# data[].attributes.headline
Censorship in Texas                                                     The state of Texas has banned the most books from public libraries and public schools in the United States. The books banned in Texas are mainly books that revolve around aboortion, racism, and LGBTQ representations. Texas has banned 801 books across 22 school districts in the last year. These books are banned in order to “protect” children from being exposed to such topics at a young age. I both agree and disagree with the banning of these books because to a certain extent we must censor what children read. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Censorship in Texas                                                     The state of Texas has banned the most books from public libraries and public schools in the United States. The books banned in Texas are mainly books that revolve around aboortion, racism, and LGBTQ representations. Texas has banned 801 books across 22 school districts in the last year. These books are banned in order to “protect” children from being exposed to such topics at a young age. I both agree and disagree with the banning of these books because to a certain extent we must censor what children read. 

# data[].attributes.body
There is limited censorship in the United States in comparison to other countries due to the strict adherence to the first amendment of freedom of speech. With that said, in the recent years there have been some exceptions made to this value mainly because of the globalization of information through social media. There are obscenities that are not protected by the first amendment and have begun to be censored through social media. This mainly concerns issues surrounding child 🤬 and a few others that are deemed to endanger American society. With that said though, people have also begun to censor political commentary expressed through social media. Due to the increasing division of groups caused by political opinions in the United States, this censorship has been justified to maintain order in the community. Despite this, there are certain communities that reject this practice. Texas and Florida recently moved to pass a bill prohibiting the censorship of political views on social media. I agree that, with the growing popularity and influence of social media, governments must begin to consider the impact that some of the content will have on the viewers. I think that, for the purpose of preserving the safety of the youth, obscenities such as child 🤬 should be censored. The difficulty with allowing this censorship is that it opens the doors to undermining the first amendment through many other types of censorship. This is the issue that people encounter through the censorship of political opinions. I believe that beyond censorship of child 🤬 or things of that nature, there should be no exceptions to the first amendment as it is a fundamental aspect of American democracy

# data[].attributes.headline
obscene, indecent, and profane content on radio and TV in the US

# data[].attributes.subject
obscene, indecent, and profane content on radio and TV in the US

# data[].attributes.body
Federal law in the United States prohibits the broadcast of obscene, indecent, and profane content on radio and TV. However, the definitions of these terms can be subjective and vary depending on interpretation. The famous statement "I know it when I see it" by Justice Potter Stewart in a 1964 Supreme Court case still influences FCC rules today, with public complaints driving enforcement. Obscene content, which is not protected by the First Amendment, must meet a three-pronged test established by the Supreme Court. Indecent content portrays sexual activities but does not meet the test for obscenity. Profane content includes grossly offensive language deemed a public nuisance. Factors considered in applying FCC rules include the specific content, time of day, and context of the broadcast. Obscene content is prohibited at all times, while indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. to protect potential child audiences.

I agree with it, because some people can find these types of things as indecent and bad. Also, it helps keep the innocence/protects the children during the day by not allowing that type of content during those certain times.

# data[].attributes.headline
Censorship and Prohibition of criticizing (bad mouth) the monarchy in Thailand

# data[].attributes.subject
Censorship and Prohibition of criticizing (bad mouth) the monarchy in Thailand

# data[].attributes.body
Thailand has long-standing laws that protect its monarchy from criticism, namely its Lèse-majesté laws, stipulated under Article 112 of the Thai criminal code. These laws are among the strictest in the world and make it a crime to defame, insult, or threaten the king, queen, heir-apparent, or regent.

Critics of these laws argue that they are used to silence dissent and target political opponents, violating freedom of speech rights. The United Nations and various human rights organizations have voiced concerns about the application of these laws, pointing out that they have often been used in ways that violate international human rights law.

Seeing that Thailand is very religious, or at least used to be, there is rational behind this field of censorship. In Thailand, the king is sent by god and is the god of the land therefore criticizing or insulting the king is deemed to be immoral hence making it illegal and greatly censored.

Some people may disagree with these long standing laws as, to them, it erodes their freedom of expression. However others agree that these laws are beneficial and should remain as criticism towards the monarchy, to them, is like criticizing god. Personally, I am neither for or against this form of censorship and I stand nuetral.

# data[].attributes.body
After the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party won the elections in 1998, the government of Gerhard Schroeder (SPD) reached what became known as the “nuclear consensus” with the big utilities (in 2000). They agreed to limit the lifespan of nuclear power stations to 32 years. The plan allocated each plant an amount of electricity that it could produce before it had to be shut down. Because nuclear power generation can vary, the plan did not set an exact date for the complete phase-out. But in theory, the last one would have had to close in 2022. New nuclear power plants were banned altogether. The agreement became law in 2002 (Atomgesetz). Two plants (Stade and Obrigheim) were taken offline in 2003 and 2005. The opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its chairwoman, Angela Merkel, objected to the agreement, calling it a “destruction of national property” that would be revoked if the CDU came to power.

I believe this is a good thing because it reduces the fear of German people who are scared of another war.

# data[].attributes.body
Article 5. Article 5 of the Constitution of Brazil encodes freedom of speech as a constitutional right. However, Brazilian legislation restricts the freedom of expression (Paim Law), directed especially to publications considered racist (such as neo-nazi sites). The Brazilian Constitution also prohibits anonymity of journalists. Brazilian law states that "material deemed offensive to a certain party may be removed if said party enters judicial action". However, this is sometimes exploited by companies and government officials, whom the law sometimes favors. This limits in a way the full freedom of speech. I do agree with this as if there was no limitation whatsoever there would be great conflict. Even though, I would say Brazilian culture is generally pretty inclusive, you can never know what certain people might say or do. If there is no limitation people would go to war against one another.

# data[].attributes.body
Censorship surrounding criticism of the royal family of Monaco has been a contentious issue, raising concerns about freedom of speech and expression. In Monaco, a principality renowned for its monarchy, the royal family holds significant influence and serves as a symbol of national identity.

In the past, criticizing the royal family in Monaco faced various forms of censorship. This censorship could be attributed to legal restrictions. Defamation laws were often employed to discourage negative statements or information about the royal family, with potential legal consequences deterring individuals from openly expressing their opinions.

Also, cultural norms played a crucial role in limiting criticism. Monarchies often evoke a sense of national pride, and any perceived disrespect towards the royal family was viewed as an affront to the country's identity. This led to self-censorship, as individuals feared social backlash or repercussions for expressing dissenting views.

# data[].attributes.body
The French ban on face covering refers to a law passed in France in 2010 that prohibits the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, , and other veils covering the face in public spaces, except under specified circumstances. The law is commonly referred to as the "burqa ban," as it is often associated with the Islamic veil known as the burqa,

Violation of the law can result in a fine of up to €150,

I agree with it because we do not know who is under the mask

# data[].attributes.body
The Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has arrested hundreds of journalists, closed or taken over dozens of media outlets, and prevented journalists and their families from traveling. Charges that were used most frequently against journalists were “membership in a terrorist organization,” “spreading propaganda for a terrorist organization,” “insulting the president,” “insulting state officials,” and offences that are commonly referred to as “insulting Turkishness.” This  is censorship of journalistic freedom and suppresses freedom of speech.

This is usually in the goal of keeping people in the dark, especially less educated people, so they don’t read these articles that go against the ideals of the AK party government. This prevents them from forming new opinions. Also, the president believes it should be against the law to speak bad against him or share opposing ideals to his.

I do not agree with this censorship since journalists have the right to voice their own thoughts, and people have the right to read them.

# data[].attributes.body
In Singapore making, downloading, import or possess 🤬 is illegal. However, watching 🤬 is not. This law was created due to the increasing number of young people in Singapore getting exposed to inappropriate sexual content. Since 🤬 is almost impossible to remove from the internet, the government encourages parents to inform their children why they should not watch 🤬. I think this law is useless as many people continue to watch 🤬 and it will be very hard for the government to put everyone who imports 🤬 into jail or pay a fine. For example a few months ago, a 10 year old boy was caught having sex with a cat in-front of the elevator. This was discovered due to the surveillance camera at the elevator hall. He has not been punished yet, showing that the law is useless.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2020, the internet services in Jammu and Kashmir were suspended. Article 370 was removed from the constitution. It gave the region Jammu and Kashmir some autonomy. Then main reason for this was to prevent misinformation from spreading. The suspension lasted for months and was ruled unconstitutional and a violation of fundamental rights. The government restored internet but in phases.
The goal was to protect the people from being fed false information and fake news.
This act of censorship was unjustified and incorrect. It violated the fundamental rights of the people and was unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
Case of Censorship in Russia: In 2018, the Russian government implemented a ban on the popular messaging app Telegram. The ban was a result of Telegram's refusal to comply with the government's demand to provide encryption keys to the Federal Security Service (FSB), citing user privacy concerns. The ban led to the blocking of Telegram's services in Russia, making it inaccessible to users within the country.

The Russian government argued that the ban on Telegram was necessary to combat terrorism and ensure national security. They claimed that the app's encrypted communication channels could be used by terrorists and other criminal elements to plan and coordinate illegal activities beyond the reach of law enforcement agencies.

While some individuals and organizations supported the government's stance on national security, I personally Do not agree with the ban, viewing it as a restriction on freedom of communication and an intervention of privacy rights. The ban on Telegram highlighted the ongoing debate between security concerns and individual liberties in the context of digital communication platforms.

# data[].attributes.body
Content broadcasted on korean television are censured. For example, variety shows must go through a “filtering” process where they remove and edit explicit words and gestures. In TV shows broadcasted on terrestrial television, they are banned from showing graphical images and dialogues. This led a lot of producers for films or tv shows moved to platforms such as Netflix, so that unlike in terrestrial television they aren’t so restricted on what the movie consists of and how graphical or explicit the dialogues and images are. I personally don’t agree to this censorship although I understand there goals to prevent children from seeing such disturbing content at a young age as anyone is able to view the contents on television and it is common that kids watch televisions even without their parents in south korea.

# data[].attributes.body
Censorship in Bulgaria has been a persistent issue, with restrictions on freedom of expression raising concerns about democratic values. Despite being an EU member, Bulgaria has struggled to uphold the right to free speech.

Media ownership concentration, intimidation of journalists, restrictive legislation, and cultural censorship contribute to a climate of fear and self-censorship.

Media ownership concentration is a significant aspect of censorship in Bulgaria. A few powerful entities control a significant portion of the country's media, limiting diversity of voices and promoting self-censorship among journalists. This concentration hampers objective reporting and suppresses critical viewpoints.

Intimidation and harassment of journalists and media professionals are prevalent in Bulgaria. Reporters investigating corruption or exposing wrongdoing often face threats and physical assaults. Such hostile conditions create a chilling effect, discouraging journalists from reporting on sensitive issues and contributing to a culture of censorship.

Legislation has been introduced that threatens online freedom of expression. A 2019 law requires online media to register with the government, granting authorities control over digital platforms and potentially censoring content critical of the government. This legislation raises concerns about privacy and hampers open dialogue in the digital sphere.

# data[].attributes.body
The rationale behind banning citizens from accessing or being in possession of materials deemed to be connected to terrorist activity was to protect us. It could be seen as censorship of information, as you can be arrested for having a magazine, such as the Islamic terrorist magazine Inspire. What if you were to accidentally find this website and a person you knew unfortunately become an enemy to the state? The state might think you were also a terrorist. What if you were looking up information about terrorism for research (criminology pHD for instance)? You would have to prove this after fearful interrogation. I think the ban is correct, but I can see how it could make people feel afraid of the government, but at least it might thawrt terrorism.

# data[].attributes.body
Something that is banned and censored in Hong Kong is child 🤬. To produce, copy, import or export child 🤬, and 🤬 involving someone under the age of 18 is an offense. For the production and publication of child 🤬, the penalty is 8 years of imprisonment, the possession of child 🤬 is 5 years of imprisonment.

I agree with the censorship, and child 🤬 is something that should be banned everywhere.

# data[].attributes.body
The government exercises strict control over media, the internet, and freedom of expression. Domestic media is largely government-owned or influenced, promoting conservative viewpoints while avoiding criticism of the ruling monarchy or religious establishment. Internet content is heavily filtered and monitored, blocking or restricting websites that are considered offensive, critical of the government, or contrary to Islamic values. Social media platforms are also monitored, and individuals face repercussions for expressing dissenting opinions or criticizing the government and or royal family. Self-censorship is prevalent due to fear of punishment. Books and films undergo strict censorship, with banned or censored materials deemed offensive, immoral, or critical of religious or political authorities. While limited reforms have been made in recent years, freedom of expression and media independence remain tightly regulated, and dissenting voices encounter risks and limitations. Supporters of these rules argue that they help maintain social cohesion, protect religious and cultural values, and ensure stability within the country. They believe that censorship is necessary to prevent the spread of immoral or offensive content and to uphold the principles of the state religion. On the other hand, critics argue that these rules infringe upon freedom of expression and limit access to information. They argue that censorship stifles creativity, hinders intellectual and artistic development, and restricts the free flow of ideas. Critics also raise concerns about human rights violations and the suppression of dissenting voices.