Mediaboss Marketing

Wrestling Rumors

Impact Is Being Forced Into Some Strange Censorship Tonight Wrestling Rumors Normally when you hear censorship, you think violence or sexual content. Maybe some profanity, or a if we're in a dystopia, a restraint against political opinions. You don't generally expect an entire person to be censored. But that's exactly what's ... and more »

Excerpt from:
Impact Is Being Forced Into Some Strange Censorship Tonight - Wrestling Rumors

Jonathan Nez | Published 17 hours ago

THE ISSUE: The UC Berkeley College Republicans invited Milo Yiannopoulos to speak on campus. Protests erupted in response, leading to the event being canceled. The violent protest came from a non-student organization, but the event inspired substantial debate over free speech on campus. You can read the other sidehere.

Our disagreement is really about what free speech is and what its limits are. On one side, you have an alt-right figure whose views are pretty extreme. He has called feminism toxic, attacked transgenderism and labeled campus rape culture a myth. His views should never be normalized because they enable hate. On the other side, you have a liberal university culture. To these students, Milos words are emotionally traumatic, and by extension, they serve as an assault on their person in a way that warrantsbanishment.

While I am aware of my privilege and empathetic to those Milo belittles, violence is still not justified. No one has the right to live free of content that offends them. The victim card is not one that supersedes someone elses right to speak. What you do have a right to do is use your freedom of speech to fight back. You can organize a peaceful protest, engage in discourse with those you disagree with and publicly condemn organizations that support speakers whose beliefs you find repugnant. Attacking others and causing over $100,000 in property damage are not included in those rights.

People often conflate my support of Milos right to speak with support for his views; this is not the case. I disagree with all of his views, with the exception of those on free speech. Taking away freedoms sets a dangerous precedent that can be hard to undo. When you allow people to believe opposing views violate a nonexistent right, they will believe that censorship is not only justified, but also the only solution to the disagreement. Creating such an unhealthy culture of discourse with suppression is precariously fascist, which is why I believe we should err on the side of freedom. Milo sucks, but censorship is worse.

More here:
Viewpoints: Err on the side of freedom, rather than censorship - The Daily Tar Heel

spikeds annual Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) was released last week, to the usual cacophony of irritation from those on the receiving end of a Red ranking. Chief among the perpetually ticked-off, of course, was president of the National Union of Students (NUS), Malia Bouattia.

The NUS always frets about the FSUR, because it collects in one place all the bans and regulations students unions inflict upon their members. Not only did Bouattia pen a ripsote to the FSUR in the Huffington Post the day before its 2017 findings came out, she also attempted another take-down in the Independent a few days later.

In the latter, Bouattia claims that she can demonstrate expertly that the project is flawed, suggesting that what spiked doesnt understand is that students want to extend, not suppress, free expression. Free speech is universal, she says, but it is not limitless. To extend it to everyone means sacrificing some of our rights, preventing those who would suppress some peoples free expression from having theirs. In other words, you need to ban your way to free speech.

This is pretty mind-bending logic, even if it is by now sadly familiar. It speaks volumes that the NUS and universities feel it is their right to decide who should and shouldnt have their universal rights suspended. Whats more, the NUSs ban on those it deems to be fascist under its longstanding No Platform policy is really an expression of contempt for students, not far-right speakers.

What the NUS doesnt understand is that allowing your opponents the right to speak doesnt render you mute. One person speaking doesnt prevent the other from answering. This is what is so important about free speech. Believing in free speech means trusting people to defeat backward ideas in open debate. The NUS simply doesnt think students are up to it.

Read the original here:
Campus censorship is a big deal - Spiked

Censorship is the act or practice of suppressing the speech or public communication which is considered objectionable, harmful and sensitive, by a government, media outlet or other controlling bodies. This public content is censored for many reasons that the active bodies believe are immoral. Some reasons include: controlling obscenities, pornography, hate speeches, protecting young children, to promote or restrict political or religious views or even to protect the national security of a country.

Types of Censorship:

Almost everything at some point could be placed underneath a category of censorship. Depending on where people[E1] are located and who or what is going on in your nation or even community, your public media on the television, Internet, radio, music, movies and books could be censored. There are dozens of different forms of censorship implemented everyday, including all the following:

Moral Censorship- the removal of materials that is considered obscene or morally unacceptable. For example, pornography is usually censored from the public and even prosecuted if it involves young minors.

Political Censorship- This is a form of censorship by the government that occurs when information is [E2]withhold from their citizens[E3], mostly used to prevent hateful expressions.

Book Censorship- The censorship of novels is either implicated nationally or by state[E4]. So, if a community finds a book to be inappropriate, they can have the book removed from public and school libraries. Such books include The Harry Potter series, Animal Farm, the Goosebumps series, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and To Kill A Mockingbird[E5].

Films- All movies released for public viewing in theaters are censored in some way or another. The usual censored items include pornography and obscenities, up to a certain age. Other movies are censored due to racial or political correctness.

Music- Moral authorities are determined to find what behavior is acceptable for individuals in todays society. Most cases of musical censorship involve lyrics which deal with drugs, violence and sexual topics.

Internet- The extent of Internet censorship varies from country to country. Many countries, like the Untied States have little to no Internet censorship, while others limit basic new information from their citizens. Many times the Internet[E6] in these countries will be censored after elections, protests and riots.

Effects of Censorship

Many people agree that some things need to be censored. While others are outraged at the thought of any individuals work being censored. Many times things that are being viewed or heard by larger masses of people should be censored for the sole fact that you do not know who is in that group of people.

I think it is fine to censor T.V. because it is something that all the public can use, including kids, and parents cant always control what shows come up, grade Kalie Jurries said.

Exposing underage children to inappropriate and vulgar content can have negative effects on a child. Adults have a much easier time choosing what to watch, and are able to work around inappropriate work.

I filter[E7] by choosing not to watch television at certain times or certain channels, librarian Joanne Willis said.

Their ways of thinking and understanding are not always able to understand adult content.

While many believe television should be censored, many feel the complete opposite about the Internet and printable material like books.

No, I do not think the Internet should be censored. If[E8] people cant handle the content of the Internet[E9], maybe they should not be on it. Everyone on the Internet should be old enough to deal with those things, Jurries said.

The Internet is a very useful tool in todays society, and just like any other great tools in life, there will be people who abuse it.

Access at certain age levels or times should be controlled. Example[E10]: access to sexually explicit internet materials should not be allowed at the high school level or in an office environment where it would/could be offensive to coworkers, said Willis.

Pros and Cons of Censorship

Censorship is all about perspective. Whether you are the over the top strict parent or the care free, young kid who wants to know everyone. Censorship will always be a heated debate, both sides have their pros and cons. Religious conflicts often times can be avoided by the censorship of certain material that people deem insulting or offensive. Censorship can be used to prevent politically motivated propaganda. Plagiarism can be prevented. It prevents companies from spreading inaccurate or exaggerated claims about their products or other companies.

Freedom of speech is compromised. Media giants can push their agendas under the censorship. it hinders upon the freedom of the press. It shelters people from things that they need to know about. Censorship in books, plays, and movies may effect the overall feeling and meaning of the writing.

Go here to see the original:
Censorship does both harm, good - waterloo.k12.ia.us

View of Scott Daniel Williamss Storefront Sign for the Ungovernable City (2016) partially installed at the Loisaida Center (image courtesy the artist)

Ifyou visitthe Loisaida Centerin the next month, the firstthing youll notice is the sound of running water and voices some in English, some in Spanish telling stories about the Rio Grande river. Then youll see the rest of El Paso-based artist Zeke Peas collaboration with local musicianEureka The Butcher,River Border, a large graphite drawing on cloth that maps the stretch of the MexicoUS border where a military wallruns along the banks of the Rio Grande in the El Paso del Norte region. The combined effect of the Peas drawing and Eurekas recordingsis powerfully evocative, transporting the visitor to the rivers edge.

The next sound you mightve heard would have come from Albuquerque-based artistScott Daniel Williamss interactive sculpture, Storefront Sign for the Ungovernable City which, behind a sign that reads Police Not Welcome, can be toggledby pulling a chainto simultaneously play a recording of Ornette Colemans The Artist in America and audio ofthe killing ofJames Boyd byAlbuquerque Police Department officers in 2014. That workwas originally installed near Loisaidas main entrance by the curators ofFuture Now // Futura Ahora, Atomic Culture(the duo of Matthew and Malinda Galindo), but was removed on February 3, the day before the exhibitions opening. The decision, taken unilaterally by one of Loisaidas directors, was spurred by a fear that the centers CEO, Raul Russi a former Buffalo police officer who was injured in the line of duty would object to the work.This act of censorship repeatedly threatened to undo Atomic Culturesvital exhibition.

Its a very difficult situation for us as artists because this is a community center, and its a Latin Americancommunity center specifically, thats done a lot of really, really incredible work and we want to stand as allies with the center, Williams told Hyperallergic. It was a difficult decision to even take any sort of stand, but at the same time I think we [the artists in the show]feel like thats where we have to start. If were going to talk about expression and social justice we have to start at home, in these places where we should all be most accountable.

Russi who only became aware of the situation after Williams had issued a public statement and protested the exhibition opening, and negotiations between the artist, curators, and Loisaida directors had reached an impasse finally saw Storefront Sign for the Ungovernable City and the rest ofFuture Now // Futura Ahoraduring a visit to the center on Saturday. Today, he releaseda public statement about and apologyfor the works removal, paving the way for the reinstallation of Williamss work in a different space at Loisaida tomorrow.

Unfortunately, our team jumped to the wrong conclusion that I would object to the exhibition of one of the pieces without consulting with me in advance, Russis statement reads. I had the opportunity over the weekend to have a dialogue with the Atomic Culture organizers, to clarify all of this and to offer my apologies on behalf of Loisaida, Inc. As CEO, I let Atomic Culture know that the piece can be part of their ongoing exhibit.

Indeed, Williamss work seems especially relevant for an exhibition about social justice at a community center that represents a historically over-policed community and is located directly next to a major NYPDstation. Add to this the fact that all the featured artists in Future Now // Futura Ahoraare based in the southwestern United States, an area poised to become an intensified zoneof activity for the USs militarized border patrols under President Trump, and the show takes on an added sense of urgency.

In addition to Williamss piece, several other works in the exhibition condemn the excessive use of force and systemic abuses of agents paid to uphold the law. For instance, the mural On Both Sides of the Border Women Are Still Being Murdered (2016) a collaboration between Albuquerque-based artist Nani Chacon and author Tanaya Winder highlights the vulnerability of women in both Mexico and the US. And Peas aforementioned map of the Rio Grande and border wall includes a drawing of a threatening US Border Control vehicle alongside the words: You have the right to remain silent.In one of the exhibitions main rooms, a row of small, vintage-looking cell phones emits poetry and displays compass faces that seem to point the viewer north. The work, Transborder Immigrant Tool, is a safety systemdeveloped by San Diego-based artistsRicardo Dominguez and Brett Stalbaumto help disoriented travelers in any desert setting to find their way. The program offers tips for desert survival in the form of poetry recited in several different languages, and logs the coordinatesof known water caches, offering a vital tool for people crossing, for instance, the MexicoUS border in southern California, where the artists developed and tested it between 2009 and 2012.

Atomic Culturehas brought together a powerful group of artists from the southwestern US, many of whom are making work at theconfluence of art and activism, and most of whom are too rarely exhibitedin New York. Fortunately, Loisaida has rectifiedthe earliercensorship of one work and, in doing so, avoided jeopardizing the telling of all the other featured artistsimportant stories. Indeed, the reinstallation of Williamss piece will provide a crucial link between the issues of migrant safety and anti-immigrant infrastructure along the MexicoUS border that many of these artists are addressing. Police brutality often targets the most vulnerable residents in the country, and some US cities situated near the Mexican border are particularly prone to this type of institutionalized violence. The fact that many of the artists here are from Albuquerque is particularly poignant, since the citys police department is under investigation for use of force by the Department of Justice.Future Now // Futura Ahora is a testament to the works artists make not only to cope with such conditions, but to combat them.

Future Now // Futura Ahora continues at the Loisaida Center (710 East 9th Street, Lower East Side, Manhattan) through March 18.

See more here:
Despite Censorship Row, a Show Connecting Immigrant Rights and Police Brutality Goes On - Hyperallergic