Mediaboss Marketing

Startup of the week:

Who they are:IranCubator

What they do:Its atech incubator that producesapps focused on achieving social change in Iran, backed by Berkeley-based nonprofitUnited for Iran.

Why its cool:Launchedthree years ago, IranCubator matches activists with app developers to create technology that can change the lives of Iranian citizens. The program has launched a series of apps in recent months, including womens health appHamdam. Geared toward women who dont have access to sexual health resources women from conservative families or from rural areas, for example Hamdam provides information on sexually transmitted diseases and contraception, and also offers the only Persian menstruation calendar, according to United for Iran founder and executive director Firuzeh Mahmoudi. And Hamdam offers resources to help women who often arent granted the same legal protections as men answer questions on marriage law, divorce, employment and more.

Another IranCubator app,RadiTo, lets Iranians listen to news programs blocked by the government, such as BBC Persian, as well as audio books and talk shows. Thats crucial in a country that has a reputation as being one of the worlds most restrictive regimes when it comes to accessing information Reporters Without Borders this year ranked Iran 165th out of 180 countries initsWorld Press Freedom Index.

IranCubator also released an appcalled Haami thats geared toward Irans 2.2 million drug users offeringrecovery resources including Narcotics Anonymous information translated into Persian and a personal safety app calledToranjthat helps women defend against domestic violence.

To learn more visitUnited4Iran.org.

Where they stand:Womens health appHamdam, the incubators most popular app, has been downloaded more than 70,000 times since its launch in March.

Only in Silicon Valley:

Bummed out by shoes that dont fit?Iovadopromises to fix that problem by combining Silicon Valley technologywithItalian fashion. Customers use the companys app to take 10 pictures of their foot, which Iovado converts into a 3D model. That model is then sent to leather workers in Italy who use it to make a pair of handcrafted shoes built exactly to your specifications. The whole process costs 240 Euros, or about $274.

Iovado had raised almost $65,000 on Kickstarter as of Thursday, surpassing its goal of $22,678.

Run the numbers:

When considering whether to invest in a startup, venture capitalists question female founders differently than male founders, according to a recentstudypublished in the Harvard Business Review. Investors are more likely to ask men about their potential for gains, and women about their potential for losses, according to researchers from Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania, who analyzed interactions between 140 VCs and 189 entrepreneurs at TechCrunch Disrupt New York.

Sixty-seven percent of questions posed to male founders had to do with promotion focusing on hopes, achievements, advancement and ideals, according to the study. On the other hand, 66 percent of questions asked of female founders had to do with prevention they focused on safety, responsibility, security and vigilance. For example, VCs were more likely to ask men how they will acquire new customers, and ask women how they will prevent current customers from leaving.

Those lines of questioning make a difference, the researchers argue. The male-led startups they studied raised five times more funding than those led by women.

Click here:

Following a string of female startup founders who have spoken out aboutsexual harassmentthey faced frommale investors, entrepreneur Perri Chase this week addressedthe more subtle nuances of the investor/founder relationship. In a blog post titled I had sex with an investor & I am sorry, Chase described a meeting over drinks with an angel investor she hoped would back her startup. Whenhe started hitting on her, Chase wrote, it became clear that he hadnt intended theinteraction to be a pitch meeting. She says she made a consensual choice to reciprocate his advances.

In all that has been emerging this week it dawned on me that I gave him permission to act this way, Chase wrote. My sleeping with him is actually part of the problem.

But its complicated, Chase wrote, adding that in a world where its common to meet investors over happy hour, the line between professional and social interactions can become blurred, and clarifying it needs to become a priority.

Go here to read the rest:
Early Stage: Apps to fight censorship, drug addiction and sexism in Iran - The Mercury News

Ive been storing a truckload of my deceased parents stuff. This summer, after several moves and even more years, I decided to go through it and make the hard decisions about getting rid of (at least) some of it.

In one box was a clear plastic bag with newspapers in it. Tribune-Stars, haphazardly folded, but with a similarity; they were the D section of the Sunday Trib containing my essays. My mother was saving my essays. Id discovered a treasure trove. Until 2007ish I didnt save my Tribune-Star essays, so these have been termed Moms archive and Ive been digitizing them and (re)publishing them on my personal blog.

Some of these previous essays beg for updating and that is what I am doing today, updating an essay published on Feb. 6, 2005, titled A reaction laced with hypocrisy. The essay was about a survey published by the Knight Foundation on the attitudes of high school students toward the First Amendment. Knight has recently published another survey and given the tensions surrounding the press, its role, journalists rights and fake news it seemed ready-made for an update.

Some of the high points of the survey findings from 2006 were that 70 percent of the surveyed high school students believed that newspapers should seek government approval before running their stories and that only a bit more than a third disagreed that the First Amendment went too far in the rights it guarantees. Those students would be today in their middle to late twenties and voting.

I wrote that this finding was a reason for concern. The Knight Foundation cited a lack of resources and extra-curricular opportunities to learn about the First Amendment such as school newspapers. I pointed to broader changes in schools and likened them to prisons as the lives of students were becoming increasingly regulated leaving less room for student agency.

The hypocrisy referred to in the title had to do with this finding: Fifty-eight percent of students agreed that high schools should be allowed to report on controversial issues in their student newspapers without approval of school authorities. But only 39 percent of teachers did and less than a quarter of principals did.

In 2016, 56 percent of students disagreed that the First Amendment went too far in the rights it guarantees. For the teachers, it was 75 percent who disagreed with that statement. As to newspapers seeking government approval before running their stories, 61 percent of students and 73 percent of teachers agreed. Seems contradictory.

Ninety-one percent of students agreed that people should be able to express unpopular opinions. And those who more frequently consume news and actively engage with news through social media demonstrate stronger support for First Amendment freedoms. Unfortunately, the report does not include data on how many students regularly consumed and engaged with news sources. Based on my experience with my students, I would guess the proportion to be small. Of those who said they engaged often the smartphone was their overwhelming source for their news.

The study asked students and teachers about online news providers right to publish stories without government censorship. Seventy-three percent of teachers and 60 percent of students were supportive of that right, echoing somewhat the proportions responding to whether newspapers should seek government approval before running their stories. To me, this is concerning, especially now that the President of the United States is attempting to discredit the press.

Is there a difference in levels of trust for different media between students and their teachers? The highest trust for both students (83 percent) and teachers (91 percent) is news printed in newspapers. The trust placed on the information in newspapers was similar to information from friends and family. The lowest trust for both students (49 percent) and teachers (34 percent) was in social media. This was also the biggest gap between students and teachers.

The hypocrisy remains, however. Sixty-three percent of students believe high school students should be able to report on controversial issues in their student newspapers without the approval of school authorities. Only 37 percent of teachers agreed. Those numbers havent changed much since 2006.

In an age of high levels of distrust in government, to suggest censorship is an answer to an overreach of press freedom or for it to monitor offensive content seems strange. Three-quarters of teachers and almost 60 percent of students unquestioningly support the First Amendment. Why not look to the market as the answer? Dont like a source, dont read it.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Go here to see the original:
Tom Steiger: A strange attitude concerning press censorship - Terre Haute Tribune Star

Bibliophiles in Iran, clear your weekend: The huge Book Garden center just opened in Tehran.

Officialsunveiled the Book Garden, a giant academic complex on Wednesday. Atroughly 65,000 square meters (about 700,000 square feet), the center has several movie theaters, science halls, classrooms, a restaurant, a prayer room and whole a lot of literature. On its roof is a green park area for reading.

Related: Iran: Donald Trump cartoon contest mocks president as money-obsessed Nazi

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

All in all, the center aims to encourage Iranian children to be "active and creative through modern methods and equipment," as the Mehr News Agency reported Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said earlier this week."The opening of the Book Garden is a big cultural event in the country, so that our children can make better use of this cultural and academic opportunity," Tehran Mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf added.

It was a long time coming. The idea for the Book Garden was first pitched in 2004 as a way to cater to fans of the city's annual International Book Fair year-round. Construction on the center wrapped up last spring, and organizers spent the past few months stocking it with books. More than 400,000 titles areavailableforkids alone.One part of the center even has shorter shelves so youth can reach books better.

Iran has censored its literature for years, making publishers submit their books to the government so it can check for inappropriate content before publication. As such, a number of works have been banned, among them Dan Brown'sThe Da Vinci Code, James Joyce's Ulyssesand Tracy Chevalier'sGirl With a Pearl Earring. In addition, authors have been asked to avoid using termslike kiss,wine,drunk,dogand dance,according to The Guardian.

"Those responsible in the book industry should not let harmful books enter our book market on the basis that we let [readers] choose [what they want to read],"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in 2011. "Like poisonous, dangerous and addictive drugs which are not available for everyone without restrictionsas a publisher, librarian or an official in the book industry, we don't have the right to make [such books] available to those without knowledge."

There are some indications the policies have recently relaxed under PresidentHassan Rouhani, but some books are still on the blacklist, according to the Financial Times. Others are being sold underground.

The Book Garden may increase availability, but whether it was officially the largest bookshop wasn't immediately clear.

According to the Guinness World Recordsteam, the biggest individual bookstore since 1999 has been the Barnes & Noble along Fifth Avenue in New York City. It's about 154,000 square feet and includes more than 12 miles of shelves.

Follow this link:
Huge Bookstore, Tehran's Book Garden, Opens in Iran Despite Government Censorship - Newsweek

A painting, a song, a dance and a novel these are all forms of expression. So too, is a film as art and literature are all forms of expressions.

When a person expresses himself or herself, he or she is exercising his or her freedom of speech and expression. But these are not absolute. Under international human rights law, freedom of speech and expression may be restricted, but must be through law and only if necessary.

The Federal Constitution also allows for restrictions. These must also be proportionate to the objectives that it wants to achieve.

So unless there is law enacted, and the purpose of the law falls within the permitted restrictions, and are proportionate, your freedom cannot be restricted.

When it comes to films, the governing law in Malaysia is the Film Censorship Act.

It says that a person shall not have in his possession or in his custody or under his control, or circulate, exhibit, distribute, display, manufacture, produce, sell or hire, any film or film-publicity material which has not been approved by the Film Censorship Board.

Anyone who contravenes this provision in respect of a film is guilty of an offence, and may be fined not less than RM5,000 and not more than RM30,000, or jailed for a term not exceeding three years, or both.

Activist Lena Hendry was found guilty of this section and fined RM10,000 for screening the documentary film No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka without approval of the Censorship Board.

This article is not questioning the good faith of the men and women of the Film Censorship Board, but is it right for a body to decide whether we can exercise our right to freedom of speech and expression before we ourselves are allowed to exercise those rights?

Would this not render our freedom of speech and expression an illusion?

Is having a body that approves a film before it can even be shown, proportionate to the aims of the Act?

Any law that makes state approval a pre-condition to exercising one's freedom should be challenged as violating human rights and deemed unconstitutional.

With such laws, the state decides which part of the film is suitable for public. The state can also decide to censor parts of a film which it does not like or is uncomfortable with.

Instead of using censorship, we should instead emphasise film classification or ratings. The Board already issues film classifications based on the contents of a film to be shown in cinemas. By using a robust film rating system, we would avoid the need for censorship.

But what about obscene films or pornography, you may ask? Surely we must have a law to restrict these?

Yes, the Film Censorship Act already has specific laws to deal with films which are obscene or against public decency.

At the same time, a case can be made where the state intervenes and censors or bans a film it deems as sensitive.

For example, a film whose objective is to incite hatred against certain ethnicities; is there a need for censorship in those instances?

There are laws to deal with such situations without having to censor the film.

However, censorship guidelines have to be clear and specific to avoid a situation where a blanket ban is imposed on all films.

It must be subjected to judicial review by the Courts.

This is to ensure balance is struck between the freedom of speech and expression and the preservation of national security and public order.

Read this article:
Reviewing film censorship in Malaysia - The Star Online

If youve made a habit of either watching Fox News Tucker Carlson Tonight or following the anti-abortion groups that frequently appear on the program, then youve heard allegations that these organizations and the anti-choice misinformation they spread are being censored by any number of media platforms.

Most recently, Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, appeared on the June 26 edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight and claimed that Twitter was censoring Live Actions ads. Beyond alleging that Twitter was biased against the anti-abortion group, Rose also conveniently mentioned that Live Action had a $40,000 fundraising goal to meet within the week. Mere hours after Roses appearance, Live Actions homepage carried alarge addecrying Twitters censorship and begging for donations to meet the fundraising deadline. By June 30, the organization had reached its fundraising goal and wasaskingsupporters to continue donating in order to guarantee it could continue working to expose the abortion industry.

Rose is merely the latest person in a long list of anti-abortion extremists to baselessly allege censorship as a tactic in order to raise support and rile up right-wing media allies. When viewed as part of a larger pattern of behavior, it becomes clear that for these anti-abortion groups, crying censorshipto any perceived slight functions as a strategy to gain attention and support for their anti-choice misinformation.

Live Action ads and Twitter

During her June 26appearanceon Tucker Carlson Tonight, Rose claimed that Twitter was refusing to promote ads from either her or Live Actions Twitter accounts. Rose alleged that a Twitter bot had been telling them for months, that this is banned, we wont let you put this out. According to Rose, It took over a year for us to finally get from Twitter whats wrong with these tweets. and finally they said that any tweet that shows an ultrasound, that shows a prenatal life and affirms it, that exposes Planned Parenthood, violates the hate and sensitive policy. Carlson echoed Roses allegations and called Twitters policy an atrocity.

In a blog post, Live Actionpointedto Twitters advertising policies against inflammatory content andalleged that Twitter told them to delete tweets calling for the end of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, tweets of our undercover investigations into Planned Parenthood, and tweets including ultrasound images of fetuses. Live Action includedemailsfrom Twitter support staff in the blog post, in which a Twitter representative citedtweets mentioninginfanticideand anotherincluding abirth videoas examples of content that violatedthe platforms sensitive advertising content policy.

The hate and sensitive policy Rose cited is in actuality the platformsad policyon hate content, sensitive topics, and violence. In a statement to Carlson, the social media platformsaid, Twitter has clear, transparent rules that every advertiser is required to follow, and the political viewpoints of an organization do not impact how these rules are applied. Twitters hate content policy also covershate speech or advocacy; violence or threats of violence against people or animals; glorification of self-harm or related content; organizations associated with promoting hate; and offensive, vulgar, abusive or obscene content.

Despite this, Live Actionhas continued to assert that Twitter is playing politics,citinga few tweets by Planned Parenthood to demonstrate the perceived imbalance. These Planned Parenthood tweets mention extremists and talk about Trump defunding the non-profit but without pointing an accusatory finger at a specific group. Many of Live Actions tweets which Twitter did not accept as ads target Planned Parenthood specifically.

Letsnot forgot Live Action is still free to tweet and keep such content on its Twitter account, as Roseclarifiedduring an interview onEWTN News Nightly. The content merely does not meet clear and non-ideological standards for promotion or sponsorship, as dictated by Twitters easily locatedadvertising policies.

Given these facts, it appears that Roses appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight and claims of censorship werepart of a fundraising strategy for Live Action. As RosetoldCarlson, Were actually doing a campaign right now to get people to fund Live Action and to get out the information that Twitter is trying to block using other platforms using Facebook, using YouTube, using the blogosphere, obviously coming on here and talking with you.

After Roses June 26 appearance, Live Action sent afundraisingemailabout the segment, claiming that Live Action is being suppressed and asking supporters to help us strengthen our efforts against the abortion industry. Live Actions censorship allegations also animated other right-wing media outlets.The Washington Timespromoteditsfundraising appeal, stating, Looking to take their business elsewhere, Live Action started a campaign to raise money to inundate other social media platforms with the pro-life message. On June 29, Christian Broadcasting Network published an article on Live Actions claims about Twitters ad policy, at the end of which itstatedthat Live Action has launched a campaign to compensate for their losses due to Twitters censoring, and directed readers to Live Actions fundraising page.RoseandLive ActionalsopushedthenarrativeonTwitter, using the hashtag #DontDeleteMe despite all content remainingpubliclyavailable on the platform.

Center for Medical Progress videos

In May 2017, the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress (CMP)circulateddeceptive video footage that had been barred from release by a federal judge. The videoquickly spreadthrough social media accounts of anti-abortion leaders and groups before Judge William Orrick ordered all copies of the video be taken down as there was aheightened concernfor the safety of abortion providers identified in the footage.

As copiesof the video were removed following Orricks order, anti-choice activists claimedcensorship had occurred and pointed a finger at almost every social media platform as potential culprits. During a May 31appearanceon Fox News Tucker Carlson Tonight, Rose accused both YouTube and Twitter of participating in the chilling effect right now on journalism that is the opposing viewpoint on abortion by complying with the court order to remove the video. Live Action alsoclaimedthat YouTube had caved to the abortion industrys censorship pressure while LifeSiteNewsarguedthat video hosting websites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Vimeo were on a witch hunt against the latest undercover Planned Parenthood video, deleting instances of it wherever they find it.

The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony ListaccusedYouTube of partnering with Planned Parenthood to cover up the truth that #PPSellsBabyParts a common social media hashtag among staunch anti-choice activists. Liz Wheeler of right-wing news outlet One America News Network (OANN) took personal offense when YouTube removed a clip of her show, Tipping Point, in which she played some of the barred footage. In a follow-up clip, amusinglyavailable on OANNs YouTube channel, Wheeler said YouTube was trying to silence me and asked, What are liberals so afraid people will see that theyll censor me to ensure nobody sees [footage from the barred video].

Although anti-choice groups and right-wing media outlets alike cried censorshipwhen various platforms removed the video, the fact remains that itwas legally barred from release giving these platforms little choice even if they agreed with CMPs highlydiscreditedclaims. Undeterred, these groups and outlets evenextendedtheir criticisms to attack Orrick andattemptedto have him removed from CMPs case an effort that another federal judge ultimatelydismissedas lacking merit.Despite claiming the video was being censored, anti-choice groups still (somehow!)continuedto re-post andspreadthe video across the internet after Orricks order.

Operation Rescues Google ranking

The extremistanti-choice groupOperation Rescueclaimedthat Google was engaged in censorship after its page views decreased for when internet users searched forabortions in US orabortion statistics. The group alleged that Googles search engine has manipulated search parameters to dramatically reduce exposure to Operation Rescues webpages containing misleading abortion statistics.

In April, Googleannounceda policy change regarding how sites containing misleading or false information would be ranked. If Google is censoring anti-abortion pages as Operation Rescue argued it isnot doing a great job with it. Although the page rankings fluctuate,search results for abortions in US and abortion statistic still yield anti-choice sites, includingFox News, National Right to Life Committee, abortion73, and American Life League.

By alleging it wasbeing censored, Operation Rescue effectively sounded the alarm for other anti-abortion groups to use their own rankings on Googles search results to claim discrimination and promote their content. Within a day of OperationRescues initial post, similar stories were running onLifeNewsand the right-wing outletOneNewsNow. Operation Rescue also sent a fundraisingemailasking for support to launch a massive campaign to ensure our critical abortion research and pro-life content is available, and no longer pushed down by the pro-abortion radicals at Google.

March for Life coverage

Every January, anti-abortion groups andmediaoutletsallegethatmainstreammedia are censoring their protest, called the March for Life, againsttheRoe v. Wadedecision. The supposed lack of coverage has galled anti-abortion groups to such an extent that they started anumbrella groupcalled Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues, which primarily focuses on the March for Life Media Censorship. Many members of the group havecomplainedabout the media blackout of the March for Life on major media platforms. Rep. Alex Mooney R-W.Va., who is one of the two politicians in the Alliance, stated, The liberal medias consistent censorship of the annual March for Life is nothing short of shameful.

However, as some right-wing media outlets have themselves suggested, describing coverage of the March for Life as suffering from consistent censorship is inaccurate.After the most recent March for Life, the extreme right-wing outlet Church Militantpraisedthe media because the 2017 March for Life is receiving more media coverage than ever. Church Militant pointed out thatC-SPANandCNNlivestreamed the march, whileNPRfeatured stories from attendees. In addition,The New York Times,The Washington Post, andABC Newsall ran stories about the march.

The March for Life also benefited from the attention garnered by the Womens March in January 2017. Several anti-abortion groups and individuals tried toco-optthe message of the Womens March to push a so-called feminist anti-choice message. The Womens March ultimatelyadopteda pro-choice message, but the anti-abortion groups stillgainedsubstantialmediacoveragefrombeingsupposedlybannedfrom being sponsors ofthe Womens March.

Anti-abortion messages at schools

In March,anti-choicegroupsandmediaoutletsbegan crying censorship when anti-abortion chalk messages scrawled by a chapter of Students for Life of America (SFLA) were scrubbed from sidewalks at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania. Thehate groupAlliance Defending Freedom (ADF) came to SFLAs defensedeclaring, University officials cant chalk up their censorship to following orders to enforce an unconstitutional campus policy on sidewalk chalking. SFLA President Kristan Hawkinsagreed, saying, Too frequently we see that public colleges and universities feel they can engage in censorship of a student group just because officials dont agree with the viewpoint of those students.

In reality, the messages had beenremovedovernight during a regular cleaning process, and had nothing to do with the content of the chalking.

Hawkins also usedTucker Carlson Tonights right-wing platform toraiseanother issue of censorship in schools. During the June 2 appearance on the show, Hawkins supported a high school student whoclaimedher school had denied her permission to form a SFLA chapterbecause it was too controversial. According to school officials, the studentssimplydidnt followthe requirements for club formation and would be approved once they did.

Buffer zones

In 2014, ADF successfully arguedMcCullen v. Coakleybefore the Supreme Court,striking downa Massachusetts buffer zone law that banned anti-choice protestors inside a 35-feet parameter around abortion clinics. ADFclaimedthat this buffer zone in which anti-abortion extremists were not allowed to protest created a censorship zone where the First Amendment doesnt apply. Equating buffer zones with censorship has been a common tactic of anti-choice groups when challenging laws that mandate them. For example, ADF alsousedthe censorship zone argument when arguing against a Pittsburghordinance. Similarly, the anti-abortion group Created EqualclaimedOhios 15-feet buffer zone constituted a censorship zone that infringed on its right to protest outside abortion clinics.

Despite censorshipclaims from anti-abortion groups, buffer zones are essential for abortion access and to deter threats of violence against patients, providers, and clinics. The Massachusetts ordinance that was struck down inMcCullen v. Coakleywasoriginally introducedbecause of a 1994 shooting at a Brookline, MA clinic that killed two people. While anti-abortion protesters complain about the ability to spout their hateful rhetoric,violenceat abortion clinics has not only continued but increased in recent years; in 2015, ashootingat a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic killed three people and injured nine more. Data from the National Abortion Federation (NAF)showsthat protests outside abortion clinics rose in 2016 to the highest level since NAF began tracking them in 1977. There wasalsoan increase in a wide range of intimidation tactics meant to disrupt the provision of health care at facilities, including vandalism, picketing, obstruction, invasion, trespassing, burglary, stalking, assault and battery, and bomb threats.

As recent cases in Kentucky and Missouri have shown, someanti-choicegroupsintentionally harass abortion providers or engage in civil disobedience outside clinics. When these groups face backlash or legal pushback, they invokecensorshipas a tactic in order to continue their campaigns of harassment.

Crying censorship: An anti-choice tactic

These examples are wide-ranging, reaching from social media platforms, to news coverage, to sidewalk access, but the common thread and indeed, the underlying tactic at play is anti-abortion groups labeling a perceived injustice against them as censorship.These groups have much to gain and very little to lose by employing this tactic. By claiming theyve been unjustly censored, anti-abortion groups not only elevate their lies and misinformation, they are also able to incite followers and raise funds by claiming they are being persecuted.

Crying censorship is a win-win tactic for anti-abortion extremists. Meanwhile, clinic intimidation andviolencecontinues to rise asright-wing mediaagitate their increasingly polarized base to support anti-abortion causes,and an increasing number oflawsare being implemented to limit abortion rights. Anti-choice organizations also have thebenefitof PresidentDonald Trumpsadministrationbeing filled withanti-choiceextremistsalreadyon arampageagainstabortionandcontraception access.

But please, thoughyou have an overtlyanti-choice administration that relies on a direct pipeline of information from anti-abortion extremists, continue to feign outrage about being unable to place ads on Twitter.

More:
How anti-choice zealots cry censorship whenever they are ... - Salon - Salon