Texas forbids political ‘censorship’ by social media companies

The governor of Texas signed a bill on Thursday banning social media platforms from removing posts because of the political views expressed in them, a measure that is likely to draw significant legal scrutiny after a similar law was blocked by a judge in Florida.

Under the new rules, large platforms like Facebook and Twitter cannot remove, play down or otherwise moderate content because of a user’s political perspective, or ban the user entirely. The companies will also need to publish regular reports showing how often they received complaints about content and how often they took posts down.

Private citizens can sue the social media companies over violations of the law, as can the state’s attorney general. The law covers companies with more than 50 million monthly active users in the United States, and it applies to anyone who lives in Texas, does business there or “shares or receives” social media content in the state.

Conservative states have increasingly targeted the ways that Silicon Valley companies police their platforms. Similar proposals have cropped up in dozens of states around the country this year, reflecting a frustration among Republican voters with the rules that govern what they can say online. The bill signed by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas adopts that language: It says it prohibits “censorship” online and claims large social media sites are “common carriers,” a kind of tightly regulated company like a phone provider.

The new laws have drawn critics who say they violate the First Amendment rights of private companies to decide what content they host. Industry groups sued over a Florida law that made it illegal to ban some candidates for public office from social media. A judge agreed to block the law while the courts consider that legal challenge.

The social media companies say they do not purposefully downplay conservative views and personalities. Conservative figures often run some of the most popular pages online. Facebook and Twitter declined to comment. Google, which owns YouTube, declined to comment as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/technology/texas-social-media-politics-censorship.html

************************************************

The story of one CEO who lost his job but not his will to fight

Not every CEO in America is woke. And some who aren’t pay dearly. David Azerrad recounts the story of Vivek Ramaswamy, who is still standing against the woke tide despite losing his company to it.

Vivek Ramaswamy opens his book on the perils of woke capitalism by declaring himself a traitor to his class. He’s got the perfect elite resume: Harvard undergrad, partner at a hedge fund, Yale Law School, and founder of a biotech company today valued at $7 billion. He’s also, if not fully diverse by today’s standards — Indians, like Asians, are considered “white-adjacent” — at least not white.

Ramaswamy became a vocal proponent of free speech, while denouncing wokeness “as a fundamentalist religion.” The last straw that brought about his cancellation was defending Donald Trump after Big Tech censored the sitting U.S. president. Advisers resigned and within three weeks he was forced to “step down as CEO of the company he founded.” He nevertheless is still speaking out against corporate wokeness, which he says is a “game of pretending to care about justice in order to make money.” Indeed, Nike, Uber, the NBA, and so many other corporations are far more concerned about the almighty dollar than actual principles, despite feigning otherwise. He calls this “reputational laundering.”

Ultimately, challenging the woke status quo means breaking this cycle, and Ramaswamy wrote a book about it. He takes on corporate elitism, Big Tech censorship, and more. And, as Azerrad put it, “Ramaswamy sees what so many establishment conservatives and libertarians refuse to see: in the eyes of the woke Left, we on the Right are all racists who should be made untouchables. Censorship creep is real.”

What can be done? Ramaswamy has some ideas:

Ramaswamy wants to restrict the scope of limited shareholder liability (which protects shareholders’ assets if the company is sued or goes bankrupt) and of the business judgment rule (which protects CEOs and corporate directors from litigation for bad business decisions) to cover only core, profit-generating practices. If corporations or CEOs choose to engage in social activism, then they should not enjoy the legal privilege of protection from lawsuits. That privilege, after all, was only afforded to encourage risk-taking in pursuit of profit — not social activism in pursuit of leftist applause.

Second, are his proposals to protect Americans from tech censorship. Ramaswamy is a recovering libertarian who is not so foolish as to think that we can just build our own Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon. In retelling the sad fate of Parler, he concludes that “the free market is no match for the monopoly of ideas.” That said, he dismisses the idea, now increasingly in vogue among the New Right and democratic socialists, of invoking antitrust to break up Big Tech. Antitrust laws were designed to protect consumers from cartels and monopolies from price-fixing, not the present pathology he calls “idea-fixing.” …

Ramaswamy wants to apply the First Amendment to Big Tech to protect the free speech rights of Americans. And he proposes using existing jurisprudence to do so, rather than waiting for Congress to take action.

Finally:

Ramaswamy convincingly argues that woke ideology fits the EEOC’s definition of a religion and, as such, cannot be imposed on employees. Your boss should no more be able to fire if you deny the divinity of Christ, than if you affirm that all lives matter. Ramaswamy would thus extend the protection of the Civil Rights Act to cover political opinions both on and off the job.

Perhaps his ideas would work. Perhaps not. But it’s an interesting and necessary debate in the face of censorship.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/82567-in-brief-how-to-put-woke-capital-out-of-business-2021-09-09

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

The ‘Misinformation’ Excuse for Censorship

The Twitter user “Interpolations” points us to these responses to an Atlantic article that questioned student masking:

The Atlantic piece was written by an epidemiology professor at UC-San Francisco, Vinay Prasad, who concluded that the potential harms of masking young children may outweigh the benefits. He wrote nothing factually incorrect that I am aware of, and neither of the Twitter critics pictured above deigned to specify what they found. They have taken what is simply an opposing viewpoint and rebranded it as “misinformation,” hoping the label will lead to censorship.

It is dismaying that so many people have adopted the same censorious mindset. Last week the Washington Post ran this headline: “Misinformation on Facebook got six times more clicks than factual news during the 2020 election, study says.” The implication is that Facebook needs to more actively remove false claims, and who could be against that? Well, first note that the headline itself is misinformation. According to the text of the article, the content that received six times more clicks was not specifically alleged to be misinformation; rather, it was merely posted by “news publishers known for putting out misinformation.”

The Post article provides no examples of actual misinformation, but it does name Occupy Democrats and Dan Bongino as “publishers known for misinformation” on Facebook. I went to their pages to see for myself. Occupy Democrats mainly posts progressive memes. Dan Bongino mainly posts clips from cable-news shows and town halls. I don’t doubt that one could find factual problems on both pages with enough searching, but I saw nothing obvious. To censor either of these pages would be to go far beyond rooting out “misinformation.” And perhaps that’s the point. Dismissing entire sources of news as misinformation far more effectively narrows the boundaries of acceptable discourse than does stamping out individual ideas.

So who should get to speak on Facebook? The Post article contrasts the alleged misinformation-purveyors with “trustworthy news sources, such as CNN or the World Health Organization.” A large number of Americans will not find this situation satisfactory, to put it mildly. They have sought alternative news sources because the CNNs of the world have breached their trust repeatedly. Tarring the alternatives as misinformation will not help Americans have better political discussions. It will only further convince them that they live in a stifling, closed-minded society.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-misinformation-excuse-for-censorship/

*****************************************

CEO of video game developer supported Texas’s pro-life law. Now he’s out from the company

The CEO of a video game developer based in Georgia is now out of the company after he tweeted his support for Texas’s pro-life law, which bans abortions once cardiac activity is detected in the baby.

“Proud of #USSupremeCourt affirming the Texas law banning abortion for babies with a heartbeat,” John Gibson, CEO of Tripwire Interactive, tweeted on Saturday. “As an entertainer I don’t get political often. Yet with so many vocal peers on the other side of this issue, I felt it was important to go on the record as a pro-life game developer.”

Tripwire Interactive released a statement on Monday evening saying that Gibson was out, effective immediately, because of the comments that he made. The statement claimed that he “stepped down.”

“The comments given by John Gibson are of his own opinion, and do not reflect those of Tripwire Interactive as a company,” the company said. “His comments disregarded the values of our whole team, our partners and much of our broader community. Our leadership team at Tripwire are deeply sorry and are unified in our commitment to take swift action and to foster a more positive environment.”

“Effective immediately, John Gibson has stepped down as CEO of Tripwire Interactive,” the statement added. “Co-founding member and current Vice President, Alan Wilson, will take over as interim CEO. Alan has been with the company since its formation in 2005 and is an active lead in both the studio’s business and developmental affairs. Alan will work with the rest of the Tripwire leadership team to take steps with employees and partners to address their concerns including executing a company-wide town hall meeting and promoting open dialogue with Tripwire leadership and all employees. His understanding of both the company’s culture and the creative vision of our games will carry the team through this transition, with full support from the other Tripwire leaders.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/ceo-of-video-game-developer-supported-texass-pro-life-law-now-hes-out-from-the-company

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

Australian media outlets lose High Court appeal over Facebook defamation ruling

This will impel a huge upsurge in censorship as companies try to protect themselves

The High Court has ruled that media outlets are legally responsible as “publishers” for third parties’ comments on their Facebook pages, in a decision with implications for other organisations and people with social media accounts.

The Court of Appeal ruled in June last year that news outlets including The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian were liable as publishers of readers’ Facebook comments about Northern Territory youth detainee Dylan Voller because they encouraged and facilitated the comments by setting up public Facebook pages.

The media outlets lodged a High Court appeal. In a decision on Wednesday, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the organisations to pay Mr Voller’s legal costs.

Chief Justice Susan Kiefel and Justices Patrick Keane and Jacqueline Gleeson said in a joint judgment that “the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the acts of the [media outlets] in facilitating, encouraging and thereby assisting the posting of comments by the third-party Facebook users rendered them publishers of those comments”.

It has long been the case in defamation law that a person can become liable for the continued publication of defamatory comments by unauthorised third parties on physical walls or noticeboards controlled by them once they become aware of the comments and fail to remove them.

The NSW Court of Appeal said media outlets were in a different position and were legally responsible as publishers “from the outset” because they “encouraged and facilitated” the comments by having public Facebook pages. The court said it was immaterial that they deleted the comments once becoming aware of them.

At the time the comments were published, Facebook did not allow the hosts of public pages to pre-emptively turn off all comments on posts, although any comment could be deleted after the fact.

Facebook has since rectified this issue and given the hosts of public pages more control over comments.

In a separate judgment, High Court Justices Stephen Gageler and Michelle Gordon said: “Where ... the operator of an ‘electronic bulletin board’ posts material with the intention that third parties will comment on the material posted, the operator cannot escape being a publisher of the comments of those third parties.

“The most appropriate analogy is with live television or talkback radio.”

Justices Gageler and Gordon said the media outlets’ “attempt to portray themselves as passive and unwitting victims of Facebook’s functionality [because they could not disable comments] has an air of unreality”.

“Having taken action to secure the commercial benefit of the Facebook functionality, the appellants bear the legal consequences,” the judges said.

Whether the media outlets are publishers of the comments was a preliminary issue in the case.

Now that the High Court has established that the media outlets are publishers, the case will return to the NSW Supreme Court for a trial on the remaining issues, including whether the comments in fact defamed Mr Voller and if any defences apply.

The media outlets may still be able to raise a number of defences at the eventual trial, including the defence of “innocent dissemination”. Commonwealth laws exempting “internet content hosts” from liability for some online content may also apply.

Mr Voller launched defamation proceedings against Nine, publisher of this masthead, News Corp Australia and the Australian News Channel in 2017 over comments by readers on the Facebook pages of the Herald, The Australian, the Centralian Advocate, Sky News Australia and The Bolt Report.

In a pre-trial decision in June 2019, largely affirmed by the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Rothman found the media companies had published the comments, which is a threshold legal issue in the case.

Mr Voller’s lawyers, O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors, said, “this is a common-sense decision that accords with longstanding law on the issue of publication”.

“It is commonly known that media companies encourage increased engagement on their posts so that their content is seen by a larger audience.

“This helps in attracting advertising revenue. With this strong commercial imperative driving them there was no doubt that the media companies lent their assistance to the publication of third-party comments.”

https://www.smh.com.au/national/media-outlets-lose-high-court-appeal-over-facebook-defamation-ruling-20210908-p58prh.html

**********************************************

Federal government using social-media giants to censor Americans

Ask questions or post content about COVID-19 that runs counter to the Biden administration’s narrative and find yourself censored on social media.

That’s precisely what data analyst and digital strategist Justin Hart says happened to him. And so last week the Liberty Justice Center, a public-interest law firm, filed a suit on his behalf in California against Facebook, Twitter, President Joe Biden and United States Surgeon General Vivek Murthy for violating his First Amendment right to free speech.

Hart had his social media most recently locked for merely posting an infographic that illustrated the lack of scientific research behind forcing children to wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID.

In fact, much science indicates that kids aren’t at risk and aren’t spreaders. Study after study repeatedly shows that children are safer than vaccinated adults and that the masks people actually wear don’t do much good.

The lawsuit contends that the federal government is “colluding with social media companies to monitor, flag, suspend and delete social media posts it deems ‘misinformation.’”

It can point to White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s July remarks that senior White House staff are “in regular touch” with Big Tech platforms regarding posts about COVID. She also said the surgeon general’s office is “flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread.”

“It’s clear to Americans that what is said at the White House podium isn’t always true, so why do we think it’s acceptable for the government to direct social media companies to censor people on critical issues such as COVID?” Hart asks.

This doesn’t mean he hasn’t posted some dubious stuff on this or any other topic. For sure, the ‘Net is full of loons promoting utter idiocy as supposed fact. But the way to counter misinformation isn’t censorship — and it’s certainly not having the feds lean on social-media firms to do the censoring.

The Post has been targeted repeatedly by social media for solid, factual reporting. We can only think such outrages would get worse if Facebook & Co. start trying to enforce some government version of “the truth.”

https://nypost.com/2021/09/06/federal-government-using-social-media-giants-to-censor-americans/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

3 Teachers Now Suing Virginia School System Over Transgender Pronouns

Students in one of the nation’s wealthiest suburbs returned to school Thursday even as three teachers were in court to challenge a school district policy forcing all teachers to refer to self-identified transgender students by their preferred pronouns.

The Virginia Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling ordering the reinstatement of Byron Tanner Cross, an elementary gym teacher suspended by the Loudoun County school district after he spoke out against the then-proposed transgender policy during a school board meeting.

The Loudon County School Board’s new policy, besides requiring teachers and administrators to use preferred pronouns, also allows students to use the school restroom of their choosing regardless of their biological sex.

The school board based its Policy 8040 on the Virginia Department of Education’s “model policies” on the treatment of transgender students in elementary and secondary schools.

So far, six of Virginia’s 133 school boards, including Chesapeake’s, have rejected the transgender policies. Two Virginia counties other than Loudoun, Newport News and Chesterfield, also voted to adopt the model policies.

Parents and teachers who oppose the new transgender student policy in Loudoun County, about 45 minutes west of the nation’s capital, contend that it violates educators’ First Amendment right to free speech.

“These policies are violating the core constitutional rights of teachers, of students, and of parents,” Tyson Langhofer, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal aid organization focused on religious freedom, told The Daily Signal in an interview.

“It’s forcing teachers and students to speak messages that are going to be harmful to students,” Langhofer, lead attorney on the lawsuit, said.

Two other Loudoun teachers recently joined Cross in taking the school district to court.

Alliance Defending Freedom amended its lawsuit Aug. 16 to include Monica Gill, a Loudoun County high school history teacher, and Kim Wright, a middle school English teacher.

“They are phenomenal teachers who have had great reviews, who have had great relationships with students of all backgrounds, including LGBT students,” Langhofer said in the interview with The Daily Signal. “Yet they’re being told they must immediately affirm a student as a boy [even] if [the student is] a girl and speak a message that they believe is harmful to that person, putting [the student] on a social transition, which leads to medical transition, which leads to harmful outcomes.”

The Loudoun school district has declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Alliance Defending Freedom is seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the school board from forcing Gill, Wright, and Cross to use a student’s preferred pronoun or a pronoun that doesn’t reflect his or her biological sex.

“The end result that we are asking for is a final judgment, which essentially says that the school cannot force Monica, Kim, and Tanner to use a student’s demanded pronoun. That’s ultimately what we’re asking for,” Langhofer said.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/08/31/3-teachers-now-suing-virginia-school-system-over-transgender-pronouns

*********************************************

Sky News host Andrew Bolt says Meghan Markle and some of her defenders in the media are a “menace to free speech”.

According to Mr Bolt, last week Britain's media watchdog Ofcom defended presenter Piers Morgan’s right to call Markle “unbelievable, untrustworthy, someone who makes stuff up” following her interview with Oprah Winfrey.

“The thing is, Meghan Markle does indeed tell the most unbelievable stories about what a victim she is and how terrible the Royal Family is and woe is me,” he said.

“Even if you do believe Meghan Markle, surely a journalist, a presenter is entitled to question her claims, that’s free speech.

“But the scary thing about that is not even Morgan’s bosses at ITV believe in free speech anymore, in the right to doubt Meghan Markle.”

Mr Bolt said ITV’s decision to dump Morgan following thousands of complaints - including from the Duchess of Sussex herself – was a “sin against journalism, and now Britain's media policeman Ofcom has suggested exactly that”.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/meghan-markle-is-a-menace-to-free-speech-bolt/ar-AAO9fH5?ocid=chromentpnews

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

Australia: Sky News hits out at YouTube over ban, 'Frankly ridiculous’

Sky News CEO Paul Whittaker has blasted YouTube in his opening statement to the Senate Inquiry Into Media Diversity, rejecting suggestions the network ever denied the existence of Covid-19 and accusing the social media platform of censoring “certain views”.

In a strongly-worded six-minute statement, Mr Whittaker said YouTube’s assertion Sky had peddled Covid-denialist theories was “frankly ridiculous,” as the network had provided 24/7 coronavirus coverage since March 2020, covering “all angles of this evolving national and global public health and policy debate”.

Last month, YouTube took the unprecedented step of removing 23 Sky News videos from the platform and suspending the network for a week. Sky News Australia has nearly two million subscribers to its YouTube channel and has uploaded in excess of 50,000 pieces of content.

“Sky News Australia strongly supports vaccination. Any claims to the contrary are false and a blatant attempt to discredit and harm our news service,” Mr Whittaker said.

All the network’s hosts “continue to speak strongly in support of vaccination as the only way forward for the nation,” he added.

But YouTube’s own editorial policies regarding Covid-19 were inconsistent and impossible to apply, Mr Whittaker said, as they mandated adherence to ever-shifting World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines, and these guidelines were sometimes at odds with health advice from government.

“YouTube’s actions make clear that it is not a neutral platform, but a publisher selectively broadcasting content and censoring certain views, while allowing videos that are patently false, misogynistic, and racist to proliferate,” Mr Whittaker said.

While the Sky News videos were removed, videos on drug taking, gang violence and “crackpot conspiracy theories” were all widely available on YouTube, he added.

The Sky News CEO also blasted the platform for editorial policies that lacked transparency and not giving operators the opportunity to remove offending content before a suspension order.

With no assurance from YouTube that video take-downs or suspensions would not occur in future, Sky had removed a number of its own clips in an attempt to navigate YouTube’s “opaque policies,” Mr Whittaker said.

New terms of service should be applicable to YouTube as it was clearly a publisher in its own right, he said.

“Why does a tech giant, YouTube, and faceless, nameless individuals backed by an algorithm, based in California, get to decide that holding governments and decision makers to account is ‘misinformation’? Why do they get to decide what is and isn’t allowed to be news?” Mr Whittaker asked.

Sky News was for “the open debate of all issues by a wide range of people,” Mr Whittaker said, and this was a “fundamental tenet of our society that should be upheld and protected”.

Mr Whittaker also said it was the decision of Sky News hosts not to appear before the committee, firmly rejecting suggestions from Committee Chair Senator Sarah Hanson-Young that they may have been pressured not to appear.

In a testy exchange, he rejected a suggestion from Senator Hanson-Young that Sky promoted “disinformation” and “Covid lies”.

Mr Whittaker said YouTube had “overreached” in taking down the 23 Covid-19 videos. “There were no complaints from the public about them,” he said. He also said he didn’t believe Sky News had even breached YouTube editorial policies.

Sky did not appeal a warning issued from YouTube in December 2020, about two videos uploaded in October 2020, because the network needed clarification about the reasons for the warning, Mr Whittaker said.

Sky News was accountable to the Australian people but YouTube was not, Mr Whittaker stated. “They take no responsibility, yet they want to take decisions on what is published,” he said.

Labor Senator Kim Carr said 500,000 Australians had petitioned the parliament asking for a Royal Commission into media diversity, and asked Mr Whittaker for his views. “We’ve never had more media diversity in this country,” Mr Whittaker said.

“People have never had so much choice for news. We’ve got new brands that have entered the market in recent years.”

Asked by Senator Carr about a report in Nine Newspapers about forthcoming News Corp coverage on climate change policies, Mr Whittaker said Sky’s focus would be on Australia’s potential energy pathways to get to net zero.

Climate change was “one of the biggest issues in the world,” he said. “We are looking at the net zero issue. We are seeking to explore the solutions.”

Sky News and News Corp did not deny climate change, Mr Whittaker said.

Grilled about the influence of News Corp non-executive Chairman Lachlan Murdoch, Mr Whittaker said he had little influence over Sky News coverage, and the two spoke “infrequently”.

YouTube has removed more than one million videos worldwide, including 23 from Sky News, most of which relate to alleged Covid-19 misinformation, a senate inquiry into media diversity has heard.

Google-owned YouTube in August suspended Sky News Australia – which has 1.88 million YouTube subscribers – for a seven-day ­period.

On Monday, Google Australia and New Zealand director of public policy Lucinda Longcroft fronted the inquiry and defended the company’s actions.

Ms Longcroft told the committee that YouTube made “difficult decisions” about what was permissible online, particularly regarding the “harmful misinformation” about Covid-19.

“We are not an anything goes platform,” she said. “The guidelines provide public guidance on content that is not allowed on our platform.”

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/media-diversity-inquiry-google-sky-news-acma-giving-evidence/news-story/046c4f2905f710018a2c9542b2b0c0a7

*************************************

GoDaddy Drops Texas-Based Website for Abortion Tipsters

GoDaddy announced that it has dropped a Texas-based website that had been made to help collect anonymous tips on doctors who perform abortions following Texas’ recently enacted abortion law.

"Last night we informed prolifewhistleblower.com they have violated GoDaddy’s terms of service and have 24 hours to move to a different provider," GoDaddy said in a statement.

Pro-life group Texas Right to Life, which created the website, said Friday that it would have it found a new provider and that its website would be restored within 24-48 hours.

The Texas abortion law bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy and allows private citizens to sue doctors, people who paid for the abortion and anyone else who aided in the procedure.

Elizabeth Graham, vice president of Texas Right to Life, said in an interview that while the group is looking to gather tips about doctors who still perform abortions despite Texas' recent ban, it does not not track women who have the procedure.

The New York Times reported that GoDaddy had received criticism for hosting the website after it appeared to violate the company’s policy that prohibits collecting personal identifiable data "without prior written consent."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/landonmion/2021/09/04/around-100-afghan-refugees-flagged-as-potential-terror-threats-n2595322

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

Amazon Web Services reportedly planning to increase platform censorship

Dominant public cloud platform AWS is reportedly forming a censorship team that will help it remove more content that violates its policies.

The scoop comes courtesy of Reuters, which has chatted to a couple of anonymous people who reckon they know what they’re talking about. Apparently Amazon wants AWS to be more ‘proactive’ in its policing of the platform. Accordingly the team will ‘develop expertise and work with outside researchers to monitor for future threats.’

So what’s the big deal? Amazon is a private company so it can do what it wants, right? The fact that it’s completely free to unilaterally change its policies with no accountability despite hosting much of the internet is of no public concern whatsoever. After all, we can be totally confident of the infallibility of its judgment, which is guaranteed to be free of bias and political interference.

So many people misunderstand this issue. Of course big tech and governments are going to position any increases in their power over the rest of us as motivated by concern for our safety. The Covid pandemic has massively accelerated that trend such that some parts of Australia are now contemplating Orwellian measures that make China look like a laissez faire anarchy. But whatever the reason, when you use the public cloud and other digital platforms you hand over control of everything you place them it to a third party whose priorities may clash with your own.

“AWS Trust & Safety works to protect AWS customers, partners, and internet users from bad actors attempting to use our services for abusive or illegal purposes,” said AWS in a statement to Reuters. AWS is the sole arbiter of who is a ‘bad actor’ and is at liberty to define ‘abusive’ as it sees fit. Furthermore, antitrust pressure is leading to increased collaboration between big tech and governments, which will surely influence such judgment calls. Public cloud cheerleaders have no good answers to these concerns because there aren’t any.

https://telecoms.com/511210/aws-reportedly-planning-to-increase-platform-censorship/

*****************************************

Canadian academic won't use capital letters - except to acknowledge Indigenous people's struggle

A Canadian academic is joining the "lowercase movement," according to a Calgary, Alberta, university.

dr. linda manyguns, associate vice-president of Indigenization and decolonization at Mount Royal University, said she was joining local leaders to reject symbols of hierarchy "wherever they are found," and will not use capital letters "except to acknowledge the Indigenous struggle for recognition."

She noted it was the start of efforts to describe the use of lowercase letters on the website of the office of indigenization and decolonization.

"We resist acknowledging the power structures that oppress and join the movement that does not capitalize," manyguns wrote in a "perspective" story published this week on the university's website.

manyguns made her comments following the discovery of more than 1,000 unmarked graves at residential schools, which underscored Canada's dark history, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) estimates about 4,100 children died at residential schools in Canada. A large number of Indigenous children were forcibly sent to residential schools and never returned home, according to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

"it was genocide, and the adults were dying at just as high of a rate as the children at residential schools. our reserves should be filled with graveyards and there are none," manyguns told the Calgary Herald.

Back in May, the CBC quoted an Alberta government resource guide regarding residential schools.

"These schools were established to forcibly assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture. Underfunded, located in remote places far away from children's home communities, and lacking proper oversight, the schools were plagued by disease, dubious educational outcomes, and physical, emotional, and sexual abuse," read the resource guide on the schools' history.

manyguns previously said that to go forward as a country that respects Indigenous culture, Canada must go backward to revisit the rotten roots of colonization, according to the Herald.

"Indigenous people have been actively engaged in a multidimensional struggle for equality, since time immemorial. we strive for historical-cultural recognition and acknowledgment of colonial oppression that persistently devalues the diversity of our unique cultural heritages," she wrote Monday. "these sites of struggle are generally found at blockades, where demonstrations against racism occur, where racialization and cultural domination, and discrimination leave the mark of imbalance and abuses of power. Sometimes these sites generate media interest but interest is generally fickle."

"the explicit demonstration and practice of aboriginal culture in everyday life or at places of resistance is called by academics ‘eventing,’" manyguns added.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/canadian-academic-wont-use-capital-letters-except-to-acknowledge-indigenous-peoples-struggle/ar-AAO3756

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

NY Times Pulled Ad Calling CCP to Account for Pandemic

A full-page advertisement that called for the world to hold the Chinese communist regime to account for the COVID-19 pandemic was pulled at the last moment by The New York Times in March 2020. The paper said the ad didn’t meet its standards, but the ad was pulled after it had already passed the paper’s vetting process. The businessman who paid for the ad suspects the paper’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) played a role. He only revealed the details of the incident to The Epoch Times earlier this year.

The ad was scheduled to run on March 22, 2020. It was already approved, paid for, and even printed and distributed in some locations when the paper pulled the plug in the middle of the night, preventing the ad from being published in some of the paper’s main markets, including New York and Florida.

The decision was so abrupt that the sales representative responsible for the ad wasn’t informed, and the client only found out the next morning when he couldn’t find the ad in the paper.

The client, Brett Kingstone, is a real estate developer in Florida. He backed up his story with email threads documenting his correspondence with the newspaper as well as images of the contract he signed, details about the payment and subsequent refund of the $55,000 ad fee, and photos of the ad as it ran in some locales.

New York Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said the ad ran in “an early edition of Sunday’s paper and was removed from all later editions, which account for the vast majority of copies.”

“The ad in question did not meet our standards and should not have appeared in The New York Times,” she told The Epoch Times via email.

She didn’t respond to a question about whether the paper faced any CCP pressure regarding the ad.

“It was removed after being flagged internally by [New York] Times staff,” she said.

Kingstone, a prolific donor to charitable and conservative causes, had contacted The New York Times via email on March 18, 2020, with an advertorial placement request.

He said he placed an advertorial in the paper’s Sunday edition back in 2018 and the staff “did an excellent job in delivering what was promised both in performance and placement.”

“I am interested in doing the same again,” he said, submitting a draft of the ad.

The text urged the U.S. government to organize and initiate investigations and lawsuits regarding the origins and repercussions of the CCP virus pandemic.

“This virus was the direct result of the incompetence and irresponsibility of the Chinese Government. They showed as much disregard for their own population as they have for ours,” the ad stated.

It called for “massive liability lawsuits” against the CCP as well as investigations into two Chinese labs close to the epicenter of the pandemic, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Scrutiny of the Wuhan Institute of Virology was treated as a taboo subject by social media and the corporate press at the time. Only earlier this year have establishment actors acknowledged that the inquiries were legitimate and that the virus could have escaped from the lab.

On March 19, 2020, the ad placement representative informed Kingstone that it had been accepted.

“My Ad Acceptability team has approved the message as long as we include the footnotes, your email address, a border around the ad, and advertisement slugs,” the representative said.

The two then exchanged several emails regarding technical edits to the ad as well as proof of payment of the ad fee required before publication.

Everything seemed to go smoothly.

Then, on the morning of March 22, 2020, Kingstone was surprised to learn the ad was nowhere to be found in the Florida edition of the paper.

In his inbox, he found an email from the sales representative:

“I wanted to let you know that I was informed late last night that our production team had pulled the ad from the production run, without my knowledge. I’m investigating this now and I’ll get back to you as soon as I can with any updates,” it read.

“I just wanted to assure you that I’m working on this and I will hopefully be able to share additional context on Monday after I speak to the necessary people. I will be in touch on Monday!”

The representative has since left the paper. The Epoch Times is omitting her name for the sake of her privacy.

Kingstone didn’t hide his disappointment.

“I would like to know the reason why they did this,” he said in an email response to the representative, requesting a refund.

He asked whether the paper’s executives concluded that his particular message needed to be silenced.

“I was very pleased with how the NYT treated me on my first advocacy advertisement. They were more than fair. Now my fears about bias are being realized,” he wrote.

The cancellation was all the more a slap in the face given that The New York Times used to regularly publish propaganda advertorials paid for by a company directly controlled by the CCP.

After receiving his refund, Kingstone didn’t leave it at that.

As it happened, his website, which was listed on the ad, came under a cyberattack around the same time the copies of the paper that did include the ad landed on people’s doormats, he said.

This was too much of a coincidence for Kingstone, who has had his share of run-ins with the CCP. It was his company that years earlier won a precedent-setting lawsuit against Chinese counterfeiters. In 2005, he published a book detailing his story, called “The Real War Against America.”

Kingstone started to inquire with his contacts and eventually reached the conclusion that the CCP must have been involved in the ad’s cancellation.

One New York Times executive told him a CCP official called the paper’s leadership, demanding the ad be pulled, he said. The Epoch Times wasn’t able to independently confirm that the phone call took place. Attempts to reach the executive for comment were unsuccessful. The paper’s spokesperson neither confirmed nor denied that such a phone call took place.

In any case, the situation carries “an earmark of how China would operate,” according to Pat Laflin, a former FBI agent who upon retirement led a series of lectures for the bureau to American businesses and research entities on economic espionage by adversarial nations, including China.

It’s “impossible” that the CCP let the ad slide, he told The Epoch Times.

“If there’s anything negative about China, China’s going to scream,” he said in a phone call.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/ny-times-pulled-ad-calling-ccp-to-account-for-pandemic_3972529.html

*****************************************

Texas Passes Law Targeting Social Media Titans Over Viewpoint Censorship

The Texas state Senate passed a bill Tuesday that aims to curb perceived political censorship by social media companies.

The bill, introduced in the Texas Senate by state Sen. Bryan Hughes, would prohibit social media platforms from “censoring” users based on their viewpoints. “Censoring” includes actions such as removing content, banning users, demonetizing users, and suppressing posts, according to the bill.

Users able to prove they were victims of viewpoint censorship would also be permitted to sue social media companies. The bill was approved by the Texas House of Representatives on Monday, and now awaits the signature of Gov. Greg Abbott.

The legislation is similar to a previous bill introduced by Hughes in March that also sought to curb social media platforms’ alleged political censorship. Though the bill ultimately stalled in the Legislature, it drew Abbott’s support.

“Social media sites have become our modern-day public squares, where information should be able to flow freely, but social media companies are now acting as judge and jury on determining what viewpoints are valid,” Abbott said in a statement at the time. “I look forward to working with Sen. Hughes to sign this bill into law and protect free speech in Texas.”

Under the legislation passed Tuesday, social media companies would have to provide a “complaint system” for users whose content was removed, and notify users when removing certain content.

Platforms would also have to publicly disclose their “content management, data management, and business practices,” such as how they moderate, rank, and promote content, as well as publish a biannual transparency report detailing their content removal practices.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed similar legislation in May that sought to impose financial penalties on social media companies that “deplatformed” political candidates. The law was deemed to be in violation of the First Amendment by a federal court in June.

First Amendment experts predict a similar fate for the Texas bill.

“Texas legislators apparently learned nothing from watching Florida embarrass itself a month ago in federal court trying to defend its unconstitutional social media speech code,” Ari Cohn, free speech counsel at TechFreedom, said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “While the language in Texas’s bill is different, the outcome will be the same, because the First Amendment protects against government intrusion into editorial discretion.”

Several other states have proposed similar social media legislation, with Utah Gov. Spencer Cox vetoing an anti-censorship bill in March, and Kentucky lawmakers proposing a bill holding platforms liable for their moderation decisions.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/09/01/texas-passes-law-targeting-social-media-titans-over-viewpoint-censorship

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

Morgan speech vindicated

A row is developing between Piers Morgan and ITV tonight after sources at the channel said he would not be getting his job at GMB back - despite being cleared by Ofcom over criticism of Meghan Markle that led to him being forced out.

The UK's broadcasting watchdog this morning called attempts to silence the MailOnline columnist a 'chilling restriction on freedom of expression' after the Duchess of Sussex was among a wave of people who complained that his questioning of her account of royal racism and suicidal thoughts was 'harmful' and 'offensive' to viewers.

A string of broadcasters have come out in support of Piers, and ITV's left-leaning former Guardian chief CEO Dame Carolyn McCall is under pressure to explain why she forced him out in March hours after the Duchess of Sussex complained to her directly and allegedly demanded his 'head on a plate', Mr Morgan said in his column.

However, the channel issued a statement today claiming that it was Mr Morgan's GMB co-panelists' discussion and contextualisation of the comments that cleared him - and said nothing about the presenter's right to express an honestly held opinion.

ITV also revealed they 'have no current plans to invite him to present Good Morning Britain'. A source said: 'Piers decided to leave. We accepted his decision'.

It comes as Mr Morgan revealed the number of job offers he has received since leaving ITV's flagship breakfast show has 'accelerated' since he was found not to have breach Ofcom's broadcasting code.

Speaking to the Sun, he slammed the Duchess of Sussex as the 'Queen of Woke' and described her as a 'whiny, forked-tounge actress'.

Mr Morgan said: 'The woke brigade think they can vilify, shame, silence and get fired anyone who has an opinion they don’t like.

'Meghan Markle is the queen of this culture, who personally sought to have me lose my job — and succeeded.

'Why are she and Prince Harry entitled to have their opinion but I’m not entitled to mine?'

He immediately hit back at ITV's statement for ignoring the central thrust of Ofcom's conclusion, stating that he was 'entitled to say he disbelieved the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's allegations and to hold and express strong views that rigorously challenged their account .

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9944265/Ofcom-CLEARS-Piers-Morgan-GMB-Meghan-Harrys-Oprah-show.html

*****************************************

Virginia Supreme Court Sides with Teacher Who Opposed Transgender Rules

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of reinstating a gym teacher in the commonwealth who would not refer to transgender students by their preferred pronouns.

The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that said the Loudon County Public School system violated teacher Tanner Cross’s free speech rights when it suspended him after he spoke out at a school board meeting.

Tanner said he would not "affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa because it's against my religion,” later adding that “it's lying to a child, it's abuse to a child, and it's sinning against our God."

The school said Cross was suspended in part because of how his comments caused a “significant disruption.”

"Many students and parents at Leesburg Elementary have expressed fear, hurt and disappointment about coming to school,” LCPS said in a statement at the time. “Addressing those concerns is paramount to the school division's goal to provide a safe, welcoming, and affirming learning environment for all students. While LCPS respects the rights of public-school employees to free speech and free exercise of religion, those rights do not outweigh the rights of students to be educated in a supportive and nurturing environment."

School boards across the state have been revising their policies to be more inclusive of transgender students in accordance with a new state law. But Loudoun County, outside the nation’s capital, has been a particular flashpoint in the debate over not just transgender students but also how students learn about racism and race relations.

The school system said it suspended Cross in part because his comments caused a disruption at the school. But the lower court judge, James Plowman, and the state Supreme Court agreed that the handful of calls fielded by school administrators did not cause the type of disruption that warranted a suspension.

Tuesday’s ruling leaves in place a temporary injunction that bars the school system from suspending Cross. A trial is scheduled for next week in Loudoun County to settle the issue permanently.

Since Cross filed his lawsuit in May, two additional teachers in Loudoun County have joined him as plaintiffs. (AP)

"Teachers shouldn’t be forced to promote ideologies that are harmful to their students and that they believe are false, nor should they be silenced for commenting at a public meeting," ADF senior counsel Tyson Langhofer said in a statement responding to the ruling. "The lower court’s decision was a well-reasoned application of the facts to clearly established law, as the Virginia Supreme Court found.

But because Loudoun County Public Schools is now requiring all teachers and students to deny truths about what it means to be male and female and compelling them to call students by their chosen pronouns or face punishment, we have moved to amend our lawsuit to challenge that policy on behalf of multiple faculty members. Public employees cannot be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep a job."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2021/09/01/virginia-supreme-court-tanner-cross-n2595128

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

Australian court backs academics’ free speech in swastika dismissal case

A controversial University of Sydney lecturer who was sacked after superimposing a swastika on an Israeli flag has won a key victory in his battle to be reinstated, with the federal court declaring academics at the institution are entitled to convey even offensive views in their area of expertise.

The decision reverses a previous court ruling that had suggested academic freedom was merely an aspirational goal with no legal force and bolsters academics’ free speech rights nationally amid a focus on censorship on campuses

But it does not mean the lecturer, Tim Anderson, will ultimately win his legal campaign to get his job back because another judge now has to examine whether his conduct was within the bounds of academic freedom or went too far.

Dr Anderson, who came to national prominence when he was acquitted of planning the 1978 Hilton Hotel bombing in Sydney, taught political economy from an “anti-imperialist” perspective at the university from 1998 until 2019, when he was fired after a string of online incidents from 2017.

They included calling Republican Senator John McCain an “al Qaeda supporter”, suggested a News Corp journalist was a “traitor” to his ethnicity and posting a photo of friends at lunch, one of whom was wearing a patch in Arabic that read in part “curse the Jews”.

After several warnings, Dr Anderson published slides including an infographic, which two of the appeal judges said was “an expression of a legitimate view, open to debate, about the relative morality of the actions of Israel and Palestinian people”. The infographic argued Israel’s conduct was much worse but also included an Israeli flag with a Swastika in the middle. By January 2019 he was fired.

Initially, a federal court judge found Dr Anderson was not protected by the academic freedom clause the university had negotiated because it “does not create any enforceable obligation”. Three judges of the federal court, including chief justice James Allsop, overturned that.

“No matter what view is taken of Dr Anderson’s conduct, this case concerns his livelihood and profession,” two said. “He is no more and no less entitled than anyone else to a fair determination of his application in accordance with law.”

All three ruled that a right to academic freedom bound the University of Sydney, so long as academics conducted themselves in accordance with high ethical, professional and legal standards and did not harass, vilify or intimidate anyone.

“The right would be meaningless if it is subject to qualifications such as not involving offence to others, not being discourteous to others, or not involving insensitivity to others,” Justices Jayne Jagot and Darryl Rangiah held.

A university spokeswoman said the institution was disappointed by the decision, which it would review before deciding what to do.

Dr Anderson said in a post on his website that the court had recognised his infographic was tied to a discussion about morality in the Israel-Palestine conflict, in contrast to how it was “falsely depicted” by the university and media “simply as a ‘Swastika Image’, offensive to Jewish people”.

However, Justices Jagot and Rangiah said the swastika flag image was “deeply offensive and insensitive to Jewish people” and could suggest a “false moral equivalence comparing Israel to Nazi Germany”.

The libertarian Institute of Public Affairs’ police director Gideon Rozner said while Dr Anderson’s views were misguided, mean-spirited and borderline delusional, he should not have been censored.

“In a liberal democracy, the price of free speech is that the worst of human thought has as much a chance of being expressed as the best,” Mr Rozner said. “We cannot make intellectual freedom contingent on whether we like the speech being aired.”

Matthew McGowan, the national secretary of the National Tertiary Education Union, said it had brought the case alongside Dr Anderson not because it defended his comments but because it believed in academic freedom.

“Universities should embrace this decision and work with the union to ensure we have legally enforceable protections for academic freedom, which is fundamental to the sector and the work that we do,” he said.

Enterprise agreements, which at the University of Sydney contained the academic freedom clauses Dr Anderson relied on in this case, vary from campus to campus and Mr McGowan said the union would push to strengthen them.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/court-backs-academics-free-speech-in-swastika-dismissal-case-20210831-p58ngf.html

****************************************

Bestselling author who accuses the trans lobby of trying to 'supplant biology' says she has been cancelled by the BBC and Waterstones

A bestselling author who criticised transgender rights activists has accused 'cowards' in the broadcasting and the book industries of trying to 'cancel' her.

After the publication last month of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, Helen Joyce claims she has been snubbed by the BBC and other media organisations and suspects some branches of bookseller Waterstones of trying to suppress her sales.

Among the arguments made in her book – which was serialised across two weeks in The Mail on Sunday – are that the trans lobby is trying to 'supplant biology' and the movement is the equivalent of a 'new state religion, complete with blasphemy laws'.

While Ms Joyce expected a backlash, she said she did not anticipate being frozen out by the book industry. Every publisher she approached with the manuscript, with the exception of the small publishing house Oneworld, rejected it.

She says the reluctance to talk spreads further. Approaches by her publicist to the BBC, Sky and ITV were all unsuccessful, with GB News the only TV station to interview her.

Last night, Ms Joyce – who is a senior journalist at The Economist – said: 'I think these organisations are responding to enormous pressure from trans activists.

Anyone who gives me any kind of platform at all, even mentioning my book exists, can expect to get a torrent of people saying they are transphobic, that they are bigoted, that they are driving people to suicide, that they are racist, bizarrely.

'It's easier to ignore it. If you put your head above the parapet, you get shot at, but if everyone puts their head above the parapet, they can't fire at all of us.'

She is particularly saddened by the decision of BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour not to mention the book. 'The BBC has an internal war on this topic,' she claimed.

'Presenter Jenni Murray was forced out of the show because of this issue. She wrote a newspaper column in 2017 arguing that trans women were not real women. That led to her being barred from covering this issue on the programme.

'I think the refusal to engage with me is down to a mixture of cowardice and the fact that the new presenter Emma Barnett, I think, disagrees with me. That is fine, of course – she can disagree with me. But why doesn't she invite me on the show to challenge me?'

The BBC denied there had been a boycott or attempts to 'cancel' Ms Joyce. A spokesman said: 'We know that lots of people want to appear on the BBC and the fact they haven't doesn't mean they have been boycotted or won't appear if there is an appropriate editorial opportunity.

'Our wide-ranging book coverage often includes interviews with authors, but of course, we can't feature them all.

We include a broad range of guests with decisions based purely on editorial merit.' Ms Joyce said she had also been contacted by several people who claimed that some branches of the Waterstones book chain had tried to hide the book.

'Waterstones gives its local managers a lot of discretion because these managers know what will sell in their area,' said Ms Joyce.

'I have been contacted by people on social media who went in to their store and asked for their copy and were told it was out of print, that it was a short print run, that the stock was delayed, even that it was being kept behind the counter out of respect for a trans colleague because it was a hate book.'

But a spokesman for Waterstones said: 'It is not true that Waterstones is boycotting the book. It has been one of our bestselling non-fiction hardback books since its publication, stocked by the majority of our shops and online. Stock was low initially as sales exceeded expectations, but this is no longer the case.

'As with every book that sells, occasionally a shop will run out of copies and it seems social media comment is picking up on these instances.'

The publishing company Oneworld declined to comment.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9936523/Author-accused-trans-lobby-trying-supplant-biology-says-cancelled.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

CDC's 'woke' new language guide proposes replacing 'dehumanizing' words like inmate, poor and ELDERLY

A new guide on 'inclusive communication' by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to promote 'health equity' has published a long list of words and phrases such as elderly, smokers and poor for les 'dehumanizing' language.

The guide includes a list of guiding principles and preferred terms to use rather than seemingly dehumanizing ones such as 'poor' and 'elderly' to foster 'an ongoing shift toward non-stigmatizing language.'

'Long-standing systemic social and health inequities ... have put some population groups at increased risk of getting sick, having overall poor health, and having worse outcomes when they do get sick,' the guide reads. 'Avoid perpetuating these inequities in communication.'

The guide asks health communicators and medical professionals to 'consider how racism and other forms of discrimination unfairly disadvantage people and lead to social and health inequities.'

'Language in communication products should reflect and speak to the needs of people in the audience of focus,' the CDC website reads.

The guide provides lists of words in multiple categories to avoid using, and suggests replacements to use in their stead.

Most of the recommendations are structured to read such as 'a person with disabilities' rather than describing someone as 'disabled.'

In the disability category, the CDC also recommends avoiding the use of 'differently abled', 'afflicted' and 'handicapped.'

And instead of calling someone 'elderly' or a 'senior,' the CDC recommends using the terms 'older adults' or 'elders.'

For drug and substance abuse terms, the CDC guide recommends avoiding the terms 'drug-users/addicts/drug abusers' or 'alcoholics/abusers.'

Instead, the CDC prefers that they be called terms such as 'persons with substance use disorder' or 'persons with alcohol use disorder' - or even 'persons in recovery from substance use/alcohol disorder.'

The CDC has even asked for 'smokers' to be referred to as 'people who smoke.'

Meanwhile, poor people should be referred to as 'people with lower incomes' or 'people experiencing poverty.'

And instead of 'homeless people' or 'transient people,' the CDC recommends referring to them as 'people experiencing homelessness' or 'persons who are not securely housed.'

The CDC has recommended avoiding words such as 'mentally ill' and 'crazy' and 'insane' while also avoiding using words such as 'asylum' in reference to mental hospitals and facilities.

The guide even includes a category for immigration, recommending that medical professionals avoid using such terms as 'illegals', 'illegal immigrants.' and 'illegal aliens.'

Instead, the CDC prefers dropping the word 'illegal' from the description or using terms like 'people with undocumented status' or 'foreign-born persons.'

When it comes to crime, the CDC recommends avoiding terms like 'inmate' and 'prisoner' and 'criminal.' Instead, the agency prefers terms like 'people who are incarcerated' or 'people who were formerly incarcerated.'

The guide also has lengthy categories on topics such as how to refer to people who identify as LGBTQ or people of other races and ethnicities.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9937093/CDCs-woke-new-language-guide-proposes-replacing-dehumanizing-words-like-ELDERLY.html

***************************************

Native title body concern over traditional place names on SA driver's licences

South Australians are now able to add Indigenous place names to their driver's licences, but the change comes with a warning from the state's peak native title body.

About 300 residents have already chosen to have a First Nations name added to their residential address and identification.

The director of ServiceSA, Shannon Smith, said the organisation took inspiration from Australia Post, which worked with Gomeroi woman Rachel McPhail to include First Nations country names on envelopes and packages.

"We started getting some customer inquiries about this during the year and NAIDOC week culminated in a few more," Mr Smith said.

"We thought this would be us doing our small part in recognising the traditional owners of the land.

"We provided the capability for customers to add the traditional place name to their licence for the area in which they reside — it's purely customer choice."

Mr Smith said so far all the feedback had been positive.

What's in a name?

SA Native Title Services (SANTS) chief executive Keith Thomas said the initiative was a move in the right direction but he had questions about its execution.

Mr Thomas said choosing an Indigenous place name to use could be complicated.

Many areas are subject to native title determinations, where particular Aboriginal nations have legal rights over the land.

Some places are not subject to native title, but are still known to be the traditional lands of one or more nations.

And across Australia, where the Indigenous name for many specific towns, cities or places is known, or is even in common use, it can still be ambiguous.

"There are numerous maps, but they're not all accurate," Mr Thomas said.

"In the future … we would be keen to be involved in establishing a map that clearly identifies who the groups in certain areas are."

SANTS uses the federal government's National Native Title Tribunal map to advise people whose land they are on.

ServiceSA, however, said it referred customers to a different map on the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies website, which showed traditional land ownership but not native title claims.

"If you look at a native title map it can be very confusing," Mr Thomas said.

He said there could even be situations in which the local native title group would have to verify land names themselves to avoid confusion or mislabeling.

Consultation limited

ServiceSA did not consult with Aboriginal organisations or groups about the inclusion of traditional land names on drivers licences.

Mr Smith said it listened to the "groundswell" in the community.

"We did engage with Aboriginal staff members within ServiceSA to provide advice on the way forward," he said.

But Mr Thomas said SANTS should have been consulted and suggested a liaison officer within ServiceSA could work with SANTS and other native title groups to help ensure the initiative was successful.

"We could give them certainty around the Aboriginal group names," Mr Thomas said.

"There are some groups that have boundaries that run halfway through a town.

"It can be quite confusing if you're not aware of those sorts of intricacies that come from looking at a native title map."

Improvements likely

Mr Smith said he was open to changes.

"We are currently looking [to improve] our forms to make it obvious you can include the place name if you wish," he said.

"Also, whether we can put in any checks to verify the residential address or suburb to the traditional place name — we think there might be a way through that but we are still investigating."

He said ServiceSA may consider whether to allow Indigenous customers to include the nation they belong to, in addition to the land they live on, in the future.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/native-title-body-concern-over-traditional-place-names-on-sa-driver-s-licences/ar-AANUxUp?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

Edinburgh University lecturers are handed list of 'microinsults' they can't say to trans people including 'all women hate their periods' and 'I wanted to be a boy when I was a child'

Scholars were handed the list of 'microinsults' as part of a nationwide drive to raise awareness for 'cisgender privilege' in universities.

It comes over fears these 'microaggressions' undermine the lived experiences and reality of transgender and non-binary people.

The advice goes on to explain these phrases 'negate or nullify the thoughts, feelings or lived reality of Trans and non-Binary people, by questioning their experience, gender identity and the process of transition.'

Edinburgh University staff have also been told not to 'focus on anatomical sex markers, most usually sexual organs', asked to put their preferred pronouns in emails, and encouraged to wear rainbow lanyards on site to show they are allies of the trans community.

Lecturers should avoid using labels such as 'man' or 'woman' or make any suggestion that someone can only be one or the other, according to the guidance, which was seen by the Telegraph.

Other 'microinsults' could be avoiding engaging with trans people, because of their gender, or telling them they are 'just trying to be special'.

Guidance on the University's website lists several further 'microinsults and aggression's which should be avoided, including deadnaming, misgendering, and intrusive questioning.

Students told the University they had experienced invasive questioning and touching once they revealed they were transgender.

One student, whose name was not given, said: 'People feel entitled to ask questions that are really intimate that they'd never ask a cis person.

'Because you've been honest about being trans, they then think that they've been invited into some sort of sexual or personal discussion.'

Similar guidance has appeared in several Russel Group universities, many of which have asked lecturers to undergo new training on 'cisgender privilege' - the advantages afforded someone who identifies as the gender they were assigned at birth.

Newcastle University has told its staff: 'Being cisgender comes with social privilege. That's even for people who are socially disadvantaged in other ways.'

Imperial College, LSE, Warwick, and Exeter have similarly provided advice on the topic, telling scholars to use their privilege to be allies of the transgender community.

Staff are being asked to step in and 'disarm the microaggression' if they witness one and to do more the encourage students to 'recognise their biases'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9535099/Edinburgh-University-lecturers-handed-list-microinsults-say-trans-people.html

**************************************

France bans schools from teaching 'gender neutral' words with full stops in the middle because they are 'a threat to the language'

The country's education ministry issued the ruling last week after a push to include full stops in the middle of written words - dubbed 'midpoints' - which allow both male and female forms to be represented simultaneously.

But the Academie Francaise, which is responsible for guarding the French language, said the move is 'harmful to the practice and understanding of [French.]'

In French grammar, nouns take on the gender of the subject to which they refer, with male perferred over female in mixed settings.

Therefore, a group of friends with four women and one man is referred to using the masculine 'amis' - causing controversy among gender equality advocates

With midpoints included, the written world becomes 'ami.e.s', including the feminine 'e' ending - though it would still be pronounced the same when spoken.

Advocates say the midpoints make French 'more inclusive' but critics say it creates differences between written and spoke French which make the language harder to learn and threaten its entire existence.

Nathalie Elimas, the State Secretary for Priority Education, said the drive to make French 'gender neutral' will not increase it popularity, but will instead drive more people to learn English which does not gender its nouns.

'With the spread of inclusive writing, the English language - already quasi-hegemonic across the world - would certainly and perhaps forever defeat the French language,' she said as the ban was issued

Jean-Michel Blanquer, France's education minister, told Sunday newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche the use of dots in the middle of words also 'present a barrier' for people with learning disabilities, such as dyslexia.

In response, the left-wing SUD - one of France's largest teaching unions - issued its own statement calling on teachers to ignore the ruling.

Blanquer should 'stop trying to impose his backwardness on the education community,' the statement said.

Research has claimed that women sometimes feel put off from applying for roles when only male forms are used on the application.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9562695/France-bans-schools-teaching-gender-neutral-words.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

TikTok has permanently banned PragerU from its platform for “multiple violations” of its community guidelines

The tech giant removed PragerU’s account altogether—giving us no way to appeal the decision! We can’t even view the content that was supposedly in violation of TikTok’s policies!

This is blatant censorship.

TikTok is a platform most frequently used by young people, primarily those under the age of 18, to share video content. This is a vital age group being brainwashed by the left that we must reach.

PragerU’s TikTok page simply shared videos about American values using young influencers to convey those ideas. Our page was reaching millions of young people.

For example, one of our videos by Dennis Prager (on the myth of the gender wage gap) reached 3 million views—millions of young people liked and shared this video.

TikTok does not want young people, especially Gen Z, exposed to conservative ideas.

Because PragerU’s page was effectively influencing millions of young people, they banned us. To make matters worse, TikTok gave PragerU zero recourse—no reasons were given and there is no one to contact.

The left has taken over every single vehicle of communication for young people. Americans are facing a serious Freedom of Speech issue. Without our First Amendment, all our other rights will be meaningless.

Via email from Prager U

***********************************

Calls to change the name of fairy bread because it's 'outdated and offensive'

A popular Australian party food has come under fire after campaigners slammed the iconic treat for its 'offensive' and 'outdated' name.

Alexis Chaise, from Melbourne, has launched a petition to replace the name of the party snack for the 'sake of countless marginalised Australians'.

She proposed the name be changed to 'party bread' because the term 'fairy' has been used to 'belittle and oppress others'.

The word 'fairy' has been defined as a derogatory term for a gay male who acts more stereotypically feminine than straight women.

'The fact that Australians in 2021 are still using this word in the name of a children's food is reprehensible', the petition reads.

'I was shocked when I discovered at my cousin's 5th birthday party that the children there were being taught to use the derogatory term of 'fairy' in regards to their party food.'

The campaigner said she was proud to have never consumed fairy bread, and encouraged Australians to boycott the beloved treat.

The week-old campaign has received over 1000 signatures, with many 'supporters' venting their frustration at the petition in the comments.

'Signing is the only way I can let you know how f**king stupid this is', one user commented.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9476751/Beloved-Australian-party-food-fairy-bread-slammed-campaigner-outdated-offensive-name.html

There is some suggestion that this is a spoof

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS -- daily)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

The Associated Press is being ridiculed online after its style guide eliminated the term ‘mistress’ from the lexicon because the word ‘implies that the woman was solely responsible for the affair.’

Instead, the AP Stylebook, used by journalists and writers as sort of a universal guideline, recommends that the term be replaced by gender-neutral words like ‘companion,’ ‘friend,’ or ‘lover.’

The AP initially recommended the elimination of the term ‘mistress’ last year, but a tweet reminding the public of the change went viral on Wednesday.

‘Don't use the term mistress for a woman who is in a long-term sexual relationship with, and is financially supported by, a man who is married to someone else,’ the AP tweeted.

‘Instead, use an alternative like companion, friend or lover on first reference and provide additional details later.’

In a follow-up tweet, the agency wrote: ‘We understand it's problematic that the alternative terms fall short.

‘But we felt that was better than having one word for a woman and none for the man, and implying that the woman was solely responsible for the affair.’

On Twitter, social media users mocked the AP. Mark Harris of New York City snickered: ‘Yeah, definitely use “friend,” the term the husband uses to explain himself. That’s much less sexist.’

Christian Schneider thinks that a synonym for mistress should be ‘homewrecker.’

Joe Cunningham tweeted: ‘The preferred gender-neutral phrasing is “Sugar Baby”.’

‘The word for the man is "adulterer”,’ wrote one Twitter user.

Another Twitter user suggested ‘mister-ess’ as an alternative.

Matt Comer thinks the AP should just adopt the term ‘paramour,’ which is ‘just waiting to be plucked from the dictionary.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9470171/Mistress-CANCELED-AP-Stylebook-bans-use-term-implies-woman-blame.html

*************************************

Uproar over Scrabble words that can no longer be used

The Scrabble world is in uproar over moves by the venerable board game’s owners to ban a long list of words now considered slurs.

Three prominent members of the global Scrabble players’ organisation have quit over the removal of words from official game lists.

They have complained that as Scrabble is a game of words, as long as terms are listed in the dictionary they should be able to be played. To do otherwise would be to pretend those words don’t exist.

One of Scrabble’s owners, however, has said there are no other games where players “can win by using a racial epithet”.

But an Australian campaigner has questioned why derogatory terms for Irish people now cannot score points, but derogatory terms for Indigenous Australians can still be played.

The word war erupted when words began to be removed from the game’s official word lists over the past 12 months.

Invented in the US in 1938, Scrabble is now owned by two of the world’s biggest toy makers. Hasbro, makers of Monopoly and My Little Pony, holds the rights to the game in North America while Mattel, which produces Barbie, owns Scrabble elsewhere – including in Australia.

Gradually, both firms have started to restrict certain words from officially being able to score points. The removed words have varied between the two companies.

In total, more than 200 dictionary defined terms have now vanished.

There is no one list of the banned terms, but online Scrabble check websites allow players to type in a word to see if it can be played.

N****r and c**t are no longer playable. Other terms no longer allowed include “Paki,” a slur against people of Pakistani origin and “Fenian,” which is often used to demean Irish republicans.

“Shiksha,” a derogatory term used to refer to a non-Jewish girl, or a Jewish girl who doesn’t live up to traditional Jewish standards is also gone. [It's actually German for "prostitute"]

A number of players against the move have said they have no wish to highlight any offensive words but they should be able to be played.

British author Darryl Francis resigned from the World English-Language Scrabble Players Association (WESPA) because he said Mattel had forced the changes on the game.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/uproar-over-scrabble-words-that-can-no-longer-be-used/news-story/bb72350938e787cf5566c01109c98dd0

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS -- daily)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

Australia: Veteran Adelaide radio host Jeremy Cordeaux sacked over Brittany Higgins tirade

Must not question St. Brittany

Veteran radio broadcaster Jeremy Cordeaux, who called Brittany Higgins a “silly girl who got drunk” and questioned her story, has been sacked.

The award-winning host was branded a “dinosaur” online over the appalling comments on air on FIVEaa over the weekend about the alleged rape at Parliament House in 2019.

“I just ask myself why the prime minister doesn’t call it out for what it is. A silly little girl who got drunk,” Cordeaux said at 6.26am during his weekend breakfast show.

“If this girl has been raped, why hasn’t the guy who raped her been arrested? Apparently everyone knows his name.”

“Security, you know, should never have let these two into the minister’s office at two o’clock in the morning. Never,” Cordeaux said.

“The defence minister. Can you imagine security taking someone who was obviously drunk, so drunk I think that the young lady, during the week on television, said she couldn’t get her shoes on.

“My advice to the prime minister – as he was sort of monstered by A Current Affair – my advice would be to stop worrying about offending somebody.”

https://www.couriermail.com.au/entertainment/veteran-adelaide-radio-host-jeremy-cordeaux-sacked-over-brittany-higgins-tirade/news-story/e4a351373860af6e3cee6b2cfecbb74a

****************************************

Race and Inclusion Editor Fired from USA Today for 'Angry White Man' Shooter Comments

On Friday, Hemal Jhaveri, the Race and Inclusion Editor for USA Today Sports, announced that she had been fired for her now-deleted tweet that said "it’s always an angry white man. Always," with regards to the Monday night shooting in Boulder, Colorado. The suspect ended up being a 21-year old refugee from Syria.

Jhaveri's announcement tweet links to a Medium piece she wrote. In the 1,200-word piece, she only once acknowledges she made "a mistake" further down her piece, in addition to her one apology:

"On Monday night, I sent a tweet responding to the fact that mass shooters are most likely to be white men. It was a dashed off over-generalization, tweeted after pictures of the shooter being taken into custody surfaced online. It was a careless error of judgement, sent at a heated time, that doesn’t represent my commitment to racial equality. I regret sending it. I apologized and deleted the tweet."

We can all still see the tweet, which is inclunded in Jhaveri's own piece. I didn't see "most likely to be" in her tweet. I say "always," twice.

It’s clear that Jhaveri's "commitment to racial equality" doesn't extend to white people when she herself laments that "my previous tweets were flagged not for inaccuracy or for political bias, but for publicly naming whiteness as a defining problem. That is something USA TODAY, and many other newsrooms across the country, can not [sic] tolerate."

So, is she sorry, or is she just sorry that people took notice? It looks like you can make the case for the latter

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2021/03/26/dont-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out-race-and-inclusion-editor-fired-from-usa-today-for-angry-white-man-shooter-comments-n2586973

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS -- daily)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************