"When violence causes silence we must be Mistaken The Cranberries-Zombie" They said it best. When we are silenced a greater divided is created. This sermon will discuss the history of censorship. When we ignore the past, we are doomed to repeat it. When companies begin censoring the president of the So Called Free World, we have a huge problem.
Let me make this clear, I don't do race bating or hate I am defending All of our rights because they are making the president an example to everyone who is going to go against the grain and continue to speak out with the Truth that so many want to ignore.
Let me make something else clear, Until Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Google along with the Other Media Giants Remove the sex pages/groups, prostitute sites, child pornography, and the real terrorist who use social media: then I will understand their outrage. Being Two-Faced is something I despise and that is exactly what Facebook, Twitter, Google Apple and other media is doing.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 NKJV
That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun.
399 BC Socrates
Perhaps the most famous case of censorship in ancient times is that of Socrates, sentenced to drink poison in 399 BC for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities. It is fair to assume that Socrates was not the first person to be severely punished for violating the moral and political code of his time. This ancient view of censorship, as a benevolent task in the best interest of the public, is still upheld in many countries, for example China. This notion was advocated by the rulers of the Soviet Union (USSR), who were responsible for the longest lasting and most extensive censorship era of the 20th Century.
The struggle for freedom of expression is as ancient as the history of censorship. The playwright Euripides (480-406 BC) defended the true liberty of freeborn men—the right to speak freely. Nevertheless, he was careful to point out that free speak was a choice.
This is true Liberty when free born men
Having to advise the public may speak free,
Which he who can, and will, deserv's high praise,
Who neither can nor will, may hold his peace;
What can be juster in a State then this?
Euripides
46 BC-Julius Caesar (History.co.uk)
In 46 BC, he gave himself the title of 'Prefect of Morals', which meant he could hold censorial powers without being subjected to them himself.
What is censorial power? (free dictionary.com)
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
3. One that condemns or censures.
4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.
Roman Catholic Church Censorship- Beacon For Freedom of Expression
The purpose of the "Index of Forbidden Books" was to prevent the contamination of the faith or the corruption of morals of Roman Catholics according to canon law, through the reading of theologically erroneous or immoral books.
The 1948 edition of Index Librorum Prohibitorum is included in the "Beacon for Freedom of Expression" data base. The first edition of Index Librorum Prohibitorum was published in 1559, and subsequently published in 19 editions by different popes through the centuries. The last edition was published in 1948, only to be suppressed in 1966.
Grounds of censorship
The purpose of the "Index of Forbidden Books" was to prevent the contamination of the faith or the corruption of morals of Roman Catholics according to canon law, through the reading of theologically erroneous or immoral books.
Canon law, lasting in effect until 1966, prescribed two main types of censorship:
Pre publication censorship of books by Roman Catholics in regard to matters of faith and morals
The condemnation of published books, thus listed in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
Censoring body: Roman Catholic Church Authority (Sacred Congregation of the Roman Inquisition)
A brief summary of the history of censorship in Russia in 19th and 20th century-Beacon For Freedom.org
Censorship reforms began in Russia in a single decade of tolerance (1855-1865) during the reign of Tsar Alexander II, when transition was made from legislation on pre-censorship to the punitive system based on legal responsibility. The press then enjoyed greater freedom. But censorship laws were re-imposed in 1866, in effect reversing the reform. Only half a century later, pre-censorship was abrogated in the law of 1905 - 1906. Finally all censorship was abolished by the Temporary Government on April 1917. This freedom was however short lived, as the decrees only were in force until October 1917. Following the formal separation of church and state in 1918, a new, long and extensive era of strict censorship began, now executed by the revolutionary rulers of the USSR, lasting until the end of the 1980s.
In 1922, the central censorship office was established, known for short as Glavlit. Aiming to purge the Soviet society of all expressions regarded as destructive to the new order and contagious to the minds of people, the Glavlit had absolute authority to subject the performing arts and all publications to preventive censorship, and suppress political dissidence by shutting down "hostile" newspapers (1). The strict authority and meticulous practice of Glavlit covered not only the USSR but also all Soviet occupied countries.
The Authority of the Postal Service-Beacon for Freedom.org
Although the art of printing was vital to the dissemination of knowledge, the establishment of a regular postal service was also an important advancement to communication. First established in France in 1464, the postal service soon became the most widely used system of person-to-person and country-to-country communication.
Consequently, the postal service also played a crucial role as an instrument of censorship in many countries, particularly in times of war. The British Empire efficiently employed censorship of mail during the first half of the 20th century. Even in today, the postal service remains a tool of censorship in countries where the import of prohibited literature, magazines, films and etcetera is regulated.
In Europe printing naturally also spurned the development of newsletters and newspapers. The Relation of Strasbourg published in 1609, was regarded as the first regularly printed newsletter. Soon the establishment of newspapers in other European countries followed, catering to a growing public demand for news and information. The first newspaper appeared in 1610 in Switzerland, in the Habsburg territories in Europe in 1620, in England in 1621, in France in 1631, in Denmark in 1634 and Italy in 1636, in Sweden in 1645, and in Poland in 1661. In some regions of India, however, newsletters had been circulated since the 16th century.
Censorship in Libraries: The Benevolent Public Concern for Morality-Beacon for Freedom.org
Although government-instituted censorship had apparently been abandoned in most western countries during the 19th and most of the 20th century, public concern for offensive literature did not subside. Public libraries were expected to act as the benevolent guardians of literature, particularly books for young readers. Consequently this gave teachers and librarians license to censor a wide range of books in libraries, under the pretext of protecting readers from morally destructive and offensive literature.
Surprisingly, in liberal-minded countries such as Sweden and Norway, which boasts the earliest press freedom laws, surveillance of public and school libraries remained a concern to authors and publishers even through the latter part of the century. No less surprising is the die-hard tradition of surveillance of books in schools and libraries in the United States.
Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has remained controversial in the USA because of the author's portrayal of race relations and racial stereotypes.
One of the most stunning examples, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884 UK, 1885 US), was first banned in 1885 in the Concord Public Library (Massachusetts). According Arthur Schlesinger, the author of Censorship - 500 Years of Conflict, Twain's book was still in jeopardy of censorship in 1984.
1873 Anthony Comstock Mad Censor of New York-thoughtco.com
If you're looking for a clear-cut villain in the history of U.S. censorship, you've found him.
In 1872, feminist Victoria Woodhull published an account of an affair between a celebrity evangelical minister and one of his parishioners. Comstock, who despised feminists, requested a copy of the book under a fake name, then reported Woodhull and had her arrested on obscenity charges.
He soon became head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, where he successfully campaigned for an 1873 federal obscenity law, commonly referred to as the Comstock Act, that allowed warrantless searches of the mail for "obscene" materials.
Comstock later boasted that during his career as censor, his work led to the suicides of 15 alleged "smut-peddlers."
1930 The Hayes Code Takes on Movie Gangsters, Adulterers-thoughtco.com
The Hays Code was never enforced by the government—it was voluntarily agreed upon by film distributors—but the threat of government censorship made it necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915) that movies were not protected by the First Amendment, and some foreign films had been seized on obscenity charges. The film industry adopted the Hays Code as a means of avoiding outright federal censorship.
The Hays Code, which regulated the industry from 1930 until 1968, banned what you might expect it to ban—violence, sex, and profanity—but it also prohibited portrayals of interracial or same-sex relationships, as well as any content that was deemed anti-religious or anti-Christian. Roth v. U.S. was a 1957 case that confirmed that obscenity, which appealed to prurient interests, was not constitutionally protected.
Counsel on Foreign Relations states:
China’s constitution affords its citizens freedom of speech and press, but the opacity of Chinese media regulations allows authorities to crack down on news stories by claiming that they expose state secrets and endanger the country. The definition of state secrets in China remains vague, facilitating censorship of any information that authorities deem harmful [PDF] to their political or economic interests. CFR Senior Fellow Elizabeth C. Economy says the Chinese government is in a state of “schizophrenia” about media policy as it “goes back and forth, testing the line, knowing they need press freedom and the information it provides, but worried about opening the door to the type of freedoms that could lead to the regime’s downfall.”
The government issued in May 2010 its first white paper on the internet that focused on the concept of “internet sovereignty,” requiring all internet users in China, including foreign organizations and individuals, to abide by Chinese laws and regulations. Chinese internet companies are now required to sign the “Public Pledge on Self-Regulation and Professional Ethics for China Internet Industry,” which entails even stricter rules than those in the white paper, according to Jason Q. Ng, a specialist on Chinese media censorship and author of Blocked on Weibo.
Sensitive topics under Franco-freemuse.org
Francisco Franco’s dictatorial regime in Spain (1939-1975), During the nearly four-decade rule of Franco, censorship was widespread and covered the usual suspects of subject matter: moral, political and social issues.
The regime enforced a strict Catholic worldview, therefore topics of sex, contraception, homosexuality, divorce and behaviour unbecoming of women were taboo in Spain at the time and a focus point for censorship.
“One had to be careful in how the church or religion was represented,” Cornella explained. “There couldn’t be references to atheism or anything critical of the pope. For example, non-fiction books on religions, which are mostly unpublished today, did not have any references to Protestantism as it was seen as directly challenging Catholicism.”
Politically, the sensitive subject of the Spanish Civil War, fought from 1936 – 1939 and won by Franco’s Nationalists, was another focus point for censors.
“References to the Civil War, even those not so critical, were censored,” Cornella explained. “References to Franco as well, even those that were not very challenging of him, censors preferred to censor just to avoid any problems.”
1000 Year Ban on The Bible by The Roman Catholic Church-huffingtonpost.com
Did the Catholic Church forbid Bible reading?
The Church actually discouraged the populace from reading the Bible on their own — a policy that intensified through the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of a prohibition forbidding translation of the Bible into native languages.
The Council of Nicaea called by the Emperor Constantine met in 325 C.E. to establish a unified Catholic Church. At that point no universally sanctioned Scriptures or Christian Bible existed. Various churches and officials adopted different texts and gospels. That’s why the Council of Hippo sanctioned 27 books for the New Testament in 393 C.E. Four years later the Council of Cartage confirmed the same 27 books as the authoritative Scriptures of the Church.
Censorship of China and The Bible-foxnews.com
China is removing religious references from children's books, according to a watchdog group.
The Ministry of Education is censoring words like "Bible," "God," and "Christ" from classic children's stories designed to help middle schoolers "understand other cultures," Asia News reported.
Section 230 of the Communications Act-fcc.gov
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intent to move forward with a rulemaking to interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Under certain circumstances, Section 230 provides websites, including social media companies, that host or moderate content generated by others with immunity from liability. In announcing his decision, Chairman Pai noted that “[m]embers of all three branches of government have expressed serious concern about the prevailing interpretation” of Section 230, and observed that an overly broad interpretation could “shield[] social media companies from consumer protection laws in a way that has no basis in the text” of the statute.
To understand why the Commission has authority to interpret Section 230, it helps to understand how that section became part of the Communications Act. In 1934, Congress adopted the Communications Act in its original form, establishing the FCC as an independent federal agency charged with regulating interstate and international communications. Four years later, Congress added Section 201(b), which delegated to the Commission the power to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.”
Since then, the most consequential set of amendments to the Communications Act arrived in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which updated the Act for the then-nascent Internet age. Section 1(b) of that Act made clear that, except where otherwise expressly provided, each of the 1996 Act’s provisions were to be inserted into the Communications Act of 1934.
Title V of the 1996 Act was named the “Communications Decency Act of 1996.” Among other provisions, this Title included Section 509, named “Online family empowerment.” Consistent with Section 1(b), Congress instructed in Section 509 that “Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 . . . is amended by adding at the end the following new section: Section 230.” Thus, Section 230 was born and became part of the Communications Act of 1934.
Section 230 provides, among other things, that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” It further provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of . . . any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” The term “interactive computer service” is defined “as any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.” That broad definition is commonly understood to include websites that host or moderate content generated by others, such as social media companies.
FCCs Interpretive Authority-fcc.gov
To understand why the Commission has authority to interpret Section 230, it helps to understand how that section became part of the Communications Act. In 1934, Congress adopted the Communications Act in its original form, establishing the FCC as an independent federal agency charged with regulating interstate and international communications. Four years later, Congress added Section 201(b), which delegated to the Commission the power to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.”
Since then, the most consequential set of amendments to the Communications Act arrived in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which updated the Act for the then-nascent Internet age. Section 1(b) of that Act made clear that, except where otherwise expressly provided, each of the 1996 Act’s provisions were to be inserted into the Communications Act of 1934.
Title V of the 1996 Act was named the “Communications Decency Act of 1996.” Among other provisions, this Title included Section 509, named “Online family empowerment.” Consistent with Section 1(b), Congress instructed in Section 509 that “Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 . . . is amended by adding at the end the following new section: Section 230.” Thus, Section 230 was born and became part of the Communications Act of 1934.
Section 230 provides, among other things, that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” It further provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of . . . any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” The term “interactive computer service” is defined “as any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.” That broad definition is commonly understood to include websites that host or moderate content generated by others, such as social media companies.
Congress gave the Commission power to interpret all provisions of the Communications Act of 1934—including amendments—and Section 230 is an amendment to the Communications Act. The Commission therefore may proceed with a rulemaking to clarify the scope of the Section 230(c) immunity shield.
Styx Grand Illusion Lyric
The stage is set, the band starts playing
Suddenly your heart is pounding
Wishing secretly you were a star
So if you think your life is complete confusion
Because you never win the game
So if you think your life is complete confusion
Because your neighbors got it made
Just remember that it's a Grand illusion
And deep inside we're all the same
Censorship is something that has always happened and is another example on how we are Not Really Free. Total Freedom comes When Abba Yah Returns. In the meantime we need to pass on knowledge and teach others to wake up to the truth.
Matthew 23:23 ESV
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
Romans 1:18 ESV
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Comments