
Elon University hosts Ukrainian novelist who writes about Russian ... - Elon News Network

The Walt Disney Company filed suit on Wednesday in federal court against Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Related

The suit comes almost exactly a year after DeSantis firstlashed out atthe entertainment giantfor pausing political donations and criticizing the governors since-enacted controversial bill dubbedDont Say Gay by opponents thatbans teaching sexual orientation or gender identity to certain students. Disney claims that DeSantis weaponized Floridas government by revoking its long-held special tax status immediately after it came out against the governors policy.

Maybe hes for free speech as long as its speech he likes.

Though First Amendment retaliation suits are notoriously difficult to prove in court, lawyers said that Disney may have an unusually strong case.

I find it hard to see how you can argue that youre for free speech when you punish a corporation for their political views or youre banning books, said Catherine Cameron, a professor who teaches media law at Stetson University College of Law in Florida. Maybe hes for free speech as long as its speech he likes.

The case and the wider flap over Disneys stance on the Dont Say Gay law makes for a reversal of roles in a raging national debate about the First Amendment and government overreach in suppressing free speech. Following a raft of reporting, far-right Republicans have made the weaponization of government against speech a central political talking point in their culture war.

In January, for instance, congressional Republicans amplified rhetoric about government suppression of speech by launching the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. Now, one of the countrys top Republican officials and a potential contender in the 2024 presidential election is being accused of reacting to constitutionally protected speech with retaliation.

Jim Lussier, an attorney based in Orlando, said, DeSantis is consciously ignoring the U.S. Supreme Courts position, at Florida taxpayer expense.

Taryn Fenske, DeSantiss communications director, objected to the suit. We are unaware of any legal right that a company has to operate its own government or maintain special privileges not held by other businesses in the state, Fenske said in a statement. This lawsuit is yet another unfortunate example of their hope to undermine the will of the Florida voters and operate outside the bounds of the law.

While corporations are not entitled to benefits or privileges, the retaliation claim hinges on whether the benefits were revoked because of First Amendment-protected speech. If hes gone after them for a political viewpoint, that is certainly not what free speech advocates would advocate for, Cameron said. Thats sort of the textbook definition of government censorship.

Though retaliation cases can be hard to win, DeSantis and others have made clear public statements about the motivation and timing behind the decision to revoke the companys special tax status, said Tom Julin, a First Amendment lawyer based in Miami.

The governor has been quite explicit in making it clear that he is retaliating against Disney based upon its speech, he said. When you look at the chronological timeline of when this action was first contemplated by the governor, by the legislature, and by the governing body, its pretty clear some would say crystal clear that the action was not simply in reaction to a concern that Disney had been given too much control, but was a direct response to Disneys criticism of the government.

Related

Whats more, Julin said, the judge assigned to the case, Mark Walker, has previously gone after DeSantiss suppression of First Amendment law, so Disney has a good chance of getting a favorable result.

The First Amendment doesnt only apply to individuals or politicians, said Bobby Block, executive director of the Florida First Amendment Foundation. Corporations also have a right to freely express themselves on matters of public policy and politics without fear of reprisal from the government. On the face of it, the Disney case looks very compelling. But we will have to see what the courts decide.

DeSantis and his legal team would have to provide a compelling interest for why the state would want to suppress Disneys right to free speech, said Cameron, the law professor. A compelling interest in the eyes of the court would include significant issues of health, safety, or issues of national security.

If somehow the court was willing to buy that DeSantis and the Florida administration had a compelling interest to punish Disney in effect for their viewpoint, that would really change the law, she said. I dont really know what the compelling interest would be. I guess well have to see what argues.

Its a risky move because the government can always retaliate further if the lawsuit is not successful, or even if it is successful, Julin said. Someone like Governor DeSantis is likely going to be offended that a lawsuit was filed.

More:
Gov. Ron DeSantis Taken to Court by Disney Over Censorship - The Intercept

Did you know an Iowa librarian wrote the original Librarys Bill of Rights as a rebuke to book banning during the rise of fascism, and it became the basis of library policy across the country?

The late 1930s were a dark time for free speech and expression. The specter of fascism and war in Europe was prominent in the minds of Americans, and in both the US and abroad books were being bannedsometimes burnedfor subversive topics.

Watching this, and recalling similar panic and censorship efforts before and during the First World War decades earlier, Forrest Spaulding, the library director of the Des Moines Public Library, responded with a short, four-point list of what he called The Librarys Bill of Rights in 1938.

Spaulding wanted to protect the librarys integrity as a space to find resources and promote the freedom of information. He wanted to keep it free from political interference, growing intolerance and the censorship he noticed creeping in, so the library could continue serving the people of Des Moines.

He was specifically focused on how censorship and intolerance affected the rights of minorities and individuals.

The document was presented to the library board and passed as library policy in November that year, apparently without issue.

But censorship wasnt a problem only affecting Des Moines.

In America, Hitlers Mein Kampf, Ernest Hemmingways For Whom the Bell Tolls, John Steinbecks Grapes of Wrath, and Karl Marxs Das Kapital were among the books banned. Othersboth fiction and nonfictionwere banned for depictions of racism in the American South and/or for sexual content.

A whole series of American social studies and history textbooks written by Harold Rugg, which put more emphasis on class inequality in American history, was frequently challenged and banned across the country.

In June 1939a few months before World War II would officially startat a meeting for the American Library Association (ALA), Spauldings friend and a member of the association moved for a more universal version of the Des Moines document to be used for all American libraries. It was adopted easily.

Prior to Spaulding, censorship wasnt a big concern for many librarians, but the changing culture made the ALA more responsive to an explicit stance against censorship and having information freely available to anyone.

When pushed about his opposition to all censorship, Spaulding replied, If more people had read Mein Kampf, some of Hitlers despotism might have been prevented.

That was the principle which fueled Spauldings advocacy.

Close to 84 years later, the universal Library Bill of Rights now has seven points, but it still revolves around the idea that public libraries are for everyone and no idea should be restricted or censored. In fact, the most current bill of rights declares public libraries have a responsibility to actively fight against censorship, not only resist it.

Spaulding was also appointed as the chair of a special ALA committee on censorship, the Intellectual Freedom Committee.

In addition to his work to fight against censorship, Spaulding used the library during the Great Depression to create spaces and programs for men to continue learning. The reading rooms he created contained books to read for recreation, but also technical and vocational books.

Spaulding spent the rest of his life fighting censorship, and advocating that free information was key to a healthy society.

Spaulding died in 1965, and the Des Moines Register wrote:

Ordinarily a community is not greatly stirred by the death of a man who has been away for 13 years, but it is different with Forrest Spaulding. He made himself so much a part of the life of Des Moines that the thought of him is still warm and pleasant.

He went far beyond the role of librarian to help out in every cultural and intellectual phase of city activityHe was a friendly, social man, with a mischievous love of a pun or humorous phrase. Among those who knew and loved these traits of his, it is as though he never left Des Moines at all.

Almost 84 years after the first draft and over 100 years since Spaulding first came to work in Des Moines, hes honored with a painting, a plaque, and an illustrated version of the first ALA version of the Library Bill of Rights in a meeting room at the Central branch of the Des Moines Public Library.

Nikoel Hytrek4/28/23

If you enjoy stories like these, make sure tosign up for Iowa Starting Lines main newsletterand/or our working class-focusedWorkers Almanac newsletter.

Have a story idea or something I should know? Email me at nikoel@iowastartingline.com. You can also DM me on Twitter at@n_hytrek.

Iowa Starting Line is part of an independent news network and focuses on how state and national decisions impact Iowans daily lives.We rely onyour financial supportto keep our stories free for all to read. You cancontribute to us here.Find ISL onTikTok,Instagram,FacebookandTwitter.

Here is the original post:
Iowa Librarian Pens 'Library's Bill of Rights' in 1938 (And It's ... - Iowa Starting Line

Seeking an explanation from a member of parliament for critiquing the government is nothing but an effort to silence free speech in the country, says CPI(M) MP John Brittas, who was summoned by the Rajya Sabha chairman over an opinion piece written by him for a national daily.

Brittas was served a summons over the piece he wrote for The Indian Express after a BJP leader complained to Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, calling it seditious conduct. The piece was critical of Home Minister Amit Shah.

Brittas met Dhankhar, who is also the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, in person and explained his position. Now, he has been asked to give the explanation in writing.

Also read: Case filed against Kerala Story; says it promotes Muslim hatred, defames state

The article was published in February, and I came to know that a BJP leader had filed a complaint with the Rajya Sabha chairmans office, pleading that a sedition case be slapped on me. I received a notice from the Rajya Sabha secretariat last week, instructing me to meet Dhankhar. I was really perplexed at getting such a notice, as I have not heard of such a practice. Although I verbally explained the circumstances that led me to write the article, I was again asked to submit a written statement. Then, I demanded a copy of the complaint, as I have to prepare a detailed reply for it. We do not know about the ramifications, as this is the first time such an incident has taken place in our country, Brittas told The Federal.

This is censorship

I was using my democratic right and my standing as a member of the parliament to write that article in response to the Union home ministers attempt to sow discord among communities in a state like Kerala, which is renowned for its social cohesion and communal harmony. It was composed responsibly and with good intentions. I was reminding Amit Shah of his constitutional responsibilities. The responsibility of the Opposition is to be critical of those in power. A free and independent media must also do it.

Also read: Sansad Ratna Awards 2023: Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, John Brittas among nominees

This is censorship. They are using every office available to them to crush any opposition and are targeting the entire media of the country, too, by taking me on. Now, the media will think twice before publishing anything critical of the Union government. In that sense, this is not against John Brittas the person or the MP, but against free press itself.

I was reminding the Union home minister that his remark was against Section 153 A of the IPC. I continue to hold that viewpoint. The IPC must be a concern for those in positions of power. When commenting on communities, people, or regions, leaders and ministers must exercise responsibility. Why did the Union home minister deem Karnataka safe and Kerala unsafe? Brittas argued.

What Amit Shah said

Speaking at a BJP meeting in Mangalore, bordering Kasaragod in northern Kerala, in February, Home Minister Amit Shah made an indirect jab at the Left Front government of Kerala by asserting that the BJP in Karnataka had protected the state from anti-nationals. Kerala is in your neighbourhood. I dont want to say anything more, Shah told the gathering.

Also read: Karnataka: Amit Shahs use of Kerala as bad example draws criticism

In his opinion piece titled Perils of Propaganda published in The Indian Express, Brittas came down heavily on Shah for his remarks against Kerala.

Shahs periodic outbursts targeting Kerala are proof of his desperation as well as his attempt to turn India into a Hindu Rashtra and rewind this country to a past with the Manu Smriti replacing the Constitution. Kerala has tirelessly resisted his partys designs. It is an irony that his party colleagues have launched a contrived outreach scheme to lure Muslims and Christians into their fold. Incidentally, Shah had earlier threatened to pull down the Left government in Kerala, read his article.

Brittas has been a journalist for decades and is one of the prominent voices of the Left in the Rajya Sabha.

Read the original here:
This is censorship: John Brittas on RS notice over article slamming Amit Shah - The Federal