Banning and censorship is nothing new in America.
Or, in the world at large really.
It all starts on a small scale.
They start stripping us of things at school and work.
You know, all for the greater good.
Redditor t0rnado_thegamerwanted to discuss the items that have been taken out of circulation for ridiculous reasons. They asked:
"What's the stupidest thing your school/work banned?"
I feel the banning has only just begun. But let's see what we've already lost.
Fallen
GIF by LeannimatorGiphy"We weren't allowed to build a snowman because it 'might fall on you.' They suggested we build a 'snow forest' instead - snowballs on the ground > 1 meter apart. Nobody built snow forests."
AntiparticleCollider
Signs
"6th graders and only 6th graders weren't allowed to draw outside of assigned art projects. I heard any number of reasons for the ban--'gang signs,' vandalism, distraction--but never got one for why the ban didn't apply to 5th or 7th graders. My only guess is that one of the 6th grade teachers just really hated seeing children's artwork."
hypo-osmotic
Silence
"My primary school (age 5 to 11) in the UK banned talking during lunch. Every single child had to eat lunch in a big room, in absolute silence. No talking to friends or socialising allowed. It was pretty insane now I think about it."
OneFreamon
"I was gonna comment this too. My school banned talking at lunch if it got too loud. We had a cup at each table the teachers would make us turn them over and stop talking frequently each lunch."
"The theory was that someone would choke and no one would hear them if it was loud. Incidentally, the only time somebody choked was during a period of quiet and nobody knew because YOU CAN’T TALK WHILE CHOKING!! The person was fine though."
AerobaticDiamond
The Rule Book
"The lack of shoes, as in there is an specific rule against it detailing what should and should not be worn in your feet, all this because a friend of mine read the Rule book and it only said that 'Students must always come wearing appropriate pants and shirts that do not break the etiquette code.' He went to school with shoes and took them off at the entrance for a semester just to piss off the principal. I love that guy."
Inkydex
Code
Charlie Brown Snow GIFGiphy"Anything with a snowman on it. Apparently that was code for cocaine."
Cad-Banes
Wow, Snowmen really get a bad rap out in these streets.
Ouch
Go Easy On Me GIF by AdeleGiphy"We weren't allowed to say anything was easy because it might hurt the feelings of kids who didn't think that thing was easy."
tgrizzle69
Stay Dry
"Back in my high school, they banned water bottles unless they were clear bc people had been sneaking alcohol into school, but like clear alcoholic drinks are a thing?? so it basically did nothing."
randibird
"Our school did that, too, after previously banning water bottles altogether. One of my teachers then got really bent out of shape about so many people using disposable plastic bottles but the school was really strict about how clear your water bottle had to be and not everyone had a qualifying reusable bottle on hand so what did she expect?"
hypo-osmotic
in the ye' olden days...
"Bottle flipping when that was a trend in the ye' olden days long since forgotten. I don’t know why, and it’s not like they did a good job telling us about the ban so my first and only detention I’ve ever gotten was from flipping a stupid water bottle. That and the 'fight club' that formed in PE but that’s a different story."
Labrat_The_Man
Lies
"Probably Yugioh cards.They were banned because a group of moms made up a rumor that in another unspecified country a kid had died while holding a fiend-type monster, so clearly they were satanic. Years later I learned that one of those moms was my friend's mom and she just didn't want to buy the cards for her son."
GladiusNocturno
Ho Ho Ho
Merry Christmas Reaction GIF by Macy'sGiphy"Saying Christmas. Had to be called 'the current religious festival.' And no decorations were allowed."
PloppyTheSpaceship
Why are we banning the wrong things? This is nonsense.
Pro-Trump Missouri Lawmaker Wants To Jail Library Staff Who Give Children Access To Books With LGBTQ Content
A bill which was recently proposed by Missouri state representative Ben Baker—a Republican and staunch Trump supporter—seeks to ban libraries from allowing children and teens access to books with "any description or representation" of sexuality.
The bill seeks to create a "parental library review board" which will have to approve any and all books that will be available to children.
The board would have complete power over what books and information children can access, a concept completely counter to one of the main missions of public libraries—free, equal, and confidential access to information.
This "parental library review board" would also have the ability to "order any material deemed to be age-inappropriate sexual material to be removed from public access."
This may seem like a fairly innocuous idea at first, children should probably not have access to pornography, but it quickly becomes clear that sexually explicit material isn't what Baker intended to target once his words about the bill are considered.
Baker stated that the bill was largely a response to libraries holding "Drag Queen Story Time" programs, and his discomfort with those programs.
"The main thing is I want to be able to take my kids to a library and make sure they're in a safe environment, and that they're not gonna be exposed to something that is objectionable material."
“Unfortunately, there are some libraries in the state of Missouri that have done this. And that's a problem."
There has been significant concern from the library community over the bill, which seeks to censor what content certain patrons can access.
Carrie Cline, Director of the Neosho Newton County Library, told KOAM of her colleagues' concerns.
"I was contacted by my fellow directors across the state. They're all very very upset about it. The Missouri Library Association's very aware of it, so also is the American Library Association at a federal level."
She further told KNWA:
"Libraries are very much against censorship in of any kind, we are one of the last institutions left alive where no matter who you are ethnically, religiously, politically you are welcomed at the public library."
“We believe in your right to view, to see anything you want to see, to read whatever you want to read and we're not going to get in the way of that."
“A good public library has something in it to offend everyone, or we're not doing our job."
Baker claims that the bill isn't meant to censor or ban books, as the books deemed inappropriate will still remain in the library, but be inaccessible to children.
"The main thing that I've heard is that I want to ban books or ban content or censor content, and that's not the case. I just think that there's a line between what is open and available access for our children."
"Even the bill specifies it wouldn't be taken out of the library, it would just be put in a section that's not for children."
The $500 fine and/or 1 year jail sentence that could await library staff for lending the "inappropriate" books to minors seems to say otherwise, however.
Libraries who receive state funding will also risk losing those funds if they fail to comply with the law if it is passed.
Some parents who use public libraries with their families, like Samantha Sowa, also disagree with the bill.
"I think that personally, education should be available and if you don't want to read something don't pick it up and read it, everybody should be able to choose what they want to read whether it be against someone else's beliefs because we don't all have the same beliefs."
The bill, which is extremely broadly written, could also be used to prevent children from accessing materials that have any LGBTQ+ content—what constitutes age inappropriate is not specifically defined, and would be up to the review board to determine.
This has garnered significant criticism of the bill on social media.
@Nettaaaaaaaa #Librarians are highly educated in their field and this politician wants uneducated people overriding… https://t.co/JS4s3d2i8O— M.V. Pine (@M.V. Pine) 1579223357
@AJDingus @Nettaaaaaaaa ... It's got some serious dismemberment-level violence in certain parts. Almost forgot.— Velda (@Velda) 1579225061
@Nettaaaaaaaa Why? If they don’t want their kids having the book they can parent them and say ‘this is too old for… https://t.co/LYHMRvdVMl— Mimiwilliams👩🏾🦽 (@Mimiwilliams👩🏾🦽) 1579213304
@Nettaaaaaaaa Wow, I wonder if those same folks desiring this change monitor their children's internet traffic as closely.— Jesse Trumpore (@Jesse Trumpore) 1579266838
Kids who are questioning their gender or sexuality, or just seeking more information, often use public library resources because it is a safe and confidential way to do so. Lack of access to these books could mean a whole lot of isolated kids.
The bill also takes some of the power, and responsibility, over what children read away from their own parents.
Because some parents are uncomfortable with their kids having access to certain books, the bill would make it so no minors would have access to those books, instead of it remaining the responsibility of parents to monitor what their young children read.
Man Calls Out TikTok's Homophobic 'Community Guidelines' After They Took Down Video Of Him Kissing His Boyfriend
A man asked the question:
"What happens when a man kisses his boyfriend at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve and posts it on the video-sharing social network, TikTok?"
Mark Pasetsky—who goes by Marknewyork on TikTok—found out the answer when he shared something millions of others do at the start of a new year: a kiss with the person they love.
According to an article Pasetsky wrote for Campaign US, when the kiss is between two men, the post is removed because "it's a violation of the platform's community guidelines."
Pasetsky wrote:
"When I saw the notification on my profile, I was flooded with feelings of shame and alienation."
Here is the video loaded to TikTok.
Just a standard kiss to ring in the New Year.
In fact, it's really quite chaste.
For the former editor in chief of Life & Style and managing editor of OK! Magazine, a double standard needed to be addressed.
"After being out of the closet for 24 years, I knew I needed to take action for myself and for the entire LGBTQ community."
"In a world where bullying is rampant, the relatively new platform that already reaches 60 million active monthly users in the US must support the equal and fair treatment of LGBTQ users and all diverse communities."
"Most importantly, think about a teenager going through the same experience of having their video removed because they simply kissed their same-sex partner. Imagine how devastating it would feel when a popular social network tells them it's not okay to be who they are. Many would be too afraid to speak up and would not know how to respond to this type of discrimination."
As
Psychology Today and data from numerous studies state, the beneficial effects of equal representation are real. The damaging effects of exclusion are also well studied and documented.
For members of marginalized communities, being seen and seeing others like themselves can boost their self esteem. For people not part of those communities, this representation can create an unconscious familiarity and normalization of people unlike themselves.
As people of color began to appear in commercials and on television, there was some backlash. Some stations even banned the content or censored it out of programs.
But studies showed direct links between these inclusive media campaigns and increased support for equality for POC by members outside their community. Familiarity doesn't always breed contempt; sometimes it breeds empathy and understanding.
Pasetsky knew equal inclusion in social media was no different.
"That's why I chose to take action – for those who cannot."
"I started by filing a support ticket and then tweeted the company."
When the steps most people take did not yield results, Pasetsky put his extensive experience with media and PR to work.
"Finally, I emailed TikTok's public relations department."
"After explaining that I was writing a piece on the video being removed and demanding answers, my request was quickly forwarded to the moderation team."
"Within two hours, TikTok re-activated my video and let me know it had been incorrectly removed due to human error."
But that excuse wasn't working for Pasetsky.
The social media company previously admitted to removing and suppressing content from LGBTQ users. They claimed it was an attempt to minimize bullying on the site, not by eliminating bullies but by eliminating potential targets.
However censoring and restricting the lives of those being attacked or that they suspect might be attacked is not the appropriate response to bullying in life or on social media.
Whatever the ultimate reason for the removal of his video, Pasetsky wrote that the reinstatement of it on TikTok should not be the end.
"The removal of my New Year's Eve video makes the urgent case for a full internal evaluation of TikTok's policies and moderation practices. A number of tough questions need to be answered."
"If this decision was based on human error, who was the human? How does TikTok make hiring decisions for moderation positions? Is diversity represented on these teams? What about across the organization as a whole? And, most importantly, what will the company do to prevent a repeat of this experience?"
He concluded by stating the removal was not a simple mistake but rather an example of a microaggression.
"The bottom line is we can't allow a social media platform to commit discriminatory micro-aggressions against any community."
Microagressions are the death by a thousand cuts of bigotry and bias.
To those outside an affected community, a microaggression can be easily dismissed as no big deal. Why complain about such a small thing when there are bigger fish to fry?
However studies show these minor offenses lay the ground work for the larger ones.
The Black person who is told they're "so articulate" or the Asian told they speak English so well when it is their first language or the Hispanic person born and raised in the United States questioned about where they are from or the gay man who is told he doesn't "sound gay" are all examples of microagressions. Each one also indicates an implicit bias or sterotype, painting Black people as less intelligent, Asians and Hispanics as foreigners and gay men as speaking in a certain way.
Pasestsky urged others to also speak out.
"TikTok needs to continue to be called out for biased practices. It's critical that the company understands its responsibility to create a safe and welcoming environment for all."
In an email interview with Pasetsky, we asked:
"In your article, you address TikTok with questions about diversity and next steps. If you could create specific next steps for them, what would they be?"
He responded:
"I would suggest TikTok partner with a respected LGBTQ organization to conduct an extensive review of the social media platform's moderation policies."
"I would also suggest holding diversity and inclusivity training for all members of the organization - especially those responsible for moderating posts on TikTok, as well as reviewing overall hiring practices to make sure members of all diverse communities are represented."
"In addition, a new set of community guidelines need to demonstrate how TikTok will be more welcoming to the LGBTQ and all diverse communities going forward."
Q:
"Invariably, people respond to these microaggressions by pointing to 'bigger issues.' What would you say about why addressing microaggressions is important?"
Pasetsky:
"We need to address microaggressions to let companies like TikTok know it's not okay to censor anybody for who they are. It's important to remember that these microaggressions can be deeply harmful to the individuals that receive them and therefore are equally as important as addressing the 'bigger issues'."
"If we continue to address microagressions in real-time, we will prevent what I see as TikTok's anti-gay bias from becoming an acceptable global policy for the social media platform. The bottom line is that it's not okay for a company like TikTok to censor a same-sex video and hide behind the 'human error' excuse when it's really a microaggression."
Q:
"You refer to the documented anti-LGBTQ bias [on TikTok]. Are there other social media platforms that are problematic?"
Pasetsky:
"To date, I've only personally experienced this anti-LGBTQ bias on TikTok."
Q:
"You mention bullying and young people who are still finding their way in life as motivation to pursue this with TikTok to an acceptable resolution. What would you like to say to those younger people about this situation or about anything else?"
Pasetsky:
"As a video platform, TikTok provides its users a unique opportunity to be expressive. Keep being exactly who you are and show the world who you are."
"Posts of same-sex kisses like mine need to be embraced and supported on platforms like TikTok. Stand up for yourself when you feel like you have been unfairly censored!"
"For anybody else that feels they have been censored by TikTok for being themselves, I strongly support them in speaking up. They can reach me on Twitter @markpasetsky and I'll do what I can to continue to support the LGBTQ or any diverse community that feels they were unfairly treated."
Q:
"Is there anything else you'd like to say? Any points you want to expand on?"
Pasetsky:
"With Valentine's Day coming up, let's send a powerful message to TikTok and the world. Give a big kiss to your same-sex partner and post the video to TikTok. Let's show them we are out and proud of our loving relationships!"
Valentine's Day is just around the corner. Mark Pasetsky's suggestion sounds like a great way to celebrate love, diversity and representation.
Who's in?
-Sigh-
China.
Why, China?
According to the Hollywood Reporter,over a minute of footage will be cut from Bohemian Rhapsody upon its release in the country.
Why?
Because China refuses to show the film with any LGBTQ content.
All of the footage of Freddie Mercury kissing men will be removed from the film in order for the film to get a country-wide release in China.
#BohemianRhapsody to be released in China – without any homosexual content https://t.co/wh01HTQb5N https://t.co/G24YdcWfMn— NME (@NME) 1551282726
‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ to Get China Release, Without the Gay Parts https://t.co/UgBEpiWDtm https://t.co/ZTJt7Ue2BM— Towleroad (@Towleroad) 1551377445
#BohemianRhapsody's Gay 'Intimate Kisses' to Be Cut for China Release: Report https://t.co/GjpVKe2I2s— SeuAcervo_music (@SeuAcervo_music) 1551383300
The movie already received considerable pushback for "straightwashing" Mercury's character, including very few references to his bisexuality or the fact that he contracted HIV/AIDS.
This led several to joke that China will basically releasing the movie "as it already is."
Every single gay on this site tweeting a form of "So they'll just release it as it is?" on that BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY C… https://t.co/plryeNNCqE— Jorge Molina (@Jorge Molina) 1551400797
“We made a film about a gay man,” said best actor winner Rami Malek. Could’ve fooled us… #Oscars https://t.co/4PwvelJTIa— PinkNews (@PinkNews) 1551142804
Did Bohemian Rhapsody just win an Oscar for editing out the gay parts about Freddie Mercury?— John Mackey #blacklivesmatter (@John Mackey #blacklivesmatter) 1551061208
Wellll....I'm happy Rami Malek identified Bohemian Rhapsody as a movie about a gay man. I wish someone had told the screenwriters.— Mark Harris (@Mark Harris) 1551066641
But the worst part about all of this is China's continued treatment of LGBTQ people.
Homosexuality has been "legal" in China since 1997 and in 2001 homosexuality was no longer classified as a mental illness.
However, there are no anti-discrimination laws in place. Because of this, LGBTQ people struggle with not knowing if their sexual orientation or gender identity will get them arrested on a daily basis.
Censorship rules in China still apply to LGBTQ content.
Mango TV, the streaming service which showed the Oscars to China at large, censored Malek's acceptance speech when they replaced the term "gay man" with "special group" in its subtitles.
Introduction to China's LGBT in 4 minuteswww.youtube.com
Surprise! In #China it is illegal to be #gay so the # #Chinese broadcaster censors #RamiMalek #Oscars speech #China… https://t.co/CBX8G5XFpy— Paul DuBois @aproposltd (@Paul DuBois @aproposltd) 1551214518
It is completely outrageous that China is censoring the #LGBT scenes from #BohemianRhapsody It's time to grow up… https://t.co/SS8VtSMJoR— Mad As Mel (@Mad As Mel) 1551406066
Oh China, get over it. There are LGBT people, just as there are different races and ethnicities. What on earth are… https://t.co/ilO7KlFFz0— Monita Rajpal (@Monita Rajpal) 1551369298
Unsurprising. They censor everything. https://t.co/Iy3i8Aszl9— Occasionally, Choose Violence 😌 (@Occasionally, Choose Violence 😌) 1551430210
Since being gay in China is an uphill battle, this announcement is hardly surprising.
But an international straight-washing of a queer icon and bisexual erasure once again?
Only in 2019, folks.
Only in 2019.