A new Florida law allows residents to challenge any school textbook that they find inappropriate.

The legislation, which went into effect on July 1, is known as the Instructional Materials Bill. It permits any resident, regardless of whether or not they have a child in school, to challenge what Florida students are learning via an independent hearing. If the hearing officer deems the complaint justified, they can order the school to ban the book. However, school districts will still have the final say.

The Florida Citizens’ Alliance, a conservative group, pushed for the law after examining more than 60 textbooks in 2015. The group’s founder, Keith Flaugh, found more than 80 instances in one government textbook that he believes gives false information.

“We found [the textbooks] to be full of political indoctrination, religious indoctrination, revisionist history and distorting our founding values and principles, even a significant quantity of pornography,” he told NPR.

He goes on to explain the pornography is in literature within the school library or on summer reading lists.

While the bill can apply to any piece of required reading, the FCA’s main concern is with science textbooks. The group does not believe the schools should teach evolution or climate change as facts. One unnamed member claimed that the “vast majority of Americans believe that the world and the beings living on it were created by God as revealed in the Bible,” so the textbooks should only present evolution as a theory.

Similarly, an affidavit from a teacher complains that her school is teaching climate change as “reality.”

Other issues the FCA has with the books include attitudes toward Islam and anti-American portrayals of history.

In response to the bill, the Florida Citizens for Science Group posted a statement on its blog:

We believe that should this bill become law with the governor’s signature, people who crusade against basic, established science concepts such as evolution and climate change will have the green light to bog down the textbook selection process on the local level and bully school boards into compromises that will negatively impact science education.

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, is also concerned. “It’s just the candor with which the backers of the bill have been saying, ‘Yeah, we’re going to go after evolution, we’re going to go after climate change,'” he said.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida Law Fights Against “Political Indoctrination” in School Textbooks appeared first on Law Street.

Less than two hours before it was set to premiere in Beirut, Lebanese officials banned the new “Wonder Woman” film, because its lead actress, Gal Gadot, is Israeli. In recent years Lebanon, which has been at war with Israel for decades, has censored films it deems incendiary or offensive, including films that critique religion or involve homosexuality or Israel.

Despite a successful early screening of the film on Tuesday, a six-member committee of Lebanon’s Ministry of Economy pulled the plug on the film hours before its official premiere. Other Arab nations, including Egypt, Morocco, Oman, and Bahrain are still expected to screen “Wonder Woman” in the coming weeks.

Lebanon and Israel most recently fought a war in 2006, and have not had a diplomatic relationship for decades–Lebanese citizens are not allowed to visit Israel, and vice versa. Over the past few months, at least, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which Gadot served in for two years, has bombed arms shipments in Syria it says are destined for Hezbollah, a militant group based in Lebanon. The U.S. and Israel both consider Hezbollah, largely funded by Iran, a terrorist organization.

Previously released films starring Gadot–including the last two “Fast & Furious” installments, and “Knight & Day”–hit box offices in Lebanon and did quite well. The Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel led a vocal push to ban “Wonder Woman,” however, and in the end, was successful.

Elie Fares, a popular Lebanese blogger, suggested that the ban might not be the result of Gadot’s nationality, but more that “the movie features strong independent female characters which our patriarchy cannot propagate?” He added:

What’s next, though? Banning every single movie that dares to be associated in any way with Israel? Banning every actor or actress who’s set foot in Israel? Deciding not to show any feature film that has any entity that remotely agrees with anything Israel does? Why don’t we just ban ourselves from everything commercial in the world and be done with it?

Lebanese authorities have a history of banning–or heavily editing–films they deem offensive. The 2016 Egyptian film “The Preacher,” a commentary on religion and power, was only released in Lebanon after it was edited to the satisfaction of the authorities. Last year, the Lebanese film “Beach House” was banned, because it features friends discussing their conflicting Arab identities together. In 1994, Lebanon, along with other Arab countries, banned “Schindler’s List,” a film about the Holocaust.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lebanon Bans Screenings of New “Wonder Woman” Film appeared first on Law Street.

Facebook has been blocked in China since 2009, but now the company is secretly developing a censorship tool that would help it gain access to the Chinese market again. The tool would allow another company–likely a Chinese partner–to block certain posts from appearing in people’s newsfeeds in different geographic areas, according to some Facebook employees who asked to remain anonymous. They said that Facebook would not suppress content itself, but the software would be available for a third party company. If the resulting software makes the Chinese government more comfortable with Facebook’s services, this may allow Facebook to get back into the Chinese market.

However, the employees pointed out that this is still in the research stage and may never be offered to Chinese authorities at all. But the information raises questions about Facebook’s ethics. It would give the company 1.4 billion potential new users if they gained access to the Chinese market. But it could also be a compromise of democratic values and making “the world more open,” as the company has named as one of its mottos. Several employees that worked on the censorship project have quit their jobs, according to the New York Times. Since the American election, the phenomenon of fake news has also tarnished the company’s image, and many asked what role the social media site played in the election outcome. Now the question is, if the company is cool with censoring real news in China, why not just block fake news at home?

It’s fascinating people think Facebook will ONLY block “real news” in China and ONLY block “fake news” in US https://t.co/oVPn1iiVrW

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 23, 2016

So, blatantly fake news is too hard a problem for Facebook, but letting a third-party Chinese company disappear real news in China is okay?

— Zeynep Tufekci (@zeynep) November 22, 2016

The problem is probably that it’s hard to quickly decide what is fake and what is not. Mark Zuckerberg posted a long status update about how 99 percent of what you see on your newsfeed is correct, but depending on what pages you follow or who your friends are, you might see a little more or less. He responded to the criticism by stopping ads from fake news outlets and pointed out that Facebook does not want hoaxes on its site. This is not enough, according to many, but he promised that more would be done when a good strategy is available, saying:

This is an area where I believe we must proceed very carefully though. Identifying the ‘truth’ is complicated. While some hoaxes can be completely debunked, a greater amount of content, including from mainstream sources, often gets the basic idea right but some details wrong or omitted.

But creating a censorship tool for China contradicts Facebook’s image of being an ethical and socially aware company. Even if Facebook technically just developed the software, it could still enable totalitarian leaders to leave out information and decide what their citizens see and don’t see. Maybe the creator of the main information source for billions of people should take an even greater responsibility to prevent that.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook is Developing a Censorship Tool to Get Back into the Chinese Market appeared first on Law Street.

In a May 17 vote, the Portland Public School board unanimously approved Resolution No. 5272 to develop a new plan for how information about climate change is taught in local public schools. The controversial catch? The resolution specifically included a section mandating the abandonment of any books that are “found to express doubt about the severity of the climate crisis or its root in human activities.” While proponents of the resolution argue that textbooks containing doubt about the existence of man-made climate change lead to fewer informed children, many people are outraged at the idea of textbook censorship being enacted in public schools.

From the view of the school board, removing texts that cast doubt on the severity of man-made climate change will help to enlighten students in Portland. Rather than seeing the initiative as a ban on certain viewpoints, the school board has identified it as a way to make climate change literacy a priority in the school system. Bill Bigelow, editor of the Rethinking Schools magazine, said: “a lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise.”

He even discussed the fact that it is not uncommon for fossil fuel producers and their PR departments to influence written sections in textbooks about climate change, which could lead to skewed information. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry,” Bigelow said.

On the other hand, the stir that has been created in response to the school board’s resolution has been overwhelming in the last few days after the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) released an official statement against the resolution. Its response detailed several features of the resolution that it considered concerning including the resolution’s overly broad nature, its undervaluing of students being able to consider all sides of an argument, and the fact that it was almost entirely created because of political pressure by environmental lobbyists. The coalition even tweeted last week that the resolution was  unnecessary:

Portland’s climate education resolution is over-broad, politically influenced, and unnecessary. https://t.co/QLf33nDleB

— ncacensorship (@ncacensorship) June 3, 2016

To NCAC, the censorship of books curtails individual students’ rights to read multiple opinions on global warming and then decide for themselves what impact they believe it is having. In addition, the ban could limit accurate exposure to the debate over man-made climate change from the last couple of decades for students. NCAC’s statement express concern over wresting independence from those who teach the material, teachers:

Deciding how to approach the existing political debate around the causes of climate change should be left to those who teach about it: science professors, social studies and civics professors may approach the issue differently in accordance with the requirements of their subject matter. Elected officials have an important role in ensuring the availability of an adequate education to all students; they should devote their energies to that worthy goal, and leave decisions about what and how to teach to the people who are trained to do it.

In other words, students should be exposed to all viewpoints and then it should be up to teachers and professors to determine what is and is not taught in schools–not politicians. Other opponents have criticized the public school system in Portland of promoting “political indoctrination” over the education of children.

While the new Portland plan may raise questions about student access to accurate summaries of the historical debate over man-made climate change, 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that it is reality. Maybe what Portland needs is an amendment to the plan rather than a complete overhaul: some way to teach kids that the cause and existence of climate change has been debated, but that science overwhelmingly supports its existence and human origin. It seems like the Portland Public School Board had its heart in the right place, and that the controversy stirred up by the NCAC may help the board tailor its policies to be slightly less all consuming and perhaps more effective.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Portland Censors Climate Change Material In Textbooks, Sparking Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

They say “Art is what you can get away with,” but how does one know when they’ve crossed the line? That was the essential question at the recent panel discussion “After Charlie: What’s next for art, satire, and censorship?” The event, co-hosted by the French Institute Alliance Française (FIAF) and PEN American Center and held at FIAF’s Florence Gould Hall in New York, was mediated by WNYC’s Leonard Lopate and featured four political cartoonists and journalists: Art Spiegelman, Molly Crabapple, Emmanuel “Manu” Letouzé, and Françoise Mouly.

I went in thinking that it was going to be a depressing evening as I listened to the panelists rehash the horrible events that happened in Paris last month, and more recently in Copenhagen, but they turned out to be a very insightful yet comical group of people. (They are cartoonists after all!)

The event was not meant to focus on the tragedy but rather on the future of art and journalism. The reason behind terrorist attacks like the one on Charlie Hebdo is to attempt to reshape what journalists write. Especially after these kinds of incidents, satirical journalists may feel pressure from two sources of censorship: censorship under the law and a form of self-censorship in which they may subconsciously feel inclined to censor their work to protect others’ feelings.

This doesn’t appear to be an issue for the particular panelists who spoke here. Spiegelman, who has drawn a number of covers for the New Yorker, even went so far as to say that political correctness is one of his pet peeves. The main inspiration behind the Taliban attack on Charlie Hebdo was the publication’s tendency to depict the Muslim prophet, Mohammed. “I would have no interest in drawing the prophet unless someone told me I couldn’t,” explained Spiegelman.

Courtesy of PEN American Center via Flickr.

Crabapple, my personal favorite speaker of the night, claimed art is different from written journalism in that it “can be yanked out of context” and it only “irritates assholes.” At the same time, she said that “context is over for media,” due to the fact that most of it is now consumed online via social media. However, that certainly does not stop her from stirring controversy–it even makes it better for her. One of the most controversial comics she ever made–she said she even got death threats as a result of it–was one that she drew of Guantanamo Bay. She wasn’t allowed to draw the faces of anyone who works there, so she substituted the guards’ faces with smiley faces. On one side of the fence some of them are drinking and fooling around, while on the other side some are force-feeding a prisoner. The prisoner, however, is depicted with a normal face, as opposed a smiley face. Above she writes, “It Don’t Gitmo Better Than This.” She described Guantanamo Bay as “one of the most censored places in the world” and finds it amusing that people were so upset that she “was misrepresenting the wonderful place that is Guantanamo Bay.”

There’s a distinct difference, however, between the way that French and American cultures react to controversial comics like these. Editor and art director of the the New Yorker, Mouly, could attest to that explaining that in U.S. there’s a sort of “fear of the cartoonist,” while cartoons in France are a more ubiquitous form of journalism. Also the U.S. has a different “tradition of the free press” in that secularism is so ingrained into our politics. For example, the French are unable to understand why it’s so important what religion a politician is or whether or not he’s had an affair. Mouly’s husband Spiegelman agreed, claiming that “Steven Colbert and John Stewart are the closest thing the U.S. has to cartoonists.” 

French-born Manu attested to experiencing such a cultural divide himself, claiming that American publications have been “surprised that I would use a cartoon for such a serious [news] publication.” Manu probably had the most first-hand experience with this as not only had he met some of the cartoonists at Charlie, but also grew up dreaming of drawing for the publication. In fact, after the attacks he made a tribute cartoon that read “They killed my idols.”

My favorite part of the night was the panel’s analysis of various New Yorker covers from over the years, many of which were drawn by Spiegelman. The New Yorker’s covers are the most analogous to the work in Charlie Hebdo of all American cartoons. And now with the internet, their impact on history has become even more apparent. Remember the cover with Sesame Street’s Bert and Ernie from June 2013 when gay marriage was passed in New York? What about the satirical covers of President Obama during his 2008 campaign run? While not nearly as subversive, New Yorker covers are an ingrained part of American history just as Charlie‘s are for French culture.

One Charlie cover however, reminded me of a recent cover of Paper magazine featuring a certain pop culture celebrity. The 1978 cover features “the ass of a Jewish woman,” as the headline roughly translates. And even though it’s only a drawing, Charlie seems to take it a step further than Kim K by including pubic hair at the crotch.

Courtesy of PEN American Center via Flickr.

As Spiegelman perfectly summed it up: “Cartoons are really primitive language.” In a lot ways you can get away with being more controversial with a drawing than with words or even photographs. While words can be taken out of context too, art definitely leaves more to the reader’s imagination. So in a way, “Je suis Charlie” makes sense as we as viewers contribute just as much to the publication as its creators.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I Am Charlie, and So Are You: How Terrorism Affects Censorship appeared first on Law Street.

On November 13, WikiLeaks, a nonprofit media organization that prides itself on divulging imperative information to the public, leaked a draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. The agreement was being secretly negotiated among our government’s policymakers in order to avoid public uproar and backlash that may result in the watering down of some of the agreement’s regulations. If there is a need to smuggle proposed legislation into enactment in a democratic society for fear of being met with opposition, then maybe the law isn’t representative of the majority’s voice.

This law is far worse than SOPA and PIPA combined. It’s a “free trade” pact between 12 countries, including the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What it really is is an agenda effectuated by corporate powerhouses that want greater intellectual property protection at the cost of freedom of expression and creation.

Three key provisions of the TPP that will affect you and should elicit your interest:

Our internet service providers will become the copyright coalition. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) takedown notice procedures provide Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with safeguards against suit for copyright infringement committed by its users. If a user is accused of infringement, the ISP, upon receiving the takedown notice, must immediately delete the infringing content pending a determination of infringement in order to avoid liability for the posted material.  If you think this is unfair, the TPP takes it a step further. The TPP grants legal incentives to these internet middlemen in exchange for their participation as copyright police (essentially). Why does this matter? Well these provisions could potentially result in the filtering of user content for possibly infringing material. Websites that may contain infringing material, including social media hangouts, have a chance of being blocked by these ISPs so that the provider can circumvent liability for infringing material transferred through the internet. And think about it from an economic standpoint. How much would it cost for ISPs to comb through every bit of user-generated content to determine if there are copyright concerns? It’s definitely a lot more than simply running a prudent internet service that limits access to certain sites and web platforms.

Patent powers will be used for evil.  The TPP makes patents more easily accessible for the pharmaceutical industry by including an entire section in the agreement devoted to opening the pathways to patent protection for specifically this industry.  Additionally, patent applicants in this industry will be able to limit the availability of the scientific info that was utilized to create the medicine, which operates to give the pharm moguls a huge amount of leverage against other creators. The price of medicine will undoubtedly increase, and I think that was the whole purpose of this particular law to begin with.

Protection will infringe on constitutional rights. Our constitution aims to encourage invention and the arts by limiting the time period for which a holder of intellectual property can assert his or her rights. This law proposes to extend the years of copyright protection by 20 years and thus further minimize the amount of information available in the public domain from which new works can be created.

And that’s only just the tip! For the full leaked version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, click here.  I strongly advise you to look it over or read a few summaries on it when you get the chance. The availability of knowledge and legal space for innovation will be dramatically decreased by the TPP.  And should our democratic values be neglected in the interest of corporate wealth? NO! So do something.

Please take a few seconds to sign this petition to stop the TPP here.

Gena.

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts.

Featured image courtesy of [hdzimmermann via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post End of the Internet as We Know It: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Holidays Law Street readers!!!

Have you missed me?  It’s only been two weeks, but it feels like a month has gone by since I’ve checked in.  No need to DTR –I know in my heart we’re exclusive.

As I was exploring the crevices of my bag of emotions, I came across a bit of news about the platform that I use to communicate on here, WordPress. WordPress is the conduit through which material is posted to the site you see before you. Side note: I know that I don’t give copyright law a lot of my love so this one is for you, girl.

The company that owns WordPress, Automattic, has proclaimed its intentions to sue Straight Pride UK, an anti-homosexual group for “knowingly materially misrepresenting” a copyright infringement claim. Yep, that’s a crime. It all began in August, when Straight Pride utilized the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to issue a takedown notice to Automattic for material that was posted on the blogging site. The material consisted of an interview given by the anti-gay collective to a student journalist, Oliver Hotham. Hotham then posted the interview to his blog, which had been delivered to him via Straight Pride’s press representative in an attachment titled “Press Release.” Straight Pride claims that the interview was instead intended to be a private release and included a notice that the content was not permitted to be reproduced without consent. Automattic originally complied with Straight Pride’s takedown notice (the DMCA mandates such action to avoid further suit), but announced this past Thursday that enough is enough. In a recent blog post, Paul Sieminski, general counsel for Automattic, noted that these censorship actions have become “increasingly common” and are especially “infuriating.” Thank you, Paul.

Here’s what I think. Blog sites, such as these, need to put those cojones on display every so often.  The DMCA serves to protect copyrightable material, not to stifle unbecoming content so that it never sees the light of day. It wasn’t meant to chill speech but rather to provide incentive for authors to share their expressions with the public. It seems to me that this material was given to Hotham willingly and that it also falls under the fair use provision of the Copyright Act allowing for the reproduction of content for comment or criticism.  The DMCA shouldn’t be used as a vehicle to trample over our First Amendment rights! If bloggers have to post in fear of legal action, the purpose of blogging – sharing reviews on material that’s usually already public – will be muted. Of course, certain legal parameters must be in place to maintain a sense of order just as we have in our physical lives, but where is the line drawn? When does protection morph into suppression?

My only issue with this is that I wish the notion of ceasing internet censorship would have been brought up on a less politically polarizing matter. I fear that the issue of censorship will get lost among the gay rights activists’ amicus briefs. I’m not at all implying that gay rights is not paramount to censorship (because I honestly believe it is) but even now I’m finding myself getting lost in between the rock and hard place that these two issues present. They should be flushed out in turn and on their own merits.

Read the entire complaint against Straight Pride here.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Armando Torrealba via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post WordPress Takes Action Against Censorship appeared first on Law Street.