Mediaboss Marketing

Our own Congressman Bill Huizenga advocated for censorship ("Huizenga speaks out against controversial artwork," Sentinel, Jan. 14). He directly attacked the First Amendment protections of Congressman William Lacy Clay Jr., D-Mo, and high school student David Pulphus.

Huizenga took offense to a painting by Pulphus that had won an art contest and was hung among other art contest winners in the hall between the Capitol and House office buildings.

The painting depicts a street protest in Ferguson, Mo., where police officers' heads are depicted as animals. It is a good painting artistically, so it is clear to see how it won the contest. The subject is controversial, but isnt that the point of art? There was injustice in Ferguson. There have been many shootings of unarmed African-Americans by police officers in this country. Some of these have been shown to be an excessive use of deadly force. The Department of Justice recently concluded an investigation of the Chicago Police Department where they cited them for unconstitutionally engag(ing) in a pattern of excessive force for years.

As a result African-Americans have felt that their right of equal protection under the law has been infringed. Pulphus and Congressman Clay have a constitutionally protected right to express this by the creation and display of this piece of art.

I personally would not have created the painting. I would not have displayed it for the reason that there is such a huge amount of tension between police and the citizens they are trying to protect. I would favor starting a dialogue between police and community leaders. I work in an environment where I interact with many police officers on a daily basis, and I find most of them to be respectful people who are doing a difficult job to the best of their abilities. However, whatever I would or would not create or display should not matter. That is why we have a First Amendment.

Huizenga interjected his thoughts by sending a letter to Congressman Clay asking him to remove the painting. If anyone can argue that this is not censorship, please let me know. Huizenga should immediately apologize to Pulphus and Congressman Clay, present an argument about why this is not censorship, or admit that it is. Anything else would be cowardly.

Robert Davidson

Spring Lake

View post:
Letter: Huizenga advocates for censorship - The Daily Telegram

Leonardo Da Vinci said, Where the spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art. With that in mind, American civilization is at risk.

Every year in the 435 congressional districts across the United States, the local representative holds an art contest for high school students. The prize for the students is having their painting exhibited in the halls of Congress for a year. It is a wonderful honor to young, fledgling art students across the country and typically does not cause a murmur.

Last spring, U.S. Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-St. Louis) of Missouris 1st Congressional District held this contest in conjunction with Webster University's fine arts department. The unanimous winner was David Pulphus, a quiet, gentle, unassuming student from Cardinal Ritter College Preparatory High School, a Catholic high school in St. Louis.

After winning the competition, Pulphus, along with his mother, flew to Washington, D.C. for a ceremony celebrating all of the competition winners. The winners art works were ceremoniously placed for their yearlong residence in the Capitol building. Pulphus painting, along with those of his fellow artists, hanged for six months in peace.

In December 2016, Pulphus painting became a source of controversy and discomfort for law enforcement officers on Capitol Hill, as well as Republican politicians and conservative media.

Images in the piece portrayed the young African American artist's view and interpretation of police and community relations as he saw it during the Ferguson crisis. The painting featured anthropomorphism by portraying law enforcement officers with boar heads and human bodies (the artist chose to paint boars instead of pigs because of the advanced level of savagery in the behavior of boars in contrast to pigs). Only the officers who had drawn their firearms had boar heads; the other officers in the painting did not.

Among other depictions, there was also religious imagery in the form of an African-American male being crucified in his cap and gown.

Right-wing media expressed outrage upon "discovery" of the picture. Police groups (acting as art critics) across the country expressed immediate vocal opposition to the painting. On January 6, in the penultimate expression of privilege, disrespect and suppression of free speech, white Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter of California's 50th District removed the painting.

Four days later, the Congressional Black Caucus held a re-installation ceremony of the painting. That same day, white Republican Congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado boldly removed the painting again, stating, "I could not, in good conscience, continue to walk by a painting that so flagrantly disrespected the brave police officers that protect us here in the Capitol and in our communities across the country."

In essence, he, his colleagues and the police were offended by the painting. Good for them.

The actions of the police and representatives in this matter threaten civilization and challenge the essence of democracy. Additionally, they highlight the privilege that white people in positions of power wield: immunity. It is unimaginable that a young black citizen could enter the Capitol building and without permission remove the image of staunch slavery advocate John C. Calhoun without being accosted and likely arrested. The police and representatives are demonstrating that rules and laws only apply to certain kinds of citizens that must not include white members of Congress.

The misplaced and faux anger of the authorities fails to address critical issues pertinent to conditions in African-American communities, police community relations, and constitutional rights.

Art imitates life, but none of the police officers or elected Republican officials have asked the fundamental question that the painting begs: Why would a young student with hope, promise, and purpose perceive his community and the police in such a manner?

The officials did not take into account the role that the militarization of policing has played in African-American communities (including Ferguson and St. Louis) or the way that stop and frisk and pretext stops invade the privacy, not to mention constitutional rights, of African-American citizens. Then, of course, there are the police-involved shootings of unarmed and legally armed African Americans that have not apparently pricked the consciousness of the newly fashioned art critics.

The relationship between police and the African-American community depicted in the painting is implicitly understood among African American citizens but less so in the white community. A 2015 national Pew Research Group poll found that 71 percent of white people expressed a great deal or fair amount of confidence in local police to treat black and white people equally; just 36 percent of black respondents agreed. The stark chasm between these two perspectives is caused by a long history of brutality and oppression. The painting meticulously illustrates that chasm of understanding.

Pulphus artistic expression is not the serene setting that one might observe in a Monet painting. There are no sunscapes and lily-pads, but rather an accurate portrayal of this young achieving Americans experiences and interaction with police. The artistic expression of protest, in this way, is a form of protest itself. Minimally, his work is a constitutionally protected expression of free speech.

On a larger scale, the recent incidents send a message to African-American youth to not bother with finishing school and pursuing excellence because, even if their work is recognized, it will be removed by those who cannot understand it and who see themselves as the exclusive arbiters of Americanism. This is sad, because history has proven that the mark of a declining civilization is the persecution of intellectualism and art.

When Duncan Hunter, Doug Lamborn and their colleagues removed Pulphus award-winning painting, they illegally and dangerously silenced a citizens speech for their own comfort. The elected officials should be arrested by the same police whom the painting offended. Furthermore, Congress should censure the uncivilized representatives for their un-American acts in the Capitol building. They privileged their feeling above that what makes America great: the freedom of expression.

At this moment in the United States, certain groups have achieved untouchable status with regard to criticism. Citizens may not suggest that policing needs reform without their love of country being questioned. Rather than protecting constitutional freedoms, which the police and member of Congress pledged to do, the white Republican congressmen have chosen to shield the police from critique.

There has been a public shift from constructively analyzing the actions of the police to shaming anyone who dares to share ones human experience. That indicates that America is in danger.

The behavior of the white elected officials regarding the artwork is a clear display of privilege. Americans, but especially African Americans, get the message: freedom of expression is only for police-worshipping privileged citizens. The white members of Congress will likely not be punished for touching that which did not belong to them because it appears that, in this instance, law enforcement and elected officials have far more restraint for white protestors than for black resisters.

In case the Capitol Hill police and the members of Congress wanted to know why Pulphus depicted the authorities in such a manner, the artists only comment is, The art speaks for itself. It has spoken loudly. Now, who will protect American civilization?

Etefia A.E Umana is chairman of Board of Directors at Better Family Life Inc. Etefia M. Umana is a freelance writer.

Continue reading here:
Censorship of student art in Capitol spells trouble for democracy ... - St. Louis American

Publisher Simon & Schuster drew strong criticism after signing conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos seen here holding a press conference about the Pulse nightclub shootings. Drew Angerer/Getty Images hide caption

Publisher Simon & Schuster drew strong criticism after signing conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos seen here holding a press conference about the Pulse nightclub shootings.

Free speech advocates see President-elect Trumps's testy relationship with the media and his middle-of-the-night tweets reacting to critics as evidence that he is at best insensitive to the First Amendment. And they say one recent controversy, the decision by Simon & Schuster to publish a book by social media provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, has grown out of an atmosphere that encourages hate speech.

Now, PEN America an organization dedicated to defending the right to free speech all over the world is starting to pay more attention to what's happening on the home front. PEN is co-sponsoring a protest which will bring a host of well-known writers to the steps of the New York Public Library to protest threats to free expression.

"We need to be, as citizens, ready to come out," says PEN America executive director Suzanne Nossel, "stand together for basic rights that six months ago we might have been able to take for granted, but that we no longer can."

Nossel sees these threats coming from several directions: The President-elect's attacks on the press and his critics, the proliferation of fake news and the pattern of trolling on social media.

"People feel more free to speak their mind," she says, "even if it crosses what would have been considered boundaries of hatred or racism or misogyny, and so I think it then becomes incumbent on others to speak more loudly."

But the job of advocating for free speech has become ever more complicated in the age of social media which Nossel says can be both an incredible tool for free expression and a threat to it.

"It has a dampening effect on the depth of discourse, it can lead to this online mobbing and trolling where someone who says something controversial is then targeted, ridiculed. So this is not about the government silencing speech, but it's about speech silencing other speech."

Perhaps no one has crossed the line on social media more boldly than Milo Yiannopoulos, who was kicked off of Twitter after he spearheaded a nasty campaign against black actress Leslie Jones. Yiannopoulos likes to describe himself as a free speech fundamentalist:

Trying to suppress hateful speech doesn't make it go away.

Joan Bertin

"What the left wants to do is it wants to enable its extremists on its own side, the sexists and misandrists of feminism, the black supremacists of Black Lives Matter, they want to enable extremists on their own side, and silence the extremists on the other. Well, I don't like the extremists on either side."

Yiannopoulos, an editor at the ultra-conservative Breitbart News, seems to take delight in infuriating people with remarks that are viewed as racist, misogynistic and anti-immigrant. So it's not surprising that Simon & Schuster's decision to publish his book drew strong criticism and calls for a boycott of the company. Dennis Johnson is the head of Melville House, a small independent publisher

"Nobody in the protest is saying 'you have no right to be published,'" he says. "'You have no right, Simon & Schuster, to publish this guy, and this guy, you have no right to be published' nobody's saying that. What they're saying is, 'we're shocked and we're outraged that you would stoop so low to make a buck as to publish this purveyor of vile hate speech.'"

This is not about censoring right wing voices. This is about combating hate speech and its entry into the mainstream.

Dennis Johnson

Johnson is highly critical of a statement issued by the National Coalition Against Censorship on behalf of a number of industry groups representing publishers, authors and booksellers. The NCAC says anyone has a right to call for a boycott of Simon & Schuster but that such a protest will have a "chilling effect" on publishing. Joan Bertin, executive director of the NCAC, says similar protests have already led to censorship: "We know of instances in which books that contain certain kinds of content have been shelved, deferred, redacted, edited deeply to remove content that people might object to."

Both the NCAC and PEN America say the best response to hate speech is not more censorship.

"Trying to suppress hateful speech doesn't make it go away," says Bertin. "I mean, I think the whole idea of free speech requires us to be active participants, and when we hear ideas that we think are bad and harmful, it requires us to say 'why,' not just say 'shut up.'"

But publisher Dennis Johnson says another equally important right is at stake here: The right to protest.

"This is not about censoring right wing voices," he says. "This is about combating hate speech and its entry into the mainstream."

Link:
Free Speech Advocates, Publishers Wrestle With Questions Of Censorship - NPR

Mark Reinstein/ZUMA Press/NewscomMilo Yiannopoulos, the alt-right-friendly media figure and Breitbart tech editor who is permanently banned from Twitter, was scheduled to speak at the University of California-Davis on Friday, but student-protesters mobbed the scene, forcing event organizers to cancel his appearance.

Given the unruly state of the protesters, university officials informed Yiannopoulos's hosts, the Davis College Republicans, that they could no longer guarantee anyone's safety. This prompted the CRs to cancel the event before Yiannopoulos had a chance to speak.

Martin Shkreli was supposed to speak as well, but because of the actions of irate students, his lecture did not take place, either.

The university initially remained committed to letting the event go forward, despite the administration's fervent opposition to Yiannopoulos's message. But fights broke out, according to local news reporters. Someone even poured hot coffee on a photojournalist.

Yiannopoulos next heads to UC-Berkeley, where the CRs insist that his show must go on.

It remains the case that the students who shut down Yiannopoulos at campus after campus are playing directly into his hands. By proving him right about the college left's intolerance, students ensure that Yiannopoulos will be able to continue promoting his agenda and claiming the mantle of free speech martyr. He will arrange more speaking tours, make more media appearances, and sell more books. The outrage that follows him wherever he goes is beneficial to him.

Liberal students should try a different tactic: silence, rather than silencing. Yiannopoulos believes that all publicity is good publicity, and craves the attention. Don't give it to him. If you hate him, just ignore him.

Read the original here:
Censorship: UC-Davis Student Protesters Shut Down Milo Yiannopoulos - Reason (blog)

In order to maintainourmoral high ground over terrorists, we banned the use oftorture. But risk of redundancy hasnt stopped two Arizona state legislators from taking a page out ofthe SJW handbook by introducing a bill that would strip state aid from schools with classes that teach progressive attitudes on race, class, and gender.

HB2120 bans all school districts, charter schools, and public colleges from allowing any courses, classes, events, and activities that promote the overthrow of the United States government, [p]romote DIVISION, resentment OR SOCIAL JUSTICE toward a race, GENDER, RELIGION, POLITICAL AFFILIATION, SOCIAL CLASS or OTHER class of people, [a]dvocate solidarity OR ISOLATION BASED ON RACE, or NEGATIVELY TARGET SPECIFIC NATIONALITIES OR COUNTRIES.

This billwhich Republican sponsor Bob Thorpe admits is in need of revisionwould presumably ban privilege walks, race theory classes, anti-Israel demonstrations, Black Lives Matter protests and a whole host of other events and courses.

I say presumably because Im honestly not sure how this bill will be enforced since its textdoes not even bother defining the term social justice.

RELATED:Why are we responding to insane PC culture with equally insane infantilism?

Is it social justice to demand reforms to a criminal justice system that overwhelmingly targets minorities? Does reading Marx or iek qualify as promoting resentment toward a social class? Does Toni Morrisons Beloved vilify white people andpromote racial isolation? Would a fundraiser for North Korean refugees negatively target North Korea?

And who wouldbe in charge of deciding which syllabi and events meet these criteria?

This bill would be the kind that grows into a monster, full of loopholes and exceptions, with its masters wielding it viciously against their enemies until the day that it finally turns and devours the arm that holdsits leash.

This is the same censorship that sends Breitbart readers into frenzies when a liberal university cancels a talk by Milo Yiannopoulos.

RELATED:Yale professor coddles students triggered by Trump victoryor is he?

HB2120 is nothing more than Trump-fueled reactionary triumphalism, driven by the patronizing pipe dream of unity, which claims that, with the election over, everyone in the country needs to come together and get on board.

No one needs to get on board with anything. This is America, and we have a beautiful tradition here of fighting each other tooth and nail. Our money says Out of many, one, but the emergence of the one doesnt obliterate the many from which it rises.

Silencing voices of dissent in the name of American unity will only lead to greater division.

Follow this link:
Censorship on college campuses is wrong, even if it's conservatives doing the censoring - Rare.us