Mediaboss Marketing

The courts have failed. The culture is failing. Unless Congress acts, we may lose not only free speech on college campuses, but free speech in America. In the memorable phrase of my friend, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education president Greg Lukianoff, college students are unlearning liberty, carrying the virus of censorship and oppression beyond the university and into the nation.

The courts are failing not because the underlying legal doctrines are flawed but because the remedies for censorship are completely inadequate. As of right now, there is a far greater financial incentive for a university to keep its sidewalks shoveled in the winter than to protect one of our nations founding liberties. If a student slips and breaks an arm, they stand to win much larger damages in court than a professor denied a promotion because of his speech or a student group thrown off campus merely because its Christian.

As it is, students and professors can launch exhausting legal cases, fight the university tooth-and-nail through years of depositions, motions, trials, and appeals, and at the end of the ordeal win an injunction and attorneys fees. In one memorable case, I fought a university for more than seven years and won a week-long jury trial, only for my client to be awarded a total (including attorneys fees) of far, far less than $1 million. Universities are some of the richest institutions in American life. These dollar amounts are utterly meaningless to their bottom lines.

Its worth achieving individual justice in individual cases, but even the strongest precedent ends up providing only a minimal deterrent effect, especially when compared to the overwhelming cultural pressure for more censorship, more thought control, and less tolerance of even the most reasonable dissenting voices on campus.

The New York Times today published an op-ed that provided a public window into the kinds of free-speech arguments that dominate campus discourse. The piece, by Ulrich Baer, a vice provost at New York University, argues that restricting speech that invalidate[s] the humanity of some people is a public good.

Its necessary to translate Left-speak to understand what it means to invalidate the humanity of some people. In real terms, it doesnt mean belonging to the KKK, it means nothing more than merely disagreeing with racial and sexual identity politics. So, if youre Heather Mac Donald and believe that radical anti-police rhetoric and actions from Black Lives Matters is actually costing black lives, then youre (in the words of activists at Claremont Pomona college) questioning the right of Black people to exist. If youre Charles Murray, and youve come to campus to discuss the class divisions that are causing America to come apart, a mob can and will shut you down.

Heres Baer, with words that should chill every American heart:

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities should not mean that someones humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

In other words, campus radicals will let you speak only when they deem your speech is worthy. And if they dont? Then, the mob isnt a mob, its a collection of idealists keeping watch over the soul of our republic.

Enough. We cannot count on campus administrators to protect free speech. Theyre so terrified of the radicals that theyre more prone to apologize for free speech, arguably our nations most essential liberty, than they are to defend it. Witness Berkeley bowing before the mob time and again. Witness the groveling apology from the chairman of Middleburys political-science department to the campus community. A mob attacked and wounded a member of the faculty, and this man actually said that his decision to offer a symbolic department co-sponsorship of the event at which that attack occurred contributed to a feeling of voicelessness that many allegedly experience on campus.

Their voices seemed plenty loud when they violently shut down Murrays speech.

If we cant count on courts or colleges to protect free speech, then its time for Congress to step up. Theres a remarkably simple solution to the problem of free speech, at least on public university campuses: Adjust the incentives. Make it costlier to censor than to protect the Constitution.

All it would take is a law holding that if a court of final jurisdiction finds that a public university has violated the constitutional rights of a student or faculty member, then the university will pay liquidated damages to the plaintiff in the amount of no less than $5 million. It will also forfeit 25 percent of its federal funding in that current fiscal year. If a university is a repeat offender at any point in the five years following, it will forfeit 100 percent of its federal funding in that fiscal year.

Heres what will happen: Universities will respond with all the energy and fury of a person experiencing an electric shock. The rule of law will be restored, and our essential liberties will be protected anew.

Does all this sound draconian? Its not. The primary task of any public official in the United States is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It doesnt matter how well you perform your secondary role, whether its governing a state, distributing drivers licenses, or even teaching biology if you fail in the primary task of preserving our constitutional republic, you have no business calling yourself a public servant.

Furthermore, such a strong political statement in favor of free speech will have a potent cultural effect. Private universities that choose to maintain totalitarian enclaves will face powerful market pressures from more-free and less-expensive public universities, and the contrast between liberty and oppression will be made clear for all to see. (Its worth noting, too, that private universities are not immune from civil law. Mob violence is just as unlawful on private property as it is on a public campus, and law enforcement cannot and must not stand aside when radicals riot.)

At public universities, campus censors have the freedom to speak, but they do not have the freedom to oppress. Constitutional protections are meaningless if the law cant provide an adequate remedy for their infringement. Its time to change the calculus. Its time to crush campus censorship.

David French is a seniorwriter for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

READ MORE

Link:
It's Time to Crush Campus Censorship - National Review

Over the past two months, the photo-sharing app Instagram, and its parent company, Facebook, have trained their controversial censorship policies on, of all places, the Museum of Fine Arts.

Instagram has removed three images the museum posted to promote its ongoing photography exhibition, Imogen Cunningham: In Focus.

Advertisement

The company saysthe offending pictures a pair of near-abstract black-and-white nudes by Cunningham, an important 20th-century photographer, as well as Judy Daters whimsical image of a nonagenarian Cunningham alongside a youthful nude model violate its community standards, which prohibit nudity including some photos of female nipples.

I was stunned, said MFA curator of photographs Karen Haas, who organized the exhibition. These images are so subtle and beautiful and so abstract. Theyre all about shapes about turning the body into something thats really confounding and difficult even to read as a body.

Get The Weekender in your inbox:

The Globe's top picks for what to see and do each weekend, in Boston and beyond.

In other words, theyre art showcased by a major US museum and created by a photographer critics have praised for her keen focus and eye for pattern and composition.

The photographer never settled for one way of looking at the world.

The incident marks the latest twist in a struggle that has often pitted artists against the social media services they increasingly rely on to reach their audiences. Besides the MFA, that battle has come to includearts institutions such as the Philadelphia Museum of Art and Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, both of which have found themselves on the receiving end of social media censorship.

The Lane Collection/The Imogen Cunningham Trust / Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Triangles by Imogen Cunningham was removed from the MFAs Instagram feed.

And like other puzzled artists and institutions whose content has beenflagged, museumstaffers contacted both Facebook and Instagram to plead their case.

Advertisement

We said were a verified fine arts museum, and we wanted to have a discussion with Facebook and Instagram about their community standards, said MFA public relations director Karen Frascona. We didnt really get a response.

A spokesperson for Facebook and Instagram declined to comment specifically on the MFAs case, saying in a statement: It is not always easy to find the right balance between enabling people to express themselves while maintaining a comfortable experience for our global and culturally diverse community of many different ages, but we try our best.

Karen North, a social media professor at the University of Southern Californias Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, said that Instagram and Facebook are not in the business of making qualitative judgments about whether nude photos are works of art or pornography. Rather, they aim to be inoffensive by hewing to broad standards they can apply across all images.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Sunbath (Alta on the Beach) by Imogen Cunningham is another of the images that was removed from the MFAs Instagram feed.

From a business perspective, they need to err in the direction that will be most acceptable to the largest group of their core users, North said. They cannot create standards that involve the quality of the art. The only thing they can do is talk about specific requirements, so it almost doesnt matter if its by [a famous artist] or its your own work: They have a standard that says you cannot show this thing.

As in so many other professions, social media have become essential tools in the art world. For artists, Facebook and the highly visual photo-sharing app Instagram have enabled them to increasingly bypass the traditional gallery system, connecting directly with collectors and potential buyers. For museums, the services have become a vital means for extending an institutions brand, cultivating new and younger audiences while also generating excitement about a specific artwork or exhibition.

Museum communications officers plot out their social media strategies weeks or even months in advance, meeting with curators to identify shareable images, coming up withbrandedhashtags for Instagram and Twitter, and other promotional messaging. Recently, theMFA and the Peabody Essex Museum have even created selfie-friendly installations based on artworks on display, where visitors are encouraged to share photos of themselves.

Its really about providing relevance for our audiences in relationto the art theyre seeing on our channels, said Kimberly Drew, social media manager for New Yorks Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has roughly 6.4 million followers across Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.

Still, its an uneasy relationship, as Facebook and Instagram seek to enforce broad restrictions to avoid offending a global user base that can vary dramatically by culture and age.

The result is a sometimes confusing policy. Instagram restricts some photos of female nipples, but photos of post-mastectomy scarring and women actively breastfeeding are allowed. Nude photographs are largely verboten, but both Facebook and Instagram allow images of paintings and sculptures that depict nudes.

Except when they dont.

Last year, Instagram deleted the account of an Australian street artist after he posted a mural of Hillary Clinton wearing a revealing American flag bathing suit.Stephanie Sarley, a video artist who specializes in sexually suggestive fruit videos, has had repeated run-ins with Instagram. Other users have been censored for sharingimages of menstrual bloodandpubic hair, some of whichare collected in the new book Pics or It Didnt Happen: Images Banned From Instagram, set for release Thursday.

And thats to say nothing of Facebook, which once suspended art critic Jerry Saltz after heposted provocative images from the Middle Ages and classical antiquity and banned Los Angeles artist Illma Gore for posting her unflattering portrait of then-candidate Donald Trump with a diminutive penis.

Institutions are far from exempt. Drew said Facebook unceremoniously removed an image of Amedeo Modiglianis painting Reclining Nude from the Mets account in 2015. Similarly, an Australian auction house cried foul earlier this year after the service blocked an ad featuring Charles Blackmans painting Women Lovers. And the Philadelphia Museum of Art was surprised after the social-media juggernaut removed an image of Belgian artist Evelyne Axells Ice Cream, a suggestive painting of a woman licking, you guessed it, an ice cream cone.

The idea that Facebook could not only censor nude images ... but could also take down images that imply sexuality really hit home for a lot of people, said Erica Battle, an associate curator of contemporary art at the Philadelphia museum.

Battle added that the museum has since reposted the image to its Facebook page, asking followers to weigh in on the services decision to remove the image.

We sometimes take for granted that the material is not filtered when in fact its highly filtered, said Battle, who noted that the second post has not been removed.

For the MFA, the removal of the Cunningham photographs points to another issue as well: That at least on Facebook and Instagram, photography isnt being recognized as a fine art, the way painting and sculpture are.

That were still fighting the fight for photography to be a work of art is [incredible], said curator Haas. Its a fight that was taking place at the time these [Cunningham] photographs were initially made and was long ago won.

So, how do Facebook and Instagram decide what gets pulled? The services rely mainly on a global Community Operations team that reviews content users report asoffensive. A single report can prompt a review, after which the services will remove a post if its found in violation of community guidelines.

What that often means, of course, is that artworks that are in some way challenging, controversial, or boundary-pushing are often the first to be banned.

Eva Respini, chief curator at the Institute of Contemporary Art,said that while museums often try to educate the public, starting conversations about thorny issues raised by art, those effortscan beeasily missedor misinterpreted amid the constant churnof Facebook or Instagram.

Social media sort of lends itself to a more surface treatment, she said. It gets ingested and seen in such a short moment with so little opportunity for providing context thats the challenge for us as museums.

The MFA has reached out to several other museums to discuss shared concerns.

Said Frascona: Were hoping to gather a consensus and then approach Facebook and Instagram about incorporating photography into their exceptions.

Visit link:
MFA among museums hit by Instagram censorship - The Boston Globe

Bostons Museum of Fine Arts is stuck in a stalemate withInstagram after photos from its latest exhibitiona survey of decorous abstracted nudes by Imogen Cunninghamwere censored by the image-sharing app, and the museums pleas to have its artwork allowed on social media have gone unheard.

We [contacted both Facebook and Instagram] and said were a verified fine arts museum, and we wanted to have a discussion with Facebook and Instagram about their community standards, MFA public relations director Karen Frascona told the Boston Globe. We didnt really get a response.

The posts in question are pictures of artworks from Imogen Cunningham: In Focus. Some of herphotographs feature modernist takes on thenude body, while a photograph by Judy Dater features Cunninghamwith a nakedfemale model.

Imogen Cunningham, Sunbath (Alta on the Beach) 1925/2011 The Imogen Cunningham Trust. Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

These images are so subtle and beautiful and so abstract,said MFA photography curator Karen Haas. Theyre all about shapesabout turning the body into something thats really confounding and difficult even to read as a body.

Facebook and Instagram maintain that their nudity restrictions are intended to prevent uncomfortable experiences for all their users.

Instagrams community guidelines read, We know that there are times when people might want to share nude images that are artistic or creative in nature, but for a variety of reasons, we dont allow nudity on Instagram.

While said guidelines statethat nudity in photos of paintings and sculptures is OK, artworks depicting nudity have been banned in the past, and there is no clause about photographic artworks.

Were hoping to gather a consensus and then approach Facebook and Instagram about incorporating photography into their exceptions, Frascona said.

That were still fighting the fight for photography to be a work of art is [incredible],Haas added.

See the article here:
MFA Boston Is Latest Museum Driven Crazy by Instagram ... - artnet News

The Zenit Arena in St Petersburg is a Confederations Cup venue.

Russia's deputy prime minister, Vitaly Mutko, has rejected claims that journalists covering the 2017 Confederations Cup will be restricted in what they can report.

Earlier this week, German Football Association (DFB) president Reinhard Grindel backed Bild newspaper over claims of censorship ahead of the tournament, which serves as a warm-up for the 2018 World Cup.

Bild, Germany's most popular paper, has said it will boycott the Confederations Cup if journalists are not given freedom to report as they please.

The newspaper said print journalists have been informed that they will be restricted in their travelling and reporting.

It said the guidelines issued to journalists working in print media with approved accreditation stipulate that they "will solely cover the FIFA Confederations Cup 2017 and related events," with their reporting limited to the "territory of the host cities and cultural sites located nearby."

But in a statement issued jointly with FIFA and published by Bild, Mutko said: "There will be no restrictions for journalists at the Confederations Cup. They can write about whatever they want."

FIFA also said there would be no restrictions for journalists with FIFA accreditation, with the statement saying: "They can work without restrictions on the territory of the host cities and the nearby territories."

Stephan Uersfeld is the Germany correspondent for ESPN FC. Follow him on Twitter @uersfeld.

More:
Russia denies Confed censorship claims - ESPN FC

WASHINGTON/GENEVA (26 April 2017) : Two experts on freedom of expression of the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights condemned today the practice of censorship and internet blocking in Venezuela, as well as the detention, attacks and stigmatization of journalists and media workers covering the recent protests in the country.

We urge the Government to immediately release all those who have been detained for their journalistic work and for the exercise of their freedom of expression, stated the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Edison Lanza.

The special rapporteurs also condemned the censorship and blocking of information both in traditional media and on the internet. A large part of televised media is under government control, while the private sector operates with restrictions due to expired licenses that public authorities have refused to renew in more than two years, they pointed out.

Even under a state of emergency, the regulation as well as limitation or restrictions on web-sites and television signals transmitted over the internet are disproportionate and incompatible with international standards, affirmed the experts.

Prior to and following the recent disruption of the constitutional and democratic order denounced by international mechanisms, the space for critical voices of journalists, civil society representatives, human rights defenders and members of the political opposition has continuously deteriorated, the experts warned.

Last August, the experts expressed their concern at measures that considerably increased the pressure against media and limited its ability to operate independently.

Detentions and attacks against journalists

According to reports, at least twelve Venezuelan and international journalists have been detained following the recent events. They have been released after being detained for several hours or, in some cases, a few days. One of the cases that have been reported is that concerning the journalist Yonnathan Gudez, who has now been detained for several days.

The experts also underlined that in an unprecedented act, the journalist Braulio Jatar continues to be detained since September 2016, after having distributed a video that showed individuals protesting against President Nicols Maduro in Isla de Margarita, in the eastern part of the country.

Censorship and internet blockings

Various sources of information reported that at least three online platforms offering news and information of public interest in Venezuela including VPI TV, Vivo Play and Capitolio TV had been blocked by private internet service providers, following orders by the National Telecommunications Commission (Conatel).

The decision to block the three online platforms was due to their coverage of anti-government protests across the country, which traditional radio and television media decided not to cover. Following these events, new acts of censorship have occurred, such as a prohibition imposed on pay-per-view TVs to provide access the channel CNN. Other international media platforms, such as TN from Argentina and El Tiempo and NTN 24 from Colombia, have either suffered interruptions to their transmissions or have had their signals suspended.

Conatels arbitrary orders to suspend the signals of subscriber television channels and of the internet restrict the freedom of users to seek, receive and impart information, application or service of any kind, and therefore constitute a form of censorship, the UN and the IACHR Rapporteurs emphasized.

Likewise, websites of non-governmental organizations and of media platforms reported that they had received online attacks aimed at overloading their servers or taking them down.

Mr. David Kaye (USA) was appointed as Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expressionin August 2014 by the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Councils independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms. Special Procedures mandate-holders are independent human rights experts appointed by the Human Rights Council to address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. They are not UN staff and are independent from any government or organization. They serve in their individual capacity and do not receive a salary for their work.

Mr. Edison Lanza (Uruguay) was appointed as Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression in July 2014 by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression was created by the IACHR to encourage the defence of the right to freedom of thought and expression in the hemisphere, given the fundamental role this right plays in consolidating and developing the democratic system.

UN Human Rights, country page: Venezuela

For more information and media requests, please contact: Ms. Azin Tadjdini (+41 22 91 79 400 / atadjdini@ohchr.org) or write to freedex@ohchr.org

For media inquiries related to other UN independent experts: Xabier Celaya, OHCHR Media Unit (+ 41 22 917 9383 / xcelaya@ohchr.org)

Tag and share - Twitter: @UNHumanRights and Facebook: unitednationshumanrights

Continued here:
Venezuela / Protests: UN and IACHR Rapporteurs condemn censorship, arrests and attacks on journalists - ReliefWeb