Mediaboss Marketing

Arvida Bystrm is a 25-year-old Swedish artist, currently living in Los Angeles. She has a background in photography and modeling, and has appeared in andwritten for a wide variety of publications, including Dazed & Confused, NYLON and Lula Magazine.

Molly Soda, a 28-year-old from New York, is an artist working across a variety of digital platforms on the subjects of feminism. She was named byComplex Magazine as one of the most importantartists of 2013.

Together, they have about 230,000 followers on Instagram.

In 2015, Bystrm and Soda discovered they shared a mutual frustration: they both had a significant number ofInstagram posts taken down by the platform without explanation.Can we make a ceremony for all banned IGposts? Bystrm saidon Twitter backin September 2015, towhichSoda responded, We should make a book. Two years later, Pics or It Didnt Happenwas born, featuring hundreds ofphotographs that were once banned from Instagram, with some of the authors shots too.

Instagrams Guidelines prohibit violent, nude, partially nude, discriminatory,unlawful, infringing, hateful, pornographic, or sexually suggestive photos. Unsurprisingly, thesepolicies have been a source of tension and debate for many creatives who use the platform as a means of self-expression. So whenBystrm and Sodaputout an open call to submit censored images, the response was overwhelming.

We had to do a lot of sorting, Soda said, acknowledging that most submissions came from friends or friends of friends. However, the authors dont think any of the submissions were fake, and luckily didnt receive any absurdlyshocking ones either. So Bystrmand Soda selected pictures they thought lookeddifferent from other submissions, extraordinary in getting taken down, or just photos we thought were awesome and deserved some kind of platform. They also preferred photos taken with a cell phone and immediately uploaded, ones that capturedthe real vibe of Instagram.

The authors dont want their book to be seen as a book against censorship, nor as a book curatedby people who want to do whatever theyplease, or believe a society without moralswould be a better place. Its also not a how-to guide on feminism.Bystrmand Soda simply describe their publication as a collection of photostaken by people with a range of conflictingviews.

A debate about content moderationwho is doing it, and how does it happenwas one important motivation forthe book. Content moderators are supposed to act as arbiters of good taste and social norms,applying their own sensibilities to andthrough those of the platform. But how realistic (or subjective) is that? On another level, Bystrmand Soda want to getpeople thinking about todays digital and artistic culture.What gets removed from online, is what gets removed from history.Our minds eventually get shaped by what is allowed and what isnt, and then we subconsciously adapt to that. Even Instagrams layout us designed to make people think in certain ways! saidBystrm.

In a way, Bystrmand Soda feel Instagram and its guidelines reflect the mindset of todays society. Its a complicated issue, Soda admits, but it does say a lot about which bodies, what type of clothing or what kinds of posing are considered to be acceptable. Just likeInstagram, the world in general, especially with teens, also comes withvery vague guidelines,' Bystrm adds.

Do they think the guidelines are discriminatory toward women? Bystrm repeats its the world in general. Its sexualizing womens bodies. Its discriminating in a certain way, I guess.And Instagram is just trying to do what they think most people want, which might as well be censorship! But maybe this book will help the discussion about how bodies can or cant be shown.

When you look at most of the pictures with Instagramsguidelines in the back of your mind, youcan usually find a reason why most of the books pictures were taken down. But for some, its downright bizarre. Like@isaackariuki.jpg, for example (see below).The artist who took it told me it came with a caption that, for someone with Islamophobic thoughts, probably came across as violent, Soda and Bystrmexplain. But it wasnt. We could have used the same caption to talk about the internet or even as a title for this book, but because it was put under a woman in a hijab, someone chose to read it completely different.

That was the most bizarre example of a take-down. Most of the other ones, obviously, showed bodies, and could be interpreted, by some, as sexual. I think there are a few surprises, but I think that one is just the most controversial. Why? Because its really-really not sexual.

Instagram ultimately didnt really cooperate with the book, but that never wasBystrmand Sodas intention. I think certain people at Instagram definitely know that we made this book, but were not really interested in Instagrams reaction, Bystrm explains. Yeah, thats not the point, Soda adds. Also, who is Instagram? A lot of people see Instagram as this one persona that you cant really talk to. But Instagram actually has how many people working for them?

Pics or It Didnt Happen: Images Banned From Instagram, published by Prestel, came out in the UK as a hardcover on March 1 and will be available in the US April 27. You can pre-order it now via Amazon for $17.36, a 30% discount from the recommended retail price.

Originally posted here:
Exploring Modern Day Censorship Through Banned Instagram Photos (NSFW) - Resource Magazine

Disney said Wednesday it will not be cutting an exclusively gay moment fromBeauty and the Beast for its release in Malaysia, spurning a request from Malaysian authorities. That means the film most likely will not be seen in the majority Muslim country.

Malaysias Film Censorship Board had requested the studio remove at least four minutes fromthe live-action movie involving a homosexual character named LeFou, who has an unrequited gay crush on Gaston, the films villain.

The censors initially approved the films release in theaters following their submission for parts of the film to be cut, but Disneys refusal to comply with the request has held up its release, likely in perpetuum.

The chairman of Malaysiascensorship board, Abdul Halim Abdul Hamid initially said that he did not know why the films release was delayed, as they had already approved the movie for a P13 (which is equivalent to a PG-13 in the US) release after requesting the cut of the gay moment. Under the P13 rating, scenes promoting sexuality are forbidden.

We have approved it but there is a minor cut involving a gay moment. It is only one short scene but it is inappropriate because many children will be watching this movie, Abdul Halim said to the AP.

Beauty and the Beast first courted controversy after its director Bill Condon revealed last month thatLeFou is openly homosexual. Condon told Allure magazine that the LeFou / Gaston subplotcontainsan exclusively gay moment.

Disneys announcement follows our report of the films delay in Malaysia, where it was originally planned for screenings on March 16. Tickets sold by two of the nations largest cinema chains, TGV and Golden Screen Cinema, are being refunded to viewers.

Majority Muslim Malaysia is notorious for its censorship of films shown in theaters and on TV.Swear words and romantic sceneseven kissingare often cut. Since 2010, the country has relaxed its restrictions on sexual and religious content in films, allowing for the depiction of gay characters, provided their sexuality isnt celebrated. These rules are only actively enforced in theaters, and do not apply to online or optical media.

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at@stillgray on Twitterand onFacebook.

Read this article:
Disney Refuses to Censor 'Beauty and the Beast' 'Gay Moment' for Malaysia - Heat Street

Independence isnt on trial here, democracy is on trial, said Mas, outside the courthouse in February before his trial began. Indeed, this clampdown should concern any democrat. The majority of MPs in the Catalan parliament support independence, and while Mass pseudo-referendum cannot be treated as an impartial democratic exercise, it did reveal that a significant proportion of Catalans (81 per cent, in his referendum) support independence.

The shaky distinction made by the government seems to be that while people on the streets should be free to argue and campaign for independence, politicians are different. If people on the streets can talk about independence, why should deputies not be able to?, asked Carme Forcadell, speaker of the Catalan assembly, at the Catalonia Superior Court of Justice last year. Shes right. How can Catalonias politicians be representatives if they cannot debate Catalonias most talked-about political issue?

This is all part of a wider clampdown on dissident political views, on both left and right, in Spain. Last year, five members of Popular Unity Candidacy, a fringe left-wing Catalan party, were arrested for burning images of Spains King Felipe VI. Only two weeks ago, Madrid City Council banned a Catholic group from driving a bus through Madrid adorned with the slogan Boys have penises, girls have vulvas. Do not be fooled. It was deemed to be transphobic.

While the Scottish and Catalan independence movements share some common features, the climates in which they operate are very different. The SNP operates within a climate conducive to debate. In 2014, Scotland was allowed to hold a referendum. In the same year, Catalonia wasnt even allowed to hold a fake referendum. If the Spanish government wants to defeat the Catalans, they should do so through public debate, not shady political censorship.

Jacob Furedi is a spiked columnist. Follow him on Twitter: @jacobfuredi

Picture by: Getty

For permission to republish spiked articles, please contact Viv Regan.

Link:
Censorship in Catalonia - Spiked

Does Milo Yiannopoulos have a constitutional right to tweet?

Most Americans know they can speak their mind in the public square, thanks to the First Amendment. Speech on social media, however, can be censored because private companies own those cyber spaces.

But a recent Supreme Court oral argument suggests Twitter's practice of banning controversial right-wing pundits could be deemed illegal.

During a Feb. 27 hearing involving the constitutionality of a state social media law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that Twitter and Facebook had become, and even surpassed, the public square as a place for discussion and debate.

"Their utility and the extent of their coverage are greater than the communication you could have ever had, even in the paradigm of public square," he said while hearing arguments in Packingham v. North Carolina.

A majority of justices agreed. "The president now uses Twitter everybody uses Twitter," observed Justice Elena Kagan. "All 50 governors, all 100 senators, every member of the House has a Twitter account. So this has become a crucially important channel of political communication."

Although justices' comments pertained to whether North Carolina may bar registered sex offenders from using social media, the case could herald a broader expansion of digital liberties by a court that's often mocked for being behind the times.

While there may be a free speech issue when a state government bans individuals from using social media, it would seem that there is no such issue when Twitter does the same because the First Amendment applies only to government actors.

However, the justices' shockingly forward-looking views open a potential game-changing loophole.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Comey to brief senators but Graham not invited.

03/15/17 3:39 PM

Long ago, the high court established that state constitutions may provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution when it comes to free speech, including the extension of rights to privately-owned spaces.

In 1980, in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a California Supreme Court decision recognizing that California's Constitution protected the right of high school students to gather signatures at a privately-owned shopping center for a petition objecting to a United Nations resolution that said Zionism was a form of racism.

Driving the California court's reasoning was a concern that traditional public squares the old "Main Street" were giving way to privately-owned businesses. Consequently, the speech rights that Californians enjoyed in these public Main Street spaces would greatly diminish if a town's center of gravity shifted to a mall and its owners were able to restrict speech because it's on private property.

In the 40 years since that landmark ruling, social media has become society's modern day public square. Think about it: If I were in the shoes of those California students today and wanted to maximize the number of signatures I got for such a petition, I'd first put it online, and then I'd tweet it to various pro-Israel politicians, celebrities and others with a large number of followers who could easily retweet it and thereby broadcast it to millions of people.

During the Supreme Court's recent hearing on North Carolina's law, justices acknowledged this shift.

Also from the Washington Examiner

SB6 would not apply to private businesses or public buildings leased out to private entities.

03/15/17 3:36 PM

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said restricting social media access is dangerous because "these people are being cut off from a very large part of the marketplace of ideas. And the First Amendment includes not only the right to speak, but the right to receive information."

Kagan agreed. "Whether it's political community, whether it's religious community these sites have become embedded in our culture as ways to communicate and ways to exercise our constitutional rights," she said. "How many people under 30 do you think don't use these sites to get all their information? Under 35? I mean, increasingly, this is the way people get everything, all information."

Justice Samuel Alito added: "I know there are people who think that life is not possible without Twitter and Facebook."

To be clear, the justices' discussion concerned a very different issue than the one raised by Pruneyard. But their comments indicate a majority might be open to expanding the definition of what constitutes a public forum where people are free to speak their minds.

And, given that many of the most popular social networks are headquartered in and physically exist on server space located in California, it could be argued that the Pruneyard precedent should apply. If a shopping center, with its piddling 25,000 visitors per day can't restrict political speech, then Twitter and Facebook, with their hundreds of millions of daily visitors, shouldn't be able to either.

Like the mall's owner, social media companies surely won't stop infringing on their visitors' speech rights without a fight. But if Twitter continues down its censorious path, it might find itself in court and lose.

Mark Grabowski is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is an internet law professor at Adelphi University in Garden City, N.Y.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read the original here:
Twitter's censorship may be unconstitutional - Washington Examiner

BBC News

Beauty and the Beast: Disney rules out censoring gay scene for Malaysia BBC News On Monday, Disney said the release was being delayed in Malaysia for a "review" of its content, without giving further details. Malaysia's Film Censorship Board later said the film had been approved, after the scene was cut. It was given a P13 rating ... 'Gay moment' censorship sees Disney drop Malaysian release of 'Beauty & The Beast'RT Disney rejects Malaysia's Beauty and the Beast censorshipNewstalk 106-108 fm 'Beauty And The Beast' In Malaysia: Disney Refuses Cuts, Pulls Film UpdateDeadline The Guardian -Heat Street -New York Times all 1,148 news articles »

Original post:
Beauty and the Beast: Disney rules out censoring gay scene for Malaysia - BBC News