Mediaboss Marketing

Media Censorship Defined Media Censorship is the act of altering, adjusting, editing, or banning of any or all media resulting from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the applicable legislative authority or Government within a specific jurisdiction. The ideology, methodology, and measures or determination regarding media subject to Media Censorship exists in conjunction to the vast expanse of the varieties of media in existence; this can include but is not limited to books, publications, expressions, products, services, radio broadcasts, televised broadcast, Internet-based broadcasts, films, movies, pictures, images, videos, and speech: The Causes of Media Censorship The nature of the media in question, as well as any prospective measures of Media Censorship undertaken is in direct violation of applicable legislation existing within a specific location or jurisdiction; in the event that Media Censorship is considered to be unlawful or in violation of human or civil rights entitled to the respective citizenship, the Media Censorship in question may undergo judicial review. Media Censorship of Criminal Activity Online Crimes are defined as the participation or engagement in unlawful, illicit, and illegal behavior through the usage of the Internet; digital Media Censorship of activities and expressions considered to be criminal in nature are vast the following are examples of criminal activity subject to censorship within the media: Media involving the promotion or undertaking of criminal activity, threat, malice, or the promotion of illegal and damaging ideas with the intent to cause harm Media involving subject matter and content presumed to endanger the welfare of the general public, in addition to media assumed to compromise the safety and wellbeing of the public Media that is in direct violation of accepted and applicable legislation with regard to a particular jurisdiction or location Media Censorship of Sexual Expression Illegal in Nature Media including pornographic images depicting minors, children, or individuals below the age of 18 is considered to be a very serious offense; this criminal activity is not only applicable to those parties responsible for the release of this nature of media, but also to those individuals in ownership of that material: The ownership, transmission, or receipt of pornography or media sexual in nature involving children The solicitation of minors or those below the age of consent to participate in sexual activity; this can range from physical sex crimes to virtual sex crimes Pornographic images depicting sexual acts involving animals, violence, injury, and simulated relationships illicit and unlawful in nature are also considered to be illegal and subject to Censorship in America Digital Media Censorship Internet Law, which may be classified under as a subgenre of Cyber Law or Computer Law, is considered by many to be one of the most recently-developed legal fields as a result of the ongoing advent of computer-based technology; furthermore, the notion of digital or virtual Media Censorship is considered to be overseen by legislation expressed within this legal field. The reliance of the media of modernity on Internet-based, online activity has promoted the development of a variety of measures addressing digital media censorship, including the ethical and moral use of the Internet for lawful and legal purposes. Comments

comments

The rest is here:
Media Censorship - Censorship | Laws.com

The term "censorship" comes from The Latin, censere "to give as one's opinion, to assess." The Roman censors were magistrates who took the census count and served as assessors and inspectors of morals and conduct.

In contrast to that straightforward definition from Roman times, contemporary usage offers no agreed-upon definition of the term or when to use it. Indeed, even whether the word itself applies to a given controversy in the arts is often vigorously contested.

Here are excerpts of definitions of "censorship" from U.S. organizations and publications with varying views. They are not intended as any composite mega-definition of the term, only as indications of the variety of approaches to this concept.

Censorship: The use of the state and other legal or official means to restrict speech. --Culture Wars, Documents from the Recent Controversies in the Arts, edited by Richard Boltons

In general, censorship of books is a supervision of the press in order to prevent any abuse of it. In this sense, every lawful authority, whose duty it is to protect its subjects from the ravages of a pernicious press, has the right of exercising censorship of books. --The Catholic Encyclopedia (a publication of the Catholic Church)

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, "Don't let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it!" Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.

For the ALA, technically censorship means the "The Removal of material from open access by government authority." The ALA also distinguishes various levels of incidents in respect to materials in a library which may or may not lead to censorship: Inquiry, Expression of Concern, Complaint, Attack, and Censorship. --The American Library Association

The word "censorship" means "prior restraint" of First Amendment rights by government. --Morality in Media (Morality in Media is "a national, not-for-profit, interfaith organization established in 1962 to combat obscenity and uphold decency standards in the media.")

Censorship 1. The denial of freedom of speech or freedom of the press. 2. The review of books, movies, etc., to prohibit publication and distribution, usually for reasons of morality or state security. --Oran's Dictionary of Law

Censorship: official restriction of any expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order. --Encyclopedia.Com

Censorship - the prevention of publication, transmission, or exhibition of material considered undesirable for the general public to possess or be exposed to. --Fast Times' Political Dictionary (Fast Times is "a nonpartisan publication on contemporary world affairs & media with no political, ideological, or religious affiliation of any kind.")

Censorship: the cyclical suppression, banning, expurgation, or editing by an individual, institution, group or government that enforce or influence its decision against members of the public -- of any written or pictorial materials which that individual, institution, group or government deems obscene and "utterly" without redeeming social value," as determined by "contemporary community standards." --Chuck Stone, Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina

Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows. --Academic American Encyclopedia

Censorship: supervision and control of the information and ideas circulated within a society. In modern times, censorship refers to the examination of media including books, periodicals, plays, motion pictures, and television and radio programs for the purpose of altering or suppressing parts thought to be offensive. The offensive material may be considered immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonable, or injurious to the national security. --Encarta Encyclopedia

Original post:
Definitions of Censorship - PBS

Pierre Gosselin has a great post: Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles.

David Dilley, NOAA Meteorologist, tells how for 15 years work on man-made climate change was pushed while work on natural cycles was actively suppressed. Grants connecting climate change to a man-made crisis were advertised, while the word went around to heads of departments that even mentioning natural cycles would threaten the flow of government funds. Speeches about natural cycles were mysteriously canceled at the last minute with bizarre excuses.

But jobs are on the line, so only retired workers can really speak, and no one can name names.

We can corroborate David Dilleys remarks. Indeed, he is probably just one of many skeptics hidden in the ranks of NOAA. Way back in 2007, David Evans got an email from a different insider within NOAA, around the time he started talking publicly about the missing hotspot. The insider said, remarkably: As a Meteorologist working for [snip, name of division] it has been clear to me, as well as every single other scientist I know at NOAA, that man can not be the primary cause of global warming and that the predictions of gloom and doom due to rising temperatures is ridiculous.

So there are probably many skeptics at NOAA, but given the uniformly aggressive public stance of NOAA apparently none of them can speak until after they retire.

By P Gosselin on 26. August 2015

In the mid 1990s government grants were typically advertised in such a way to indicate that conclusions should show a connection to human activity as the cause for anthropogenic global warming. The result: most of the research published in journals became one-sided and this became the primary information tool for media outlets.

According to some university researchers who were former heads of their departments, if a university even mentioned natural cycles, they were either denied future grants, or lost grants. And it is common knowledge that United States government employees within NOAA were cautioned not to talk about natural cycles. It is well known that most university research departments live or die via the grant system. What a great way to manipulate researchers in Europe, Australia and the United States.

Dilley was invited to speak about natural cycles, but just before the event mysterious staff shortages meant his speech was canceled. Oddly, a different speech suddenly appeared in its place.

Its always the way, someone at an institution is keen, then just before the event, something changes:

All seemed well as I prepared for the lecture. Butthen came the manipulation and suppression of views. Just four days prior to the lecture, three people from the University of Maine viewed our web site (www.globalweatheroscillations.com). The next morning, just 3 days prior to the June 29th lecture, I received an email from Eagle Hill stating that my lecture is canceled due to a staffing shortage. Upon checking their web site, the calendar did show my lecture as being canceled, but carried the notation that we hope to have a different lecture on the 29th.

So what happened with the staffing shortage? A news service called The Maine Wire interviewed the President of Eagle Hill, and he said that the University of Maine felt some people in the audience may be uncomfortable hearing Mr. Dilleys lecture.

Read it all Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles

Maybe the staff shortages meant they couldnt hire enough security staff to hold back the packs of students protesting someone who dared disagree with their programming. After all, this is a University.

h/t The Great ClimateDepot

UPDATE: David Dilley replied in comments. Perhaps you can ask him something about his work?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

Rating: 9.6/10 (137 votes cast)

Read the original:
Former NOAA Meteorologist tells of years of censorship to ...

[Content note: hypothetical spiders]

I complain a lot about the social justice movement. Or for a change, I sometimes complain that the media is too friendly to the social justice movement. So when the media starts challenging the movement, with articles like Trigger Warnings: New Wave Of Political Correctness and Weve Gone Too Far With Trigger Warnings and Warning: The Literary Canon Could Make Children Squirm and Americas College Kids Are A Bunch Of Mollycoddled Babies, I really ought to be happy things are finally going my way.

Instead Im a little disturbed. Lets fnord that last article:

This doesnt look good. Also, Jezebel and Baffler are against trigger warnings, as are a group of professors who teach gender, sexuality, and critical race studies (the last of which deals twice as much damage as regular race studies). Reversed stupidity is not intelligence, but sometimes its a helpful clue about where to look.

I like trigger warnings. I like them because theyre not censorship, theyre the opposite of censorship. Censorship says Read what we tell you. The opposite of censorship is Read whatever you want. The philosophy of censorship is We know what is best for you to read. The philosophy opposite censorship is You are an adult and can make your own decisions about what to read.

And part of letting people make their own decisions is giving them relevant information and trusting them to know what to do with them. Uninformed choices are worse choices. Trigger warnings are an attempt to provide you with the information to make good free choices of reading material.

And my role model here, as in so many other places, is Commissioner Lal: Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.

Trigger warnings fight those who would like to be our masters in another way as well. They are one of our strongest weapons against the proponents of censorship. The proponents say We cant let you air that opinion, it might offend people. Trigger warnings say I am explaining to you exactly how this might offend you, so if you continuing listening to me you have volunteered to hear whatever I have to say, on your own head be it, and let no one else purport to protect you from yourself.

I agree that bad people could use trigger warnings to avoid ever reading anything that challenges their prejudices. This is a problem with providing people informed choices. Sometimes they misuse them.

But I could also imagine good people using trigger warnings to increase their ability to read things that challenge their views. Suppose you are a transgender person who becomes really uncomfortable when you hear people insult transgender people. Gradually you learn that a lot of people outside the social justice community do this a lot, so you stop reading anything outside the social justice community, forget about genuinely rightist sources like National Review or American Conservative. Now suppose sources start trigger warning their content. Most right-wing arguments dont insult transgender people, so all of a sudden you have a way to steer clear of the ones that do and read all of the others free from fear.

Actually, fear is the wrong word, it buys into the stereotyping of triggered people as coddled or cowards or something. Maybe some people feel fear. Others would just be free from exasperation, anger, distracting dismay, the cognitive load of having to hear people insult you and not being able to respond and having to exert effort to continue to read. I feel like this might be my response to the existence of more trigger warnings (at least if anyone ever warned for my triggers, which they wont).

And I guess I admit that the people who use trigger warnings for epistemic evil will probably outnumber those who use them for epistemic virtue. But then the question is: do we, as a civilization, grant ourselves the right to force people to be virtuous without their consent? There are a lot of good arguments that we should, but that doesnt matter, because its not a going question. In every other area of life, weve already decided that we dont. Like, it would be a spectacularly good idea to make a rule that every fifth link to Paul Krugmans blog has to redirect people to Tyler Cowens blog, and vice versa, so people dont get a chance to only read the opinions they agree with. Or that every Republican has to watch one Daily Show a month, and every Democrat has to listen to one Fox News segment. But if were not going to do that, it hardly seems fair to put the whole burden of epistemic virtue on the easily triggered.

II.

The strongest argument against trigger warnings that I have heard is that they allow us to politicize ever more things. Colleges run by people on the left can slap big yellow stickers on books that promote conservative ideas, saying THIS BOOK IS RACIST AND CLASSIST, and then act outraged if anyone requests a trigger warning that sounds conservative like a veteran who wants one on books that vilify or mock soldiers, or a religious person who wants one on blasphemy. Then everyone has to have a big fight, the fight makes everyone worse off than either possible resolution, and it ends with somebody feeling persecuted and upset. In other words, its an intellectual gang sign saying Look! We can demonstrate our mastery of this area by only allowing our symbols; your kind are second-class citizens!

On the other hand, this is terribly easy to fix. Put trigger warnings on books, but put them on the bullshytte page. You know, the one near the front where they have the ISBN number and the city where the publishers head office is and something about the Library of Congress youve never read through even though its been in literally every book youve ever seen. Put it there, on a small non-colorful sticker. Call it a content note or something, so no one gets the satisfaction of hearing their pet word trigger warning. Put a generally agreed list of things no sense letting every single college have its own acrimonious debate about it. The few people who actually get easily triggered will with some exertion avoid the universal human urge to flip past the bullshytte page and spend a few seconds checking if their trigger is in there. No one else will even notice.

Or if its about a syllabus, put it on the last page of the syllabus, in size 8 font, after the list of recommended reading for the class. As a former student and former teacher, I know no one reads the syllabus. You have to be really devoted to avoiding your trigger. Which is exactly the sort of person who should be able to have a trigger warning while everyone else goes ahead with their lives in a non-political way.

Im sure there are some more implementation details, but its nothing a little bit of good faith cant take care of. If good faith is used and some people still object because its not EXACTLY what they want, then Ill tell them to go fly a kite, but not before.

I know a lot of people worry about slippery slopes; give the culture warriors an inch and theyll take a mile. I think this is a very backwards way of looking at things. Like, the anti-gay people talked about a slippery slope and fought desperately hard against gay marriage, even though it was pretty hard to find anything actually objectionable about it other than that it might be on a slippery slope to worse things. That desperate fight didnt delay gay marriage more than a few years, and it didnt prevent whatever gay marriage was on a slippery slope to. What it did do was totally discredit conservatives in this area. Now any time anyone makes a family values argument, even a good family values argument, people can say that family values is code for homophobia, and bring up that family values conservatives really have held abhorrent positions in the past so why should we trust them now? It gave liberals huge momentum, and if there is a slippery slope then all that opposing gay marriage did was destroy the credibility of anybody who could have stopped us going down it.

Opposing a good idea on slippery slope grounds is a moral failure and a strategic failure, and Id hate for opponents of the social justice movement to make that mistake with trigger warnings.

III.

But this is all tangential to what really bothered me, which is Pacific Standards The Problems With Trigger Warnings According To The Research.

You know, I love science as much as anyone, maybe more, but I have grown to dread the phrase according to the research.

They say that Confronting triggers, not avoiding them, is the best way to overcome PTSD. They point out that exposure therapy is the best treatment for trauma survivors, including rape victims. And that this involves reliving the trauma and exposing yourself to traumatic stimuli, exactly what trigger warnings are intended to prevent. All this is true. But I feel like they are missing a very important point.

YOU DO NOT GIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY TO PEOPLE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

Psychotherapists treat arachnophobia with exposure therapy, too. They expose people first to cute, little spiders behind a glass cage. Then bigger spiders. Then they take them out of the cage. Finally, in a carefully controlled environment with their very supportive therapist standing by, they make people experience their worst fear, like having a big tarantula crawl all over them. It usually works pretty well.

Finding an arachnophobic person, and throwing a bucket full of tarantulas at them while shouting IM HELPING! IM HELPING! works less well.

And this seems to be the arachnophobes equivalent of the PTSD advice in the Pacific Standard. There are two problems with its approach. The first is that it avoids the carefully controlled, anxiety-minimizing setup of psychotherapy.

The second is that YOU DO NOT GIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY TO PEOPLE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

If a person with post-traumatic stress disorder or some other trigger-related problem doesnt want psychotherapy, then even as a trained psychiatrist I am forbidden to override that decision unless they become an immediate danger to themselves or others.

And if they do want psychotherapy, then very likely they want to do it on their own terms. I try to read things that challenge my biases and may even insult or trigger me, but I do it when I feel like it and not a moment before. When I am feeling adventurous and want to become stronger in some way, I will set myself some strenuous self-improvement task, whether it be going on a long run or reading material I know will be unpleasant. But at the end of a really long and exasperating day when Im at my wits end and just want to relax, I dont want you chasing me with a sword and making me run for my life, and I dont want you forcing traumatic material at me.

The angry article above with all the talk of spoiled brats annoys me as an amateur politics blogger, but this Pacific Standard article pushes my buttons as a (somewhat) non-amateur psychiatrist. This is not your job to meddle. If you are very concerned about helping people with PTSD, please express that concern by donating to PTSD USA or one of the other organizations that will help those with the condition get proper, well-controlled therapy. Please do not try to increase the background level of triggers in the hopes that one of them will fortuitously collide with a PTSD sufferer in a therapeutic way.

If, like me, you think the social justice movement has a really serious kindness and respect problem, then you know that its really hard to bring this up without getting accused of unkindness and disrespect yourself. I dont know how to best respond to this problem. But Im pretty sure that the very minimum one can do is not to actually be unkind and disrespectful. And I worry that some of these arguments against trigger warnings are failing to clear even this very low bar.

Read more here:
The Wonderful Thing About Triggers | Slate Star Codex

World Day Against Cyber Censorship is an online event held each year on the 12th of March to rally support for a single, unrestricted Internet that is accessible to all and to draw attention to the ways that governments around the world are deterring and censoring free speech online.[1] The day was first observed on 12 March 2008 at the request of Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International. A letter written by Jean-Franois Julliard, Secretary-General of Reporters Without Borders, and Larry Cox, Executive Director of Amnesty International, was sent to the Chief Executive Officers of Google, Yahoo!, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation to request observation of the day.[2] The annual event is symbolized by a logo created by Reporters Without Borders consisting of a computer mouse breaking free from a chain.[3]

On World Day Against Cyber Censorship Reporters Without Borders awards an annual Netizen Prize that recognizes an Internet user, blogger, cyber-dissident, or group who has made a notable contribution to the defense of online freedom of expression.[4][5] Starting in 2010 the prize has been:

In conjunction with World Day Against Cyber Censorship, Reporters Without Borders updates its Enemies of the Internet and Countries under surveillance lists.[10][11]

In 2006, Reporters without Borders (Reporters sans frontires, RSF), a Paris-based international non-governmental organization that advocates freedom of the press, started publishing a list of "Enemies of the Internet".[12] The organization classifies a country as an enemy of the internet because "all of these countries mark themselves out not just for their capacity to censor news and information online but also for their almost systematic repression of Internet users."[13] In 2007 a second list of countries "Under Surveillance" (originally "Under Watch") was added.[14]

When the "Enemies of the Internet" list was introduced in 2006, it listed 13 countries. From 2006 to 2012 the number of countries listed fell to 10 and then rose to 12. The list was not updated in 2013. In 2014 the list grew to 19 with an increased emphasis on surveillance in addition to censorship. The list was not updated in 2015.

When the "Countries under surveillance" list was introduced in 2008, it listed 10 countries. Between 2008 and 2012 the number of countries listed grew to 16 and then fell to 11. The list was not updated in 2013, 2014, or 2015.

Here is the original post:
World Day Against Cyber Censorship - Wikipedia, the free ...