FBI subpoena aims at learning who read an online news story

This isn’t the biggest news story of the day but the ramifications are more than enough for us to pay attention. If we have any questions on how this story will end, wonder no more. Judge James Boasberg of secret court FISA fame is the judge who is hearing the case. He was presiding judge until May 21, 2021. Gannett, the publisher, contends that demand for details on who accessed article violates the First Amendment

From a secret FISA court opinion

Newspaper publisher Gannett is fighting an effort by the FBI to try to determine who read a specific USA Today story about a deadly shooting in February near Fort Lauderdale, Fla., that left two FBI agents dead and three wounded.

The subpoena, served on Gannett in April, seeks information about who accessed the news article online during a 35-minute window starting just after 8 p.m. on the day of the shootings. The demand — signed by a senior FBI agent in Maryland — does not appear to ask for the names of those who read the story, if the news outlet has such information. Instead, the subpoena seeks internet addresses and mobile phone information that could lead to the identities of the readers.

In a filing in U.S. District Court in Washington, lawyers for Gannett said the demand violates the First Amendment. They also complained that the FBI appears to have ignored the Justice Department’s policy for seeking information from the media.

“A government demand for records that would identify specific individuals who read specific expressive materials, like the Subpoena at issue here, invades the First Amendment rights of both publisher and reader, and must be quashed accordingly,” attorneys Charles Tobin and Maxwell Mishkin wrote on behalf of Gannett.

The case has been assigned to Judge James Boasberg, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Read more

Back in September 2020 the Washington Post had this headline. Our man Boasberg was the man on the job:

FBI and NSA violated surveillance law or privacy rules, a federal judge found

Two of the nation’s largest surveillance agencies repeatedly violated either the law or related court orders in incidents reported last year despite training on the procedures set up to protect the privacy of U.S. persons, a federal judge found.

The FBI flouted the law and the National Security Agency ignored a rule to safeguard civil liberties when these agencies gathered or searched emails and other communications gathered from U.S. tech and phone companies, under a statute designed to produce foreign intelligence, ruled Judge James E. Boasberg, presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in a significant opinion made public Friday.

“It should be unnecessary to state that government officials are not free to decide for themselves whether or to what extent they should comply with court orders,” Boasberg wrote in the December 2019 opinion.

The 83-page partially redacted ruling by Boasberg was released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It focused on whether to approve a new set of rules enabling the FBI, NSA and CIA to continue collecting and searching millions of communications gathered from American companies under a law known as “Section 702” of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Though Boasberg was at times scathing in his criticism, he signed off on the new rules or “certifications,” saying he expected them to address the problems — a fact that dismayed privacy advocates.“

The FBI is really just starting to implement” some of its new procedures “on a comprehensive basis,” he wrote.

Sure Judge Boasberg, we know the drill.

BONUS:

Are the FISA Court members dirty?

…..

Most important is the fact that the FISA court only turns down .02 percent of requests. All day long yesterday we hear that the FISA court demands a “rigorous through review” before granting a request. Total nonsense. One has a better chance of being struck by lightning.

The best of the swamp today.

Cuomo signs bill banning sale of Confederate flags

Next will be the selling a Trump MAGA hat. This is just the beginning. While admitting that the bill clashes with the First Amendment and needs tweaking, Cuomo says onward and upward with limiting our freedoms. Social media no doubt quick to follow.

This isn’t the biggest story of the day, but tells us all we need to know about the lack of respect that they have for our rights.

ALBANY — Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill into law aimed at banning the sale of “hate symbols” such as the Confederate flag or the swastika on state property — even while admitting the new edict might clash with the First Amendment and be struck down as unconstitutional.

The new law — effective immediately — prohibits the sale of hate symbols on public grounds including state and local fairs, and also severely limits their display unless deemed relevant to serving an educational or historical purpose.

“This country faces a pervasive, growing attitude of intolerance and hate — what I have referred to in the body politic as an American cancer,” Cuomo wrote in his approval message.

“By limiting the display and sale of the confederate flag, Nazi swastika and other symbols of hatred from being displayed or sold on state property, including the state fairgrounds, this will help safeguard New Yorkers from the fear-installing effects of these abhorrent symbols.”

More at  New York Post

Other than that, all is well in the swamp.

Oxford students want University to ban clapping

 

Just when you think it cannot get more absurd it does. Oxford University no less. The next generation’s leaders will now become mute little automatons. Silent drones carrying out their master’s orders. It’s all about control – the hint I give you on a Friday.

The Oxford University student council is lobbying the prestigious British university to end applause, arguing that it could trigger anxiety and was unfair to disabled students.

The Oxford Student reported Wednesday that the council had passed a motion to “mandate the Sabbatical Officers to encourage the use of British Sign Language (BSL) clapping, otherwise known as ‘silent jazz hands’ at Student Council meetings and other official SU events,” and to “lobby the University” to make similar changes.

“Loud noises, including whooping and traditional applause, are argued to present an access issue for some disabled students who have anxiety disorders, sensory sensitivity, and/or those who use hearing impairment aids,” the university newspaper said.

The students’ decision comes a year after the University of Manchester Students’ Union made the same move to “avoid triggering anxiety and improve accessibility.” More at

Free Beacon

Yes, let’s have a joyless useless life. Welcome to 1984 and then some. From my stash of old stuff:

From the 2003 Television docudrama: George Orwell – A Life in Pictures. A reminder from George Orwell.  This is where we are.

 

 

For the best in conservative news and so much better than Drudge push the button.

New Rules! YouTube Banning anything critical of illegal immigration UPDATE!

 

There is no slowing down the loss of our rights to free speech when in the hands of a corporation. The latest in determination of what “hate Speech” is. Now a new protected class: Immigration Status.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, said it’s removing thousands of channels that violate the new policies.

Ethnicity? Nothing critical permitted opposing the suppression of Muslim women?

Immigration? Wall jumpers banned?

 

 

YouTube’s new policies will take effect immediately. Specifically, the service is banning videos “alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion.” The ban applies to a range of characteristics, including race, sexual orientation and veteran status.

YouTube’s changes follow moves from Facebook to prohibit not only white supremacy , but also white nationalism and white separatism.

Read more at Time

 

UPDATE:   Looks like YouTube got the hint on this one.

Liberals cry censorship after YouTube demonetizes SPLC content

Daily Caller: Liberal activists are crying foul after YouTube’s demonetizing frenzy slammed the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization known for labeling conservative groups as hate groups. A video SPLC [Read More]

 

They have been doing YouTube’s dirty work! Is this just a distraction?

You got it. The same group that said Patriot Groups marked as Hate Groups by Southern Poverty Law Center 

Here is their map to their so-called “Hate Groups” –  Hate Map

Here is a list of the various groups including Christian identities – Catholics and Oath Keepers: SPLC Groups Monitored

Last August, a guest post by Mustang, filled you in on the SPLC group and what they are about – Excusing Leftist Hatred – SPLC

 

The left-wing nonprofit SPLC— which has more recently come under fire for labeling legitimate conservative organizations as “hate groups” — is one of the more than 100 nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government agencies in YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program, a source with knowledge of the arrangement told TheDC.

Snip…

First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel. Second, the partner groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers designing the algorithms policing the video platform but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.

More at  Daily Caller

BONUS: SPLC Revisited … Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities

Double Bonus:

Ca Dems trys to pass law against “fake news” creates Ministry of Truth

“California’s version of the Ministry of Truth isn’t forward-thinking, it’s akin to something out of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984.”

 We already have “censors” concerning social media. Now California wants to legislate the truth and chose who does this? The left has been working on this for years. They never rest.

“California’s version of the Ministry of Truth isn’t forward-thinking, it’s akin to something out of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984.”

 

Other than this, all is well in the swamp.

 

Thanks WhatFingerNews for the coverage! A great site for all the news.

Flashback: Obama’s government intrusion into media content

 

Many are wondering just how the news media fell off the rails and became the democrat sycophants that they are today. I thought I would wander through my old stash of posts for a Saturday flashback and see what we could discern.

Ah yes, the glory days of the Obama administration when we started that long miserable road of “fundamentally transforming America.”  Those were the days of us wearing tin foil. So they said.

 

FEC moving to control and regulate Internet, blogs, News media

The Internet is the last bastion of true free speech by the everyday Joe and Jane.

Via Washington Examiner:

In a surprise move late Friday, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report.

Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.

The power play followed a deadlocked 3-3 vote on whether an Ohio anti-President Obama Internet campaign featuring two videos violated FEC rules when it did not report its finances or offer a disclosure on the ads. The ads were placed for free on YouTube and were not paid advertising.

Keep reading…

 

FCC to police and question media, websites regarding content

November 1, 2013

The Federal Communications Commission is planning a broad probe of political speech across  media platforms, an unprecedented move that raises serious First Amendment  concerns.

The FCC’s proposed “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” which  is set to begin a field test in a single market with an eye toward a  comprehensive study in 2014, would collect a remarkably wide range of  information on demographics, point of view, news topic  selection, management style and other factors in news organizations both in and  out of the FCC’s traditional purview.

“In this study, the FCC will delve into the editorial discretion of newspapers,  web sites and radio and TV stations,” Hudson Institute Fellow Robert McDowell,  who served as a FCC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, told The Daily Caller.  “This starts sticking the government’s nose into what has traditionally been  privileged and protected ground. Regardless of one’s political stripes, one  should be concerned.”

The airwaves regulator would also subject news producers in all media to  invasive questioning about their work and content.

FCC Wants to Regulate Internet’s ‘On/Off Ramps,’ Commissioner Says

June 13, 2011 — bunkerville

 

 

Judicial Watch Documents Radical Group Consulted with FCC to Push Obama’s Internet Takeover

June 5, 2011

McChesney strongly believes in government control of the medium and the message.

In a 2000 article — titled “Journalism, Democracy, and Class Struggle”  in Review, McChesney laid out his goal of using media as a tool for socialist change:

Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism…

In 2009, McChesney said the following about capitalism and the media:

  • “Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself.”
  • “There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”
  • “We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimalize it, and perhaps even eliminate it.”

FCC Orders Newsrooms To Partner With Soros-Funded Non-Profits

February 4, 2011

Under the terms of the FCC order approving Comcast’s takeover of NBCU, at least half of NBC’s 10 O&Os have to find a nonprofit news center with which to work within the next year. The order cites the KNSD-VoiceOfSanDiego.org alliance as the model for what it would like to see in other NBC markets.

Proponents of the growing nonprofit news movement are hoping that NBC’s FCC-mandated efforts will bear fruit and encourage other commercial TV stations to seek out nonprofit partners.

There’s just one problem with this: Voice of San Diego is a member of INN (Investigative News Network) which is funded by the Open Society Institute, the URL of which is “www.soros.org.” Yes, these “non-profit” journalism centers are funded by George Soros. Full Story at Big Journalism

 

NBC, Universal, Comcast cave to FCC Diversity

January 14, 2011 — bunkerville

NBCU will strive to ensure the presentation of diverse viewpoints by seeking the expanded participation of minorities on its news and public affairs programming,” the companies promised in writing to black leaders. “To advance this goal, NBCU will consider suggestions from the African American Advisory Council of individuals who could be considered for such participation.”

The media giants also agreed to allow black leaders to have influence over NBC’s news programming. In addition to programming “diversity,” the Comcast and NBC Universal Memorandums of Understanding with different race-specific civil rights groups promise “diversity” in company employment, in supplier and vendor procurement and in “philanthropy and community investment.”

FCC Commissioner Wants to Test the ‘Public Value’ of Every Broadcast Station

December 3, 2010

This is an abbreviated portion found over at CNS:

American journalism is in “grave peril,” FCC Commissioner Michael Copps says, and to bolster “traditional media,” he said the Federal Communications Commission should conduct a “public value test” of every commercial broadcast station at relicensing time.

In a speech at the Columbia University School of Journalism in New York on Thursday, Copps also said station relicensing should happen every four years instead of the current eight.

“If a station passes the Public Value Test, it of course keeps the license it has earned to use the people’s airwaves,” Copps said. “If not, it goes on probation for a year, renewable for an additional year if it demonstrates measurable progress. If the station fails again, give the license to someone who will use it to serve the public interest.”

Ever since Barack Obama became president, prominent conservatives have warned about liberal efforts to squelch conservative and Christian talk-radio.

NPR Vivian Schiller Key Architect of FCC Govt Takeover of the News

October 26, 2010 — bunkerville

     Schiller, a New York Times executive, is one of a few dozen power players working with the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and a leftist group called Free Press to “reinvent journalism.” That’s how the FTC describes it. The FCC calls what they are doing the “Future of Journalism.” Free Press, a think tank funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, among others, calls it “the new public media.”

With now-former NPR analyst Juan Williams suitably splattered across the evening news after politically incorrect comments he made on Fox News, Schiller can return to her real passion – the creation of a national network to ensure that in the future, you get your news from the government in general and NPR in particular. Keep Apologizing Vivian, we got your number , who explained in a speech to the NPR board of directors in 2009, it is public radio’s responsibility to fill the gap in journalism left by dying local television stations and newspapers

FCC Chairman Ducks Question About FCC Official’s First Amendment Views

November 5, 2009 — bunkerville

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, after testifying at a congressional hearing on texting while driving Wednesday, was asked whether he agreed with Mark Lloyd’s views on the First Amendment. He refused to say if he agrees with the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Czar Mark Lloyd that freedom of speech is an “exaggeration” and that concerns about free speech serve only as a “distraction” from policy debates.

Instead of answering the question, Genachowski said he would rather focus on drivers who are distracted by text-messaging.

CNSNews.com: Your Chief Diversity Office, Mark Lloyd, wrote in 2006 that freedom of speech had become an exaggeration and that free speech concerns served to distract from policy debates. Do you agree with those statements?Genachowski: We’re here today to talk about distracted driving, and today is a day to focus attention on that issue and that’s what we’ve done.

In his book, Mark Lloyd said his approach to communications was inspired by left-wing radical Saul Alinsky.

“We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork. From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance,” Lloyd wrote.

Alinksy, author of the book “Rules for Radicals,” wrote that his methods were intended to guide people intent on overturning the American system.

“’The Prince’ was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” Alinsky explained. “’Rules for Radicals’ is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

 

Other than this, all is well in the swamp.

College allows student handing out the U.S. Constitution after 2-year legal battle

 

Day after day we need to battle the absurd Marxism that is destroying our schools and colleges. It is hard to believe that it took a long drawn out legal battle just to retain this basic right given to us by our founders. What is worse, it is luck. It could have turned out a whole lot differently had they not settled. Luck of the draw apparently.

After a two-year battle, the Los Angeles Community College District has agreed to abolish a policy that limited student expression to “free speech zones,” available only through application.

Pierce College student Kevin Shaw was handing out Spanish-language copies of the U.S. Constitution in November 2016 when an administrator told him that he would have to confine his activity to the school’s “free speech zone.”

 

The school told Shaw that he would have to apply for access to the 616-square foot zone and that his failure to comply would result in his removal from campus.

…..

On Wednesday, the Los Angeles Community College District agreed to settle the lawsuit, as well as to revoke the unconstitutional policy that recognized all campuses within the district as “non-public forums,” effectively removing free speech restrictions placed on 150,000 students, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

“I wish it hadn’t taken two years for my school to conclude I had a right to free expression,” Shaw told Campus Reform.

“All the same, I’m thankful to know future students won’t have to worry about being harassed for expressing political opinions.”

Zero Hedge

Our Rights. Do most of us even understand them?

Our Rights

Do most of us even understand them?

By Mustang

A common complaint today is that one or another social media platform have banned someone because they, in some way, violated platform standards of conduct.  At least, that’s the allegation; but I have to ask: Um … so?

Perhaps it is true that social media standards are draconian, and they may even be politically biased.  We may not like these so-called standards, but there is another argument.  Given what we know about human behavior on social media, some of which is out-right cowardly and vulgar, most of which we would never tolerate from anyone in person, and some of which is clearly dangerous to public safety, what is wrong with an attempt by social media to enforce well-mannered and lawful dialogue?  

Hasn’t it been true in the past that terrorists have used social media to communicate their plans and aspirations? Aren’t there predators on these platforms, people who bully and harass others?  Aren’t there some people who are unable to construct simple sentences without using the “F-bomb”?  I’m trying to imagine how many of us would host an afternoon party at our homes and then put up with such nonsense from one of our guests.  Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t put up with it more than a nanosecond.

Beyond this, there is the inane argument that social platforms are denying its clients their first amendment right to self-expression (no matter how inappropriate those expressions may be).  Well, a short review of the First Amendment is in order. The Constitution and its amendments only apply to government’s behavior toward us … it does not protect behavior between private persons. 

In other words, there is no right to free speech when someone is standing in our living rooms making an ass of him or herself —and should I toss an offensive person out the door, they have no right to have me arrested, or drag me into a civil court, for doing so.  I’m thinking we ought to stop using the “first amendment” argument: it is silly.

I often wonder if social media platforms aren’t part of the reason our society has become so fractured—so, my final argument, allowing that Facebook or Twitter is not a government entity, is that if people are offended because social media restricts their speech or behavior, they can always cancel their accounts—which, as best as I can tell offers us access to their platforms free of charge.  We do have choices, right?  We could, for example, reduce our profanity, curtail the tendency to be rude or obnoxious to people we have never even met, and we could seek ways of expressing our political proclivities other than shouting at one another.

What say you?

Facebook Censors Bible Verse “John 3:16” and “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ”

Pastor Andrew says his posts with “John 3:16” and painting “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ” were banned by Facebook. The tweet with a copy of the painting is no longer in my re-tweets.

How soon before the government acts? Silly of me. Tons of money flows to the Senators to keep the swamp happy. How long are we going to put up with this? We know conservatives have been banned, shadow banned and the like, including members of Congress and now they move on to religion? Let’s not forget that Zuckerberg installed the SPLC to monitoring sites.

I recall when FB first game out, it was a way for friends and families to stay in touch.  Now it has turned into a nightmare for many.

Pastor Andrew has lost close to 5 million readers a month since Facebook changed their algorithm.

Southern Poverty Law Center secretly policing content for YouTube

The Southern Poverty Law Center is assisting YouTube in policing content on their platform, The Daily Caller has learned.

The left-wing nonprofit — which has more recently come under fire for labeling legitimate conservative organizations as “hate groups” — is one of the more than 100 nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government agencies in YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program, a source with knowledge of the arrangement told TheDC.

Here is their map to their so-called “Hate Groups” –  Hate Map

Here is a list of the various groups including Christian identities – Catholics and Oath Keepers: SPLC Groups Monitored

But let’s look at the money:

Facebook PAC donation to senators

Ahead of more testimony from Zuckerberg today, why not check out the contributions that senators on the Judiciary and Commerce, Science and Transportation committees have received for their campaigns from Facebook’s PAC since it started making political donations in the 2012 election cycle.

A popular pastor said, “Facebook is blocking almost everyone from seeing John 3:16, ‘The Old Rugged Cross,’ the resurrection of Jesus Christ and my other posts.” Pastor Steven Andrew has a sizeable audience, with 467,000 people liking his page. Yet, Facebook showed these posts to only hundreds of people each. (The number will be higher with media coverage.)

Andrew said, ‘I am being silenced by Facebook. Christianity is being silenced!”

“These posts are filled with God’s forgiveness and truth, which are the greatest message of love,” he said.

Andrew is called the “Facebook pastor” and spent thousands of dollars with Facebook advertising to build up the followers. Before the censoring, he reached 5 to 8 million people per month, with an average post going to 30,000 to 60,000 people. Some posts reached a million people. However, after Facebook said they were cracking down on fake news in 2016, they shadowbanned Andrew, blocking about 5 million people per month.

“Christianity is not fake news,” he said.

Andrew contacted Facebook about the censoring earlier, but they did nothing. He also requested Facebook remove the fake accounts impersonating him that scam followers for money, but Facebook refused. There are over 70 impersonating accounts.

Andrew said, “Facebook caused a loss millions of dollars in donations and the ability to grow my website traffic.”

Because of this Andrew is building a new social network called USA.Life so people can share freely about life, liberty and happiness. “There is no censoring of Christianity and our American rights at USA.Life,” he said. Andrew is a Silicon Valley internet leader, who has run multi-million dollar Fortune 500 initiative.

H/Ts: Standard Newswire

Gateway Pundit

Ca Dems trys to pass law against “fake news” creates Ministry of Truth

 

For some reason I don’t think this will end well. We already have “censors” concerning social media. Now California wants to legislate the truth and chose who does this? The left has been working on this for years. They never rest.

“California’s version of the Ministry of Truth isn’t forward-thinking, it’s akin to something out of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984.”

 

Earlier in February I posted this:

Southern Poverty Law Center secretly policing content for YouTube

The Southern Poverty Law Center is assisting YouTube in policing content on their platform, The Daily Caller has learned.

The left-wing nonprofit — which has more recently come under fire for labeling legitimate conservative organizations as “hate groups” — is one of the more than 100 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and government agencies in YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program, a source with knowledge of the arrangement told TheDC.

Patriot Groups marked as Hate Groups by Southern Poverty Law Center

Danger from the Patriots! LA Times warns U.S.

 

Too Orwellian to even think about. Let’s legislate this:

One of the latest legislative proposals from California aims to make government the arbiter of truth.

Senate Bill 1424 would create an advisory group on “fake news” to work with social media companies to weed out what the government deems incorrect information on the internet.

This legislation, if passed, would require California’s attorney general to create the group, consisting of “social media providers, civil liberties advocates, and First Amendment scholars,” to study and mitigate the problem of spreading false information.

According to CBS Sacramento, even the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a left-leaning nonprofit civil liberties organization, called the legislation “flawed” and “misguided.”

This bill mirrors the trend in Europe, where government commissions to police speech and the news are becoming common.

California, emboldened by a stridently progressive Legislature, is trying to bring these Orwellian fake news panels to the United States.

Meet ‘Sensitivity Readers’ looking for thought crimes prior to publication

So many are disturbed about the coming fascist State brought about by the election of Trump. Yet it is the Progressives who have integrated themselves and their purity of thought into the job description of a “sensitivity reader.” So meet the new propagandists who will ensure every word written conforms to the dictates of the Progressives. Here from Moonbattery:

…Censors who study manuscripts for thought crimes so that books can be revised or rejected prior to publication are called “sensitivity readers.” The Chicago Tribune approvingly defines a sensitivity reader as “a person who, for a nominal fee, will scan the book for racist, sexist or otherwise offensive content.”

“The industry recognizes this is a real concern,” said Cheryl Klein, a children’s and young adult book editor and author of “The Magic Words: Writing Great Books for Children and Young Adults.” Klein, who works at the publisher Lee & Low, said that she has seen the casual use of specialized readers for many years but that the process has become more standardized and more of a priority, especially in books for young readers.

Rigid control of what young people read is a higher priority, because their opinions are more malleable, still being in the process of forming.

Sensitivity readers have emerged in a climate – fueled in part by social media – in which writers are under increased scrutiny for their portrayals of people from marginalized [i.e., politically favored] groups, especially when the author is not a part of that group.

If you portray characters in any light that could possibly be construed as reflecting negatively on a politically preferred group like blacks, you are a racist thought criminal; good luck getting published. Avoiding this problem by ignoring blacks is exclusionary and therefore also racist. The only course of action that is not racist is to crowd your work with cartoonishly correct black characters who have been explicitly approved by the thought police. If you do that you are not racist; you are a cultural expropriator. More at Moonbattery

%d bloggers like this: