Mediaboss Marketing

In a year, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict went from barely a blip on most students radars to an almost all-consuming concern. Findings from FIREs forthcoming 2025 College Free Speech Rankings survey reveal that far more students this year than last year worry about censorship and self-censorship related to the war in Gaza.

As of May 2, FIRE analyzed almost 1,900 open-ended responses from university students nationwide for this years CFSR survey. The survey asked students who reported self-censoring at least once or twice a month, Please share a moment where you personally felt you could not express your opinion on your campus because of how you thought other students, a professor, or the administration would respond. In almost 9 in 10 responses, students explicitly stated concerns about censorship when discussing Israel, Palestine, and/or Gaza with friends, classmates, and/or professors. Students also overwhelmingly reported witnessing or experiencing censorship and/or self-censorship when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

One student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrote that the universitys administration threatened to suspend students over protesting the Israeli genocide of Palestine.

In almost 9 in 10 responses, students explicitly stated concerns about censorship when discussing Israel, Palestine, and/or Gaza with friends, classmates, and/or professors.

Another at Emory University reported that according to other upperclassmen, my school has recently started tracking peoples data to see if they have attended any protest going on in campus, in regards to the Palestine-Israel conflict.

A third at Yale University wrote, I think it is other students, rather than professors, that I am concerned about. Most professors here are quite tolerant, the students less so. I generally withhold controversial takes (or takes that most of the class would disagree with) as it makes it easier for me (e.g. anything on Israel-Palestine).

This contrasts with the open-ended responses FIRE obtained in last years CFSR survey, conducted between January 13 and June 30, 2023. A preliminary analysis of the open-ended responses from that survey shows fewer than 400 mentions of Israel, Palestine, and/or Gaza out of approximately 25,000 open-ended student responses. Thats only about 2% of all responses.

The University of Marylandsrecent Middle East Scholars Barometer survey reveals that faculty are also feeling the pressure.

According to the 2024 barometer survey, since the war in Gaza began on October 7, both students and Middle East scholars experienced higher levels of censorship than they did before the war began, with scholars facing pressure fromexternal advocacy groups and administrators and students facing pressure from peers andthe administration.

Political science professor Marc Lynch and government and politics professor Shibley Telhami recently published anarticle in The Chronicle of Higher Education on the dangers that scholars and students face when studying and discussing the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

The professors highlight what is arguably one of the most unsettling findings of the survey:

71 percent of U.S.-based scholars of the Middle East say that the challenges they have faced following October 7 are either the worst (26 percent) or among the worst (45 percent) challenges imposed by political events in their academic careers.

The barometer survey results further reveal that76% of U.S.-based scholars of the Middle East have felt a greater direct or indirect need to self-censor since the start of the war. And 69% reported self-censoring on topics involving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (By contrast, in 2023s barometersurvey, conducted only a little more than a month after October 7, that percentage was 57%.)

Even before October 7, FIRE reported faculty members were self-censoring more than they did during theMcCarthy era. The barometer surveys findings suggest that conditions for free speech on campus are deteriorating even further.

So why are students and faculty afraid to speak out? Maybe because some believe their views arent welcome on campus. According to the barometer survey, 69% of U.S.-based Middle East scholars support the encampment protests on campus and the main goals of the protesters, but 61% reported that their administration opposes the protests. Only 4% reported that their administration supports the protests.

These scholars may be self-censoring to avoid punishment by their administrations as some students were for engaging in protest activities.

Notably, the First Amendmentdoes not bar colleges and universities imposing content-neutral restrictions on encampments and addressingunprotected speech, such as true threats or discriminatory harassment. However, FIRE has also seenheavy-handedcrackdowns on peaceful political protests that could reasonably give students and scholars pause before exercising their free speech rights.

Not helping matters is the fact that74% of U.S.-based Middle East scholars reported that President Bidens response to campus protests has had a negative impact on advancing free speech on campus. This perception is likely to only contribute to self-censorship.

Censorship and self-censorship, whether theyre driven by administrators, peers, or politicians, is detrimental to the quality of American education. Students and scholars must be willing to express their ideas, debate controversial issues, and research complex topics if colleges and universities are to effectively examine and disseminate knowledge.

For that to happen, speech-chilling actions from those in power must cease, and those afraid of speaking up must familiarize themselves with their rights tofree speech andacademic freedom.

Go here to see the original:
Surveys reveal rising student and faculty concern about censorship, self-censorship post-October 7 - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

In itsMurthy v. Missouri ruling last week, the Supreme Courtstopped short of deciding whether pressure on social media platforms by federal officials to censor speakers violates the First Amendment. So now Congress must take action to protect free speech online from government interference.

And weve got a ready-made response: FIREs model legislation, the Social Media Administrative Reporting Transparency Act, orSMART Act, would require the government to disclose its communications with social media companies about moderating content.

The Supreme Court sidestepped deciding whether government pressure on social media platforms violates the First Amendment.

Read More

As FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Reveresaid on the day of theMurthy decision, A little bit of sunlight would go a long way toward ending the censorship by coercion at issue in the case. With the right transparency requirements in place, the American people would be able to identify occasions in which federal officials contact social media and gain more insight into whether it led to censorship of their speech. Thats why FIREreleased a report featuring our model legislation that would provide much-needed sunshine when it comes to government jawboning.

The SMART Act would require the government to discloseanycommunication in which a federal agency employee contacts a social media company regarding content published on its platform (with limited exceptions aligned with certain Freedom of Information Act exceptions). It casts a wide net in order to capture the full universe of communications that may involve coercive or intermeddling government demands or requests through direct methods like text and email, but also through the use of third parties to convey the message to a platform.

InMurthy, five social media users and two states sued the government, alleging that federal officials had in recent years pressured, strong-armed, and intimidated social media platforms into censoring disfavored speech and speakers. While the federal district courtpreliminarily enjoined the federal officials practices, and the Fifth Circuitaffirmed (but narrowed the injunction), the Supreme Court did not address whether the officials actions violated the First Amendment. Instead, it held the plaintiffs did not have standing, meaning they had not established their right to ask a court to prohibit future censorship.

With the right transparency requirements in place, the American people would be able to identify occasions in which federal officials contact social media and gain more insight into whether it led to censorship of their speech.

The Court held that in order to establish standing, plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. In other words, in order to protect themselves in the future from this form of indirect censorship known as jawboning the plaintiffs would have to show the meetings, the emails, or the words involving government officials not only happened, but likely resulted in the social media company taking actions against the speech or the particular user that they would not otherwise have taken.

This ruling raises significant concerns insofar as the Court set a high bar for individuals who believe they were silenced by government jawboning of social media platforms to get a foot in the courthouse door.For example, Jill Hines, a health activist and a plaintiff inMurthy, questioned health guidance regarding COVID-19 in posts on Facebook and was subject to Facebooks content moderation policies at the same time that the company was facing government pressure to combat COVID-19 misinformation. While Hines made the best showing of a connection between her social-media restrictions and communications between the social media company and the government, the Court said the connection was tenuous and that she must show that Facebook's restrictions were likely traceable to the governments pressure. (Emphasis in original.)

Thats a steep hill to climb when the pressure government officials exert is often performed secretly or behind closed doors, and may never see the light of day. Indeed, we only know about the most recent cases of jawboning, which occurred across two presidential administrations, because of internalleaks at social media companies and Elon Muskpublicizing government censorship requests.

With a fewnarrowly defined exceptions, the First Amendment prohibits government officials from censoring the speech of private actors. This core First Amendment principle remains unchanged. While the Supreme Court dodged the question of whether government pressure on social media platforms violated the First Amendment, itreaffirmed last month that the government cannot censor speech by indirect coercion any more than it can by public legislation inNRA v. Vullo.

For free speech and open discourse to flourish online, the American people need to know when government officials exert influence over what or who social media platforms allow on their platforms. FIRE urges Congress to act in favor of government accountability and free and open discourse by taking up our model legislation.

See original here:
Government transparency is critical when it comes to fighting censorship - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

Moscow Times editor Derk Sauer says the newspaper will defy the Russian governments mandate to close down and will continue to publish news.

Russias prosecutor general has banned anyone from working for or being associated with the undesirable organization on Russian soil, threatening criminal prosecution for violating this policy.

Regardless, Mr. Sauer affirmed Wednesday on X that the Moscow Times is and will remain a training ground for many journalists and will not shut down.

The Russian Prosecutor Generals office said in a statement Wednesday that the work of the publication is aimed at discrediting the decisions of the leadership of the Russian Federation in both foreign and domestic policy.

Of course we will continue with our work: independent journalism. That is a crime in Putins Russia, Mr. Sauer said.

The newspaper, headquartered in Amsterdam, says that Russia and Ukraines conflict has resulted in subsequent passage of repressive wartime censorship laws, which have forced the newsroom into exile.

The news outlet has repeatedly said that it will not back down or submit to Russias demands.

We refuse to give in to the pressure. We refuse to be silenced, the Moscow Times said. We are counting on the support of all of you, our readers, to help us continue our work and defy the Kremlin.

The Russian Prosecutor Generals office has not responded to the Suns initial requests seeking comment.

The Moscow Times started in 1992 in Russia, during the aftermath of the Soviet Unions collapse, with a mission to deliver news in both Russian and English.

Penalties for associating with an undesirable organization once can add up to $168, but a second offense may result in criminal charges and a sentence of up to four years behind bars.

He added in an editors note that this act is the latest of many efforts to suppress our reporting on the truth in Russia and its war in Ukraine, including blocking our website and naming us a foreign agent.

The Prosecutor Generals office had previously requested that access to the organization be restricted on account of systematic misinformation concerning Russias efforts in the war against Ukraine.

The Moscow Times allegedly also associates on a regular basis with other organizations that the Russian government deems undesirable, the Prosecutor Generals office added.

Russian authorities have previously shut down over 140 other independent news outlets and international NGOs by slapping the undesirable label on them since 2015, such as the Insider and the Novaya Gazeta Europe.

Before 2024, the undesirable label was primarily used to outlaw religious organizations, but independent news outlets took the lead this year as the countrys most undesirable institutions, Medioza reported.

News outlets have not been previously prosecuted in Russia at this rate, with police reportedly filing more reports concerning people who are associated with these undesirable publications this year than the past three years combined.

Read the original post:
Moscow Times Will Resist Russian Censorship Efforts - The New York Sun

Elon Musk, who owns X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, announced on Thursday that his company plans to take legal action against those involved in what he describes as an advertising boycott racket.

Mr. Musks declaration came after watching a video of Ben Shapiro, co-founder of the Daily Wire, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee during a session titled Collusion in the Global Alliance for Responsible Media on Wednesday.

Having seen the evidence unearthed today by Congress, has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators in the advertising boycott racket, Mr. Musk wrote on his social media platform. Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution.

Mr. Shapiro laid out a slew of facts that illustrate how advertisers boycott conservative news sites.

Were in the midst of a trust crisis in the world of media, which is because so many in the legacy media have lied in order to preserve left-leaning narratives, he said.

The question isnt really why the legacy media have lost Americans trust. We know that answer. The question is why despite that loss of trust the legacy media continue to gain share in the advertising market. And the answer is simple. There is, in fact, an informal pressure system created by Democratic legislators, this White House, legacy media, advertisers, and pseudo-objective brand safety organizations. That system guarantees that advertising dollars flow only to left-wing media brands, Mr. Shapiro said.

The author and podcast host cited the left-wing informational safety group Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which he said sets brand safety standards, objective standards by which advertisers and platforms can supposedly determine just what sort of content ought to be deemed safe for advertising.

Companies targeted by GARM, like the Daily Wire, Breitbart, Fox News, and so many others, reach hundreds of millions of people with opinions and beliefs long established as within the mainstream of American conservative thought. GARM and its members have no respect for the beliefs of those people. They would like them marginalized or squashed. Its time to stand up for the First Amendment in this Congress, he said.

Mr. Shapiro said Congress should investigate the informal and perhaps formal arrangements between censorship cartels like GARM and executive branch agencies. And he said lawmakers should stop engaging in violation of free speech principles.

We all know what these government actors, what some people in this room are doing. Youre using the tacit threat of government action to compel private companies to throttle viewpoints you dont particularly like. The First Amendment was not designed to enable workarounds by elected officials. It was directed at Congress, at you, he said.

And youre abdicating your fundamental duty when you exert pressure on private companies to censor speech, Mr. Shapiro said. Some in this room have been doing just that for years. We in the non-legacy media have been feeling the effects. In the name of the Constitution and the name of democracy, this should stop.

See original here:
Musk Vows To Sue Ad Giant After Bombshell Congressional Hearing on Censorship of Conservative Media - The New York Sun

Today the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) expressed alarm at the cancellation of an exhibition at Craft Alliance, an art organization in St. Louis, MO. Following a complaint from a volunteer, the venue asserted that the project, which draws attention to the plight of Palestinians, was in violation of its policies on diversity, equity, inclusion, violence, and bullying.

While cultural institutions are justified in wanting to create spaces free of violence, discrimination, and harassment, DEI initiatives should not be weaponized to censor art. Concerns about artwork on view, and whether it violates noted policies, should be objectively assessed with consideration of the artists intent and the context in which the work is presented. Otherwise, artists ability to participate in exhibitions will be at the mercy of individuals who may object to their work, no matter how few they are, or how broadly they misinterpret the work.

In addition to adopting a policy upholding artistic freedom, NCAC urges Craft Alliance to establish procedures for receiving and responding to complaints against artworks.

Read NCACs full letter to Craft Alliance here: Click here for a full-screen view:

Read the rest here:
NCAC Decries Exhibition Cancellation at Craft Alliance - Blogging Censorship