Mediaboss Marketing

Hannah Michelle BussaNEWS EDITOR

Banned Books Week was celebrated Sept. 26 to Oct. 2 this year.

Sam Petto, the Communications Director for the ACLU of Nebraska, said Banned Books Week is an annual celebration of the freedom to read and a reminder that local governments and school districts all too often attempt to ban books when they dislike their ideas, their words or the viewpoints they feature.

The week is important because it reminds us that we all need to take an active role in defending open access to information and our right to free expression, he said.

Tammi Owens, the Outreach and Instruction Librarian and Associate Professor at UNO, said many of the books that end up on most-challenged lists contain diverse content.

These diverse perspectives offer windows into other lives or echo our own experiences, and its so important for everyone to have access to those stories, she said. Perhaps especially so for people, young adults in particular, who see themselves in those stories but live in communities with people who may want to censor those ideas.

The American Library Association keeps track of the efforts to ban books. Petto said these numbers show common themes.

Books featuring the perspectives of people who are LGBTQ, people of color and people belonging to certain faith traditions are most frequently challenged, he said. What does that tell us? Censorship often targets the viewpoints of those who are already most marginalized. To fix our most challenging societal issues, we need education and free expression, not censorship.

Petto said it is fortunate that government censorship is unconstitutional.

The law is absolutely clear on that point and groups like the ACLU are here to defend your First Amendment rights when theyre violated, he said.

Many popular books have been banned.

It sounds bizarre to anyone who had childhood dreams of getting their letter from Hogwarts, but nationally, the ACLU has defeated efforts to take the Harry Potter series out of school libraries, Petto said.

Omaha author Rainbow Rowells book Eleanor & Park has been challenged in several school districts. Petto said Rowell links resources on her website to help students resist those censorship efforts.

Beth Black, the owner of The Bookworm, said Banned Books Week is important to remind people of the importance of free speech and the expression of ideas.

Often, the objection to a specific book, especially in the schools, comes from a single person who is imposing their beliefs and opinions on the majority, she said. I feel that the objection of one should not be imposed on the masses.

Black said open communication allows both parties to express their ideas and beliefs, while the lack of communication is both divisive and destructive. Censoring ideas ends communication.

As an independent bookstore owner and as an American citizen, I do feel that censorship is wrong, she said.

She said books shouldnt simply be judged by todays standards. Books written decades ago still need to be discussed, while keeping in mind the time in which it was written.

Weve come a long way, but its important to remember where we came from, she said.

Petto said Banned Books Week isnt just about books its about free expression and having the right to discuss and consider all kinds of ideas and information.

That right takes constant defending, he said. Case in point: UNO students recently helped stop a University of Nebraska Board of Regents resolution that would have chilled classroom conversations of racism and whitewashed history.

Petto said state leaders have already said theyll attempt to pass similar legislation next year focusing on K-12 schools, denying those students an inclusive education.

Ideas are powerful and its not the governments role to pick winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas, he said. Thats why well always be ready to defend your right to free expression.

The top ten most banned books for the past twenty years can be found here.

comments

Read this article:
Banned Books Week - Gateway - The Gateway

The COVID-19 Pandemic has served the Democrats well. With a Karl Marx mentality, they agree with censorship of medical and legal professionals who disagree with the vaccine or how it should be administered. Seniors and those with other health issues should take the chance and get vaccinated. They are the ones dying in great numbers.

The vaccine proponents ignore those that are exempt, including congress, the senate, Hollywood actors, and Illegal immigrants, including millions in our sanctuary cities. We are not told all the ingredients in the vaccine or the side effects and not told why the manufacturers cannot be sued. Its the reason people like Bill Gates and now eight more new billionaires exist because Moderna, Pfizer and J&J are sure investments for them.

Tell us all the facts and dont censor anyone with the medical, scientific and legal credentials that dont agree with the likes of Biden, Fauci and their minions. With true transparency, we can choose to get our families vaccinated or not. Proponents claim the vaccine is safe. If true, make them liable, like with all other drugs. Then the distrust might dissipate. A simple solution that we should all agree on: Stop the censorship.

(Donald Siracusa is a Bay Terrace resident.)

More:
Stop the vaccine censorship to gain our trust (letter to the editor) - silive.com

By most accounts, Minamata is a pretty good movie. Its a dramatization of the story of real-life photojournalist W. Eugene Smith, who in 1971 was dispatched to the Japanese fishing village of Minamata to chronicle the impact of mercury poisoning by the Chisso Chemical Company.

What resulted was a shocking series of photographs that exposed the crime to the world, despite the company trying to block Smith at every turn. Ordinarily, this would be classic Oscar bait: a sober prestige picture about corporate greed with a heavyweight actor at the helm.

But, unfortunately for Minamata, that heavyweight actor is Johnny Depp. Depps reputation has crumbled over the last few years, particularly after the UK High Court ruled that it wasnt libelous to call him a wife-beater, promptly followed by him losing his appeal against the decision.

Minamatawas soon removed from festival schedules and director Andrew Levitas says MGM went out of their way to bury the movie in the US. Heres his letter to the studio:

In re-exposing their pain in the sharing of their story, this long marginalised community hoped for only one thing to lift history from the shadows so that other innocents would never be afflicted as they have and it seemed in that moment, with MGMs partnership, a decades-long wish was finally coming true. Now, imagine the devastation when they learned this past week, that despite an already successful global roll out, MGM had decided to bury the film (acquisitions head Mr. Sam Wollmans words) because MGM was concerned about the possibility that the personal issues of an actor in the film could reflect negatively upon them and that from MGMs perspective the victims and their families were secondary to this.

Australian photojournalist Stephen Dupont feels its particularly insulting that this story wont get the audience it deserves, saying that he enjoyed the movie, that the pain of the real-life victims of the poisoning has been ignored, and that MGM is engaged in censorship:

MGM is not just punishing Depp but everyone else, the other actors, the director, the cinematographer, writers, all those involved. Even if the allegations were true, I wouldnt change my opinion. With Depp what were talking about is a marriage breakdown, something that lots of people go through all around the world, the only difference is that theyre not celebrities. Its a sad state of censorship in a far too critical world where, god forbid, if you say or do anything the wrong way, or make a mistake, and youre crucified every which way. Lets get these things into perspective.

Its a fair point, though in my eyes theres a difference between saying something the wrong way and beating the crap out of your wife.

Anyway, theres a chance Minamata might one day get its moment in the spotlight. Depp is pinning his hopes on a titanic clash with ex-wife Amber Heard in 2022. Depp is suing Heard for $50M over a Washington Post op-ed she wrote about her experience as a victim of domestic violence. Shes filed a $100 million counterclaim, also alleging defamation and that Johnny was responsible for a social media effort to tarnish her career by getting her booted offAquaman 2.

Perhaps if Depp is vindicated in a domestic court he can begin rebuilding his reputation and Minamata will be reappraised by audiences. Though, honestly, I wouldnt get your hopes up too much.

See the original post here:
MGM Accused Of Censorship After Burying Johnny Depp's Latest Movie - We Got This Covered

Congress shall establish prohibiting - free speech - or the people peaceably to Amend- the U.S. September 25, 89. Ratified December 15, .

What is censorship?

Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons individuals, groups, or government officials find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, Dont let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! American Library Association (ALA)

The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. This 67-year-old Freedom to Read Statement maintains its significance in the mission of United States public libraries.

As difficult as it may be to see an item in a library that is 180 degrees from your opinions, understandings, and values, perhaps take a deep breath and think how this is our First Amendment at work. This is evidence that our intellectual freedoms are strong. Wow! Yes! We are so lucky!

On this note, Grand County Library District joins libraries across the US in celebrating the freedom to read during Banned Books Week, Sept. 26-Oct. 2. The 2021 theme is: Books Unite Us. Censorship Divides Us.

Think of a book (or movie) that stretched your thoughts, compassion, and understanding. Did this experience translate into you reaching across an aisle, a boundary, or a border? Or did it anger you? Did you want to learn more about an issue? Maybe it didnt change your mind, but did it help you have a better respect for a loved ones opinion? Or, did you close the book having a clearer perspective?

Being able to better connect with others is one powerful outcome of a well-written story. This will not always be the case with books we read, but when it does, lets hope communities grow a little brighter and more compassionate.

The ALA reports that there were 273 books challenged in 2020. Here are some of the most challenged books for 2020:

Reasons: Challenged, banned, and restricted for LGBTQIA+ content, conflicting with a religious viewpoint, and not reflecting the values of our community.

Reasons: Banned and challenged because of authors public statements, and because of claims that the book contains selective storytelling incidents and does not encompass racism against all people.

Reasons: Banned and challenged for racial slurs and their negative effect on students, featuring a white savior character, and its perception of the Black experience

Hungry for what was censored in the first paragraph? What were some other most challenged books? Want to read a challenged book? Visit your GCLD library and get started on your journey.

More:
Library Corner: Censorship and Banned Books Week - Sky Hi News

HONG KONG The director of Far From Home, a short, intimate film about a family caught in the tumult of the 2019 antigovernment protests in Hong Kong, had hoped to show off her work at a local film festival in June.

Then the censors stepped in.

They told the director, Mok Kwan-ling, that her films title which in Cantonese could carry a suggestion of cleaning up after a crime must go. Dialogue expressing sympathy for an arrested protester had to be excised. Scenes of removing items from a room also had to be cut, apparently because they might be construed as concealing evidence.

In total, Ms. Mok was ordered to make 14 cuts from the 25-minute film. But she said that doing so would have destroyed the balance she had attempted to forge between the views of protesters and those who opposed them. So she refused, and her film has thus far gone unseen by the public.

It was quite contradictory to a good narrative and a good plot, she said. If a person is completely good or completely bad, its very boring.

In March, a local theater pulled the prizewinning protest documentary Inside the Red Brick Wall, after a state-run newspaper said it incited hatred of China. At least two Hong Kong directors have decided to not release new films locally. When an earlier film by one of those directors was shown to a private gathering last month, the gathering was raided by the police.

Directors say they fear the government will force them to cut their films and, potentially, put them in prison if they dismiss demands and show their work.

Under the national security law, Hong Kong is no longer Hong Kong, said Jevons Au, a director who moved to Canada shortly after the sweeping law was imposed. Hong Kong is a part of China, and its film industry will finally turn into a part of Chinas film industry.

Beyond the national security law, the government plans to toughen its censorship policies to allow it to ban or force cuts to films deemed contrary to the interests of national security. Such powers would also be retroactive, meaning the authorities could bar films that were previously approved. People that show such films could face up to three years in prison.

Part of the underlying goal of this law is to intimidate Hong Kong filmmakers, investors, producers, distributors and theaters into internalizing self-censorship, said Shelly Kraicer, a film researcher specializing in Chinese-language cinema. There will be a lot of ideas that just arent going to become projects and projects that arent going to be developed into films.

The new restrictions are unlikely to trouble bigger-budget Hong Kong films, which are increasingly made in collaboration with mainland companies and aimed at the Chinese market. Producers already work to ensure those films comply with mainland censorship. Likewise, distributors and streaming services like Netflix, which is available in Hong Kong but not mainland China, are wary of crossing red lines.

Netflix is a business first, said Kenny Ng, an expert on film censorship at Hong Kong Baptist Universitys Academy of Film. They show unconventional films, including politically controversial films, but only from a safe distance. I think Netflix has bigger concerns about access to commercial markets, even in mainland China.

Netflix representatives did not reply to requests for comment.

The most likely targets of the new rules, which are expected to be approved this fall by Hong Kongs legislature, are independent documentaries and fictional films that touch on protests and opposition politics.

For those independent filmmakers who really want to do Hong Kong stories in Hong Kong, it will be very challenging, said Mr. Au, the director who moved to Canada. They will have a lot of obstacles. It might even be dangerous.

The documentary Inside the Red Brick Wall was shot by anonymous filmmakers who followed protesters at Hong Kong Polytechnic University when they were besieged by police for two weeks in 2019. In addition to the film being pulled from the local theater, the Arts Development Council of Hong Kong withdrew a $90,000 grant to Ying E Chi, the independent film collective that released it.

The censorship office had initially approved the documentary for audiences over 18, but now some in the film industry believe it could face a retroactive ban.

Creators of the fictional film Ten Years, which examined the fears of vanishing culture and freedoms that invigorated the resistance to Chinas tightening grip on Hong Kong, say it could also be targeted under the new rules. The filmmakers had difficulties finding venues when the movie was released in 2015, but now it might be banned completely, said Mr. Au, who directed one vignette in the five-part film.

Kiwi Chow, who also directed part of Ten Years, knew that his protest documentary Revolution of Our Times had no chance of being approved in Hong Kong. Even its overseas premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in July required special precautions. It was shown on short notice near the end of the festival so Beijing couldnt pressure the organizers to block it.

Mr. Chow sold the film rights to a European distributor and, before he returned to Hong Kong, deleted footage of the film from his own computers out of fear he might be arrested.

Some of the subjects of the 152-minute film, including pro-democracy activists such as Benny Tai and Gwyneth Ho, are now in jail. Mr. Chow feared he, too, might be arrested. Friends and family warned him to leave the city, release the film anonymously or change its title. The title is drawn from the slogan Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times, which the government has described as an illegal call for Hong Kong independence.

But Mr. Chow said he ultimately went ahead with the film as he had envisioned it out of a sense of responsibility to the project, its subject and crew.

I need to do whats right and not let fear shake my beliefs, he said.

While he has yet to face direct retaliation, he said there were signs it could be coming.

When he attended a small, private showing of Beyond the Dream, a nonpolitical romance that he directed, the police raided the event. Mr. Chow and about 40 people who attended the screening at the office of a pro-democracy district representative were each fined about $645 for violating social distancing rules.

It seems like a warning sign from the regime, he said. Its not very direct. Its still a question whether the regime has begun its work: Has a case on me been opened?

Continue reading here:
How Hong Kong Censors Films in the Name of National Security - The New York Times