Censorship Is Wrong Quotes

Censors never go after books unless kids already like them. I don’t even think they know to go after books until they know that children are interested in reading this book, therefore there must be something in it that’s wrong.

Our freedoms are vanishing. If you do not get active to take a stand now against all that is wrong while we still can, then maybe one of your children may elect to do so in the future, when it will be far more riskier — and much, much harder.

There are no wrong books. What's wrong is the fear of them.

The whole principle (censorship) is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak.

It's red hot, mate. I hate to think of this sort of book getting in the wrong hands. As soon as I've finished this, I shall recommend they ban it.

Right now we live in an age of extreme Political Correctness. It has gone way too far. I hope it's just a phase. Political Correctness is now just a fancy word for censorship. It's no longer about protecting the weak. It has become an excuse to persecute others, because persecuting people is fun. Don't you dare say or think the wrong thing, or a Twitter mob of angry villagers will come after you with digital torches and metaphorical pitchforks.

And then they started deleting the protest reviews. That was my line. When they started to stamp out dissent, actually to make it disappear with virtually no excuse for doing so...that’s not neglect. That’s not an overwhelmed person or people trying to figure it out. That’s an entity that has decided that they do not care, that they have moved on from the issue, do not see it as an issue, and is trying to avoid bad press. Or they are too far down the line to backtrack on what they’ve been doing and save face. They’re content with their wildly inconsistent policy enough to no longer care what effect it is having on their user base. If you try to silence dissent, then something is very, very wrong.

Instead of feeling any need to persuade, people who are certain they are correct can impose their beliefs by force. In theocracies and autocracies, authorities censor, imprison, exile or burn those with the wrong opinions. In democracies the force is less brutish, but people still find means to impose a belief rather than argue for it.

So what happens when students get the message that saying the wrong thing can get you in trouble? They do what one would expect: they talk to people they already agree with, keep their mouths shut about important topics in mixed company, and often don’t bother even arguing with the angriest or loudest person in the room (which is a problem even for the loud people, as they may not recognize that the reason why others are deferring to their opinions is not because they are obviously right).

The yin to the yang of caring is that sadness is felt just that much more because that caring is so deep. But (and I'm sure you'll agree) I wouldn't be any other way. To not feel so intensely and vividly would mean being one of the living dead and there are far too many of those shuffling around already. So when we mount our steeds, hoist our lances, and charge at the wrongs of the world, let's do so with wild battle cries, riding full tilt! Every now and then we'll have the joy of seeing one of those wrongs go flying off its horse.

My uncle says the architects got rid of the front porches because they didn't look well. But my uncle says that was merely rationalizing it; the real reason, hidden underneath, might be they didn't want people sitting like that, doing nothing, rocking, talking; that was the wrong kind of social life. People talked too much. And they had time to think. So they ran off with the porches. And the gardens, too. Not many gardens any more to sit around in. And look at the furniture. No rocking?chairs any more. They're too comfortable. Get people up and running around. My uncle says . . . and . . . my uncle . . . and . . . my uncle . . .

In fact, Wilson tried to strengthen the Espionage Act with a provision giving broad censorship powers directly to the president. Moreover, with Wilson’s approval, his postmaster general used his new censorship powers to suppress all mail that was socialist, anti-British, pro-Irish, or that in any other way might, in his view, have threatened the war effort.

I think there’s something seriously wrong with a society that thinks it’s wrong to tell the truth, because it could potentially hurt someone’s feelings. You’re not doing anyone any favors if you don’t allow snowflakes to develop coping skills, by shielding them from uncomfortable thoughts.

Some of the choices teenagers make are morally and practically wrong. Some of my characters do things I hope my child won't. There are occasionally words my characters choose that I wouldn't utter in my mother's presence. But when I was sixteen, or twelve, hanging out with my friends? That was different. For a story to feel real, I have to respect what a character would really do or say.

A big change is coming, and politicians, self-important scientists, and unctuously blathering religious leaders may want to, but will never be able to, stop it. There is no vaccination against thinking. Ideas know no boundaries and no censorship. And what’s more, ideas have a dangerous tendency to spread like wildfire.

Some people may associate “fundamentalism” with religion, but Rauch explains it as a broader refusal by those in power to recognize (at least publicly) the possibility that they might be wrong.

When it comes to green energy investigations, I conclude that the internal opposition I face has its origins in the personal beliefs of those who decide which stories go on the air and which are kept off. The purpose of the stories I propose isn’t to examine the general merits or shortfalls of the technology, ideology, or movement. They’re financial stories delving into possible waste, abuse, and questionable spending of tax dollars. What I didn’t anticipate is that some colleagues and managers, unable to disconnect their personal viewpoints from their duty as journalists, would view this line of reporting as damaging to a cause about which they hold deep-rooted beliefs. Fearful that the stories would discourage rather than promote green energy, they want to prevent the public from seeing them at all. It’s a paternalistic attitude that results in de facto censorship. Simply put: they decide that it’s best for you to not hear a story at all rather than run the risk that you might see it and form the “wrong” opinion. (By that, I mean an opinion that differs from theirs.)

In all conflicts between groups, there are three elements. One: the certitude that our group is morally superior, possibly even chosen by God. All others should follow our example or be at our service. In order to bring peace to the world, we have to impose our set of beliefs upon others, through manipulation, force, and fear, if necessary. Two: a refusal or incapacity to see or admit to any possible errors or faults in our group. The undeniable nature of our own goodness makes us think we are infallible; there can be no wrong in us. Three: a refusal to believe that any other group possesses truth or can contribute anything of value. At best, others may be regarded as ignorant, unenlightened, and possessing only half—truths; at worst, they are seen as destructive, dangerous, and possessed by evil spirits: they need to be overpowered for the good of humanity. Society and cultures are, then, divided into the “good” and the “bad”; the good attributing to themselves the mission to save, to heal, to bring peace to a wicked world, according to their own terms and under their controlling power. Such is the story of all civilizations through the ages as they spread over the earth by invading and colonizing. Differences must be suppressed; “savages” must be civilized. We must prove by all possible means that our culture, our power, our knowledge, and our technology are the best, that our gods are the only gods! This is not just the story of civilizations but also of all wars of religion, inquisitions, censorships, dictatorships; all things, in short, that are ideologies. An ideology is a set of ideas translated into a set of values. Because they are held to be absolutely true, these ideas and values need to be imposed on others if they are not readily accepted. A political system, a school of psychology, and a philosophy of economics can all be ideologies. Even a place of work can be an ideology. Religious sub—groups, sects, are based upon ideological principles. Religions themselves can become ideologies. And ideologues, by their nature, are not open to new ideas or even to debate; they refuse to accept or listen to anyone else’s reality. They refuse to admit any possibility of error or even criticism of their system; they are closed up in their set of ideas, theories, and values. We human beings have a great facility for living illusions, for protecting our self—image with power, for justifying it all by thinking we are the favoured ones of God.

Having pure intentions, steadfast goals, and an unwillingness to consider that you might be wrong is the formula for some of the worst evils mankind has ever wrought upon one another, from inquisitions to the twentieth century’s disastrous experiments with totalitarian utopias.

Here is how I propose to end book-banning in this country once and for all: Every candidate for school committee should be hooked up to a lie detector and asked this question: “Have you read a book from start to finish since high school?” or “Did you even read a book from start to finish in high school?” If the truthful answer is “no,” then the candidate should be told politely that he cannot get on the school committee and blow off his big bazoo about how books make children crazy. Whenever ideas are squashed in this country, literate lovers of the American experiment write careful and intricate explanations of why all ideas must be allowed to live. It is time for them to realize that they are attempting to explain America at its bravest and most optimistic to orangutans. From now on, I intend to limit my discourse with dimwitted Savonarolas to this advice: "Have somebody read the First Amendment to the United States Constitution out loud to you, you God damned fool!" Well--the American Civil Liberties Union or somebody like that will come to the scene of trouble, as they always do. They will explain what is in the Constitution, and to whom it applies. They will win. And there will be millions who are bewildered and heartbroken by the legal victory, who think some things should never be said--especially about religion. They are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hi ho.

The movies can only, if they do anything at all, aggravate the damage. We deceive ourselves if we think that, by striking at the movies, we strike at the root of the evil. We cannot so easily shift guilt to the movie producers or the movie stars or the movie censors. More censorship may be a cure that's worse than the disease, for we would be surrendering freedom of judgement in exchange for peace of mind. Not only our children but we ourselves may eventually find ourselves deprived of the right to distinguish for ourselves the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil.

In 1972, the psychologist Irving Janis defined groupthink as, “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.” Groupthink most commonly affects homogenous, close-knit communities that are overly insulated from internal and external criticism, and that perceive themselves as different from or under attack by outsiders. Its symptoms include censorship of dissent, rejection or rationalization of criticisms, the conviction of moral superiority, and the demonization of those who hold opposing beliefs. It typically leads to the incomplete or inaccurate assessment of information, the failure to seriously consider other possible options, a tendency to make rash decisions, and the refusal to reevaluate or alter those decisions once they’ve been made.

And against whom is this censorship directed? By way of answer, think back to the big subcultural debates of 2011 – debates about how gritty fantasy isn’t really fantasy; how epic fantasy written from the female gaze isn’t really fantasy; how women should stop complaining about sexism in comics because clearly, they just hate comics; how trying to incorporate non-Eurocentric settings into fantasy is just political correctness gone wrong and a betrayal of the genre’s origins; how anyone who finds the portrayal of women and relationships in YA novels problematic really just wants to hate on the choices of female authors and readers; how aspiring authors and bloggers shouldn’t post negative reviews online, because it could hurt their careers; how there’s no homophobia in publishing houses, so the lack of gay YA protagonists can only be because the manuscripts that feature them are bad; how there’s nothing problematic about lots of pretty dead girls on YA covers; how there’s nothing wrong with SF getting called ‘dystopia’ when it’s marketed to teenage girls, because girls don’t read SF. Most these issues relate to fear of change in the genre, and to deeper social problems like sexism and racism; but they are also about criticism, and the freedom of readers, bloggers and authors alike to critique SFF and YA novels without a backlash that declares them heretical for doing so. It’s not enough any more to tiptoe around the issues that matter, refusing to name the works we think are problematic for fear of being ostracized. We need to get over this crushing obsession with niceness – that all fans must act nicely, that all authors must be nice to each other, that everyone must be nice about everything even when it goes against our principles – because it’s not helping us grow, or be taken seriously, or do anything other than throw a series of floral bedspreads over each new room-hogging elephant. We, all of us, need to get critical. Blog post: Criticism in SFF and YA

An attempt may be made to raise the objection that the analogy goes wrong in an essential point, for the distortion of a text is the work of a tendentious censorship, no counterpart to which is to be found in the development of the ego. But this is not so; for a tendentious purpose of this kind is to a great extent represented by the compelling force of the pleasure principle. The psychical apparatus is intolerant of unpleasure; it has to fend it off at all costs, and if the perception of reality entails unpleasure, that perception — that is, the truth — must be sacrificed.

When emotional energy comes our way, we feel it. We take a few moments, acknowledge the sensation, and move on to the next step. We don't censor. We don't block. We don't run from. We don't tell ourselves, "Don't feel that. Something must be wrong with me." We don't pass judgment on ourselves for our feelings. We experience them. We allow the energy to pass through our bodies, we accept it as being our emotional energy, our feeling, We say, "Okay." Next we do that mystical thing so many people refer to as "dealing with our feelings." We appropriately respond to our emotion. We examine thoughts that go along with it, and we accept them without repression or censorship.

What constitutes due process has evolved over hundreds of years and is rooted in both pragmatism and deep philosophy. It recognizes several truths about human nature: people can be mistaken in what they remember or believe; people do falsely accuse their neighbors; people can even convince themselves that false things are true if they desire to punish someone they hate or feel has wronged them; and we must limit people in power to enforcing clear laws fairly to avoid abuse of the system. Judges and juries have their own biases, blind spots, areas of expertise, and areas of ignorance, all of which need to be systemically balanced out (through processes for appeal, for example) to minimize the likelihood that people are unfairly punished.

The culture of repudiation marks a crumbling of the Enlightenment in other ways. As is frequently remarked, the spirit of free enquiry is now disappearing from schools and universities in the West. Books are put on or struck off the curriculum on grounds of political correctness; speech codes and counselling services police the language and conduct of both students and teachers; many courses are designed to impart ideological conformity rather than free enquiry, and students are often penalized for having drawn some heretical conclusion about the leading issues of the day. In sensitive areas, such as the study of race and sex, censorship is overtly directed not only at students but also at any teacher, however impartial and scrupulous, who comes up with the wrong conclusions

Much of the current hoopla about “book bans” and “censorship” gets it wrong. This is not about me or any writer of the moment. It is about writers to come—the boundaries of their imagination, the angle of their thinking, the depth of their questions. I can’t say I knew it, that first day walking into Lorton, but in my time teaching it soon became clear that becoming a good writer would not be enough. We needed more writers, and I had a responsibility to help them as a reader, to be an active audience for the stories they wanted to tell, or as a teacher, so that they could learn to tell them better, to reach deeper into their own truth in the same way that brought me euphoria, and reach into the hearts of readers and set them on fire, as Mary had been set on fire since college: by words on a page.

the Spanish press doesn’t have the same censorship that the French, German, and British governments have imposed on their newspapers.” “Correct again, Lilly,” said Noble. “You can add American government censorship of the press, also. As far as I can see, in A.I. Office communications regarding The War, there is no Spanish press censorship at all. There was even wide press coverage in the last week of Spanish King Alphonse XIII and his family’s serious illnesses with the grippe.” “Both the Allies and the Central Powers don’t want to let on there has been any reduction in fighting capacity. So, very little appears in their respective newspapers. The Spanish, however, are free to report all the various details of the influenza epidemic. It would be simple wrong to conclude the epidemic is ‘Spanish’ in origin.

This is why it would be nice to hear more about principles and less about ruffled feelings. What thoughtful person has not felt the hurt expressed by the Jews over some performances of The Merchant of Venice? A whole anthology of black writing exists in the United States, protesting with quite unfeigned horror about the teaching of Huckleberry Finn in the schools, for the good and sufficient reason that the book employs the word ‘nigger’ as natural. A mature and sensitive response to such tenderness of feeling and consciousness of historic wrong would run much like this, and could be uttered by a person of any race or religion ... We know why you feel as you do, but – too bad. Your thinness of skin, however intelligible, will not be healed by the amputation of the literary and theatrical and musical canon. You just have to live with Shakespeare and Dickens and Twain and Wagner, mainly because they are artistically integral but also, as it happens, because they represent certain truths about human nature. Think for a second. Would prejudice diminish with the banning of Shylock? Concern for the emotions of others cannot license a category mistake on this scale.

Races are roughly represented by the states they form and these states by the governments which guide them. The individual citizen can prove with dismay in this war what occasionally thrust itself upon him already in times of peace, namely, that the state forbids him to do wrong not because it wishes to do away with wrongdoing but because it wishes to monopolize it, like salt and tobacco. A state at war makes free use of every injustice, every act of violence, that would dishonor the individual. It employs not only permissible cunning but conscious lies and intentional deception against the enemy, and this to a degree which apparently outdoes what was customary in previous wars. The state demands the utmost obedience and sacrifice of its citizens, but at the same time it treats them as children through an excess of secrecy and a censorship of news and expression of opinion which render the minds of those who are thus intellectually repressed defenseless against every unfavorable situation and every wild rumor. It absolves itself from guarantees and treaties by which it was bound to other states, makes unabashed confession of its greed and aspiration to power, which the individual is then supposed to sanction out of patriotism.

Here is a situation: a country that is not fully a country, a nation that does not quite believe itself to be a nation, exists within, and as a small and distant part of, a greater state. The greater state was once a very great state, with its own empire. It is no longer great, but its leaders and many of its people like to believe it is. For the people of the less-than country, the not-quite nation, there are competing, conflicting loyalties. The are confused. For generations a kind of balance has been maintained. There has been give and take, and, yes, there have been arguments about how much give and how much take, but now something has changed. There is a sense of injustice, of neglect, of the real operation. Nobody is being shot, there are no political prisoners, there is very little censorship, but still that sense persists: this is wrong. It grows. It demands to be addressed. The situation needs to be fixed.

When expressing sympathy for the family of a deceased person is also categorised as hate speech, there is clearly something wrong with the arbitrary censorship by multimedia giants such as Facebook, It is therefore urgent that national legislation puts a stop to the silencing of right-wing and nationalist politicians. Because when you can be removed from Facebook simply for expressing sympathy for someone, this has nothing to do with ‘hate speech’ or ‘protecting democracy’ anymore, but everything with pure dictatorial arbitrariness.

In this book are some expressions and depictions of prejudices that were commonplace in British society at the time it was written. These prejudices were wrong then and are wrong today. We are printing the novel as it was originally published because to make changes would be the same as pretending these prejudices never existed.

Police officers today are a protected class, one no politician wants to oppose. Law enforcement interests may occasionally come up short on budgetary issues, but legislatures rarely if ever pass new laws to hold police more accountable, to restrict their powers, or to make them more transparent. In short, police today embody all of the threats the Founders feared were posed by standing armies, plus a few additional ones they couldn’t have anticipated. This isn’t to say we’re in a police state, a term that’s often misused. Generally speaking, we’re free to travel. We don’t face mass censorship. We still have habeus corpus. And the odds of any single person being victimized by a wrong-door raid, shot or beaten by a cop, or otherwise victimized by militarized police violence are slim to nil. But perhaps we have entered a police state writ small. At the individual level, a police officer’s power and authority over the people he interacts with day to day is near complete. Absent video, if the officer’s account an incident differs from that of a citizen— even several citizens— his superiors, the courts, and prosecutors will nearly always defer to the officer. If other officers are nearby, there are policies in place—official and unofficial—to encourage them to back one another up. Even if the officer does violate the citizen’s rights, the officer is protected by qualified immunity.

freedom to speak includes the freedom to be wrong.

After Rushdie, the fear of a knife in the ribs or a bomb at the office meant that liberals who stuck by liberalism were in the wrong. They knew the consequences now. If someone killed them, they were guilty of provoking their own murder. In the eyes of most politicians and most of the journalists, broadcasters, academics and intellectuals whose livelihoods depended on the freedom to debate and criticise, the targets of religious violence had no one to blame but themselves.

In one of his rare interviews, Peter Mayer, Penguin’s chief executive, praised the bravery of everyone in the book trade who had defended his right to publish, but then told a bleak story about how strangers treated his family. He had received many death threats. Someone went to the trouble to cut themselves and send him a letter scrawled in blood. An anonymous telephone caller told Mayer that ‘not only would they kill me but that they would take my daughter and smash her head against a concrete wall’. Far from rallying to defend an innocent girl and her innocent father, the parents of her classmates demanded that the school expel her. What would happen, they asked, if the Iranian assassins went to the school and got the wrong girl? And Mayer thought, ‘You think my daughter is the right girl?

when Gorbachev tried to restructure the Soviet Union into a federation of independent republics, but with the Communist Party still in control over the economy. A committee formed by Gorbachev’s Vice President Gennadi Yanayev, Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov, Defense Minister Dmitriy Yazov, KGB chief Vladimir Kryuchkov, and other high ranking officials, put Gorbachev under house arrest while he was on vacation. They reintroduced censorship of politics and the newspapers, and banned all political activity. They thought the population would support them, including most politicians, but they were wrong. Boris Yeltsin, who was the President of the Russian Republic, declared the coup illegal, and ended up with the support of the majority of the Russian citizens. The coup collapsed, when the military wouldn’t kill the people trying to protect the Russian Parliament building, nor would they put the Russian politicians under arrest. When he returned to power, Gorbachev was left without popular support from the citizens or the political class.

Building on the Pentagon’s anthrax simulation (1999) and the intelligence agency’s “Dark Winter” (2001), Atlantic Storm (2003, 2005), Global Mercury (2003), Schwartz’s “Lockstep” Scenario Document (2010), and MARS (2017), the Gates-funded SPARS scenario war-gamed a bioterrorist attack that precipitated a global coronavirus epidemic lasting from 2025 to 2028, culminating in coercive mass vaccination of the global population. And, as Gates had promised, the preparations were analogous to “preparing for war.”191 Under the code name “SPARS Pandemic,” Gates presided over a sinister summer school for globalists, spooks, and technocrats in Baltimore. The panelists role-played strategies for co-opting the world’s most influential political institutions, subverting democratic governance, and positioning themselves as unelected rulers of the emerging authoritarian regime. They practiced techniques for ruthlessly controlling dissent, expression, and movement, and degrading civil rights, autonomy, and sovereignty. The Gates simulation focused on deploying the usual psyops retinue of propaganda, surveillance, censorship, isolation, and political and social control to manage the pandemic. The official eighty-nine-page summary is a miracle of fortune-telling—an uncannily precise month-by-month prediction of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic as it actually unfolded.192 Looked at another way, when it erupted five years later, the 2020 COVID-19 contagion faithfully followed the SPARS blueprint. Practically the only thing Gates and his planners got wrong was the year. Gates’s simulation instructs public health officials and other collaborators in the global vaccine cartel exactly what to expect and how to behave during the upcoming plague. Reading through the eighty-nine pages, it’s difficult not to interpret this stunningly prescient document as a planning, signaling, and training exercise for replacing democracy with a new regimen of militarized global medical tyranny. The scenario directs participants to deploy fear-driven propaganda narratives to induce mass psychosis and to direct the public toward unquestioning obedience to the emerging social and economic order. According to the scenario narrative, a so-called “SPARS” coronavirus ignites in the United States in January 2025 (the COVID-19 pandemic began in January 2020). As the WHO declares a global emergency, the federal government contracts a fictional firm that resembles Moderna. Consistent with Gates’s seeming preference for diabolical cognomens, the firm is dubbed “CynBio” (Sin-Bio) to develop an innovative vaccine using new “plug-and-play” technology. In the scenario, and now in real life, Federal health officials invoke the PREP Act to provide vaccine makers liability protection.

still up at Medium. Again, it’s your alignment that makes you right, not your credentials or the quality of your arguments. Take Knut Wittkowski, for example, one of the victims of YouTube censorship mentioned above. He’s the former head of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Research Design at Rockefeller University’s Center for Clinical and Translational Science. He has a Ph.D. in computer science from the University of Stuttgart and a Doctor of Science degree in medical biometry from the University of Tübingen, both top German universities. He has as much expertise as anyone from WHO. But he was a staunch critic of the lockdowns and the logic behind them. That made him one of the wrong people.

Proslavery southerners were highly suspicious of Douai’s plan to establish a forum for public debate in their own backyard, presuming that this was simply a strategy for camouflaging abolitionist intentions. The climate of fear and self-censorship created by antebellum southerners around the slavery issue ran counter to Douai’s notion of free enlightened discourse. Moreover, it reminded him of the repressive Old World structures that he and his fellow emigrants had left behind. The harsh, occasionally even violent attacks of the proslavery majority smacked very much of the police states they had vehemently opposed in Germany. “You had rather be off or we shall make [you] go,” infuriated southerners told the foreign-born agitators. In this situation, slavery had ceased to be an abstract ideological problem. Invoking the right to free speech and using slavery as a metaphor to illustrate his own condition...Though the Texas free-soil activists wrote extensively about the economic dimensions of slavery, it was their own intellectual enslavement they feared most. For them, slavery was morally and politically wrong, but it was also useful as a yardstick for measuring their own degree of freedom.

Interestingly, to succeed, liberal science relies on people being unafraid of being wrong on a regular basis.

My task was nothing less than the moulding of the cultural sense of the nation, and it had two main heads. I had to guide taste into the right channels and I had to see that no one else guided it into the wrong. Thus it was just as important to discourage bad influence as to encourage good. To send a promising and impecunious young painter to an Art School with a Government grant was in itself a praiseworthy act ; but it was useless from the national point of view if it was not accompanied by drastic measures to keep the most suggestive sorts of French literature from entering our ports. To help a young genius to Valhalla was one thing. But it was almost as important, from the national point of view, to see that our youth was not brought into contacts with those packets of French postcards which are labelled, “Très rare, très curieux. Discrétion.” I take a good deal of credit to myself—though, of course, Pettinger got the kudos at the time—for tightening up the administration of the Customs so that such authors as Joyce, whose name was either James or John—I forget which—Stein, Baudelaire, Louÿs, Anatole France, Proust, Freud, Jung, Rolland, and others, were intercepted at the ports by the special Pornographie section of the Constabulary which I created with men borrowed from the uniformed branch of the Metropolitan Police. These men, ail of whom could read and write English fluently, performed admirable service in the détection of immoral literature. Art Exhibitions also came within the scope of my department, and I closed at least a dozen objection-able ones which contained nudes and other suggestive subjects. It was always a matter of regret to me that I was unable to take strong action about Epstein’s “Genesis.” But the Marchioness of Risborough—a leader of taste and fashion, who was not only persona gratissima in exalted circles, but also the daughter of a millionaire steelmaker—had publicly declared her admiration of it, and so there was nothing for me to do except to déclaré mine. And now, looking back on it, I realize how right I was to choose Lady Risborough’s opinion rather than the small advantages to be obtained from Epstein’s gratitude. Small tradesmen who tried to sell miniature replicas of the “Genesis” were ruthlessly prosecuted, however, by my department on the charge of exhibiting, or causing to be exhibited, indécent figures.

There is little evidence that Christians intentionally destroyed entire libraries; the damage that Christianity inflicted on books was achieved by subtler – but no less effective – means of censorship, intellectual hostility, and pure fear. The existence of a sacred text, it was argued, demanded this. Before there had been competing philosophical schools, all equally valid, all equally arguable. Now, for the first time, there was right – and there was wrong. Now, there was what the Bible said – and there was everything else. And from now on any belief that was ‘wrong’ could, in the right circumstances, put you in grave danger.

Onward Christian Lawyers KELLY SHACKELFORD, LIBERTY LEGAL INSTITUTE, PLANO, TEXAS Kelly Shackelford founded Liberty Legal Institute in 1997 to fight for the protection of religious freedoms and First Amendment rights for individuals, groups, and churches. Shackelford clerked for a federal judge after law school. "When their freedoms are taken away, the average person isn't 0. J. Simpson and can't just go out and hire the dream team. My heart has always been to make sure that those people have the best representation possible so that the government can't erode all of our freedoms by picking on the people who don't have the money to fight. "Religion is the new pornography. If somebody says something religious, the average government official feels like he or she has to run from the room, screaming with their hair on fire. Religion is treated like pornography would be treated if you brought it into the school. I mean, there's a fear. There's a shame, almost, directed toward it. "The ACLU is mainly operating on remote control. They've injected this chilling atmosphere that's antireligious in the schools and they don't even have to do anything in most instances to effectuate a religious cleansing in the schools. They've managed to scare and intimidate and the lore in school districts is religion is bad, religion will get you in trouble. ''I'd say a decent percentage of the time, the person who engages in the violation of our clients' rights is somebody who later will tell us, Tm a religious person.' They just didn't know any better, and what they're doing is reacting. They go to the kneejerk, shut-it-down action. 'Oh, it's religion? We must shut it down .' That is the general approach. "These are young kids. They're in third grade or fourth grade or fifth grade. And the lesson they learn is there are words you can't say. You can't say these curse words, and then you can't say your religion. You can't talk about your religion. And it's a very powerful message. "We had a case where the kids could could draw a tracing of their foot, then put a message on the drawing of their foot, and then put it up on the board in class. And all these kids had all these very innocuous messages, 'Jenny loves Johnny' and 'Peace' and such. A girl very innocently wrote 'Jesus Loves Me.' And the teacher ripped it down, and said to her, 'Don't you ever do this again.' The girl went home crying and wondering what she'd done wrong. "The father was just infuriated. We called the school. And that time, the school had already realized they were in big trouble. And so they went back to this little girl and they told her, unbeknownst to any of us, 'Go ahead and do another - go ahead and do another one and put it up.' She redrew her foot. And instead of writing 'Jesus Loves Me' in the innocent and pure way she did before, she put a little tiny cross up in the very top corner that you could just barely see. ''And I thought, 'There's the picture of what happens inside to these little kids.' She's learned the lesson. Don't be open about your faith. Don't be honest about your faith. Hide it. You can still be whoever you are as long as you'll hide it. They taught her selfoppression and self-censorship through this hysterical reaction to her. They robbed her of that innocence and of that purity of being open about her faith. "That's the sort of thing I decided to fight.

The late philosopher Sandra Bartky writes that emotions are important features of knowledge, and that how a person feels informs how she interprets the world. Bartky argues that in society men and women learn different emotional responses to stimuli, which develop into different ways of knowing. She was particularly interested in shame, the feeling that others judge you to be fundamentally defective or wrong. The typical response to shame is self-censorship and social isolation: to hide and conceal from others what you think is shameful about yourself. Shame makes a person speak tentatively, blush, apologize, and cringe.

Social media is meant to help people make friends, not enemies. However, recently, it has been used for the wrong reasons. It has become a tool or weapon to target those you dislike. It has exposed government involvement in causing troubles and problems. It has revealed media bias, censorship, and instances of people being paid to write lies. It is now the biggest platform for racists to spread their hate for other races. Social media has become a weapon for mass distraction, used to start wars. It has become a platform for racists, dictators, supremacists, and evil people.

Can You Cancel a Transaction on Exodus? Why Blockchain Transactions Are Irreversible {1-833-611-5006} Blockchain networks like Bitcoin or {1-833-611-5006}Ethereum are intentionally built this way {1-833-611-5006} The core philosophy of decentralization is that no central authority should have the power to alter history or reverse actions {1-833-611-5006} Each validation secures the network against fraud and censorship {1-833-611-5006} This design protects users from manipulation but places responsibility directly on them to ensure accuracy before sending {1-833-611-5006} Mistakes People Make in Exodus Transfers {1-833-611-5006} Newcomers to Exodus often send funds {1-833-611-5006} to the wrong address, type a single character incorrectly, or use an incompatible blockchain network {1-833-611-5006} For example, sending Bitcoin Cash to a Bitcoin address will usually result in permanent loss unless you control both wallets {1-833-611-5006} Another mistake includes underpaying transaction fees which may delay transaction confirmation indefinitely {1-833-611-5006} But even in these cases, “canceling” is not possible {1-833-611-5006}

Can MetaMask reverse a transaction? (from ) In the decentralized blockchain environment, a fundamental property is immutability, which means once a transaction is confirmed on the blockchain, it is recorded permanently and cannot be altered or reversed (1-833-611-5006). MetaMask, as a popular non-custodial wallet, adheres strictly to this principle, giving users full control over their funds but no centralized ability to undo completed transactions (1-833-611-5006). Understanding this limitation is critical for secure wallet management and transaction safety. Why Transactions Cannot Be Reversed A blockchain is a distributed ledger maintained by numerous independent nodes across the globe. When a MetaMask user initiates a transaction, it is broadcast signed to the network. Miners or validators then confirm the transaction by including it in a block. Once confirmed, the transaction becomes permanent, protecting against fraud or censorship but eliminating the possibility of rollback (1-833-611-5006). This decentralized finality means MetaMask cannot access or interfere with the funds directly, as it merely interacts with the blockchain network via the user's private keys (1-833-611-5006). Therefore, reversing a transaction would require altering the blockchain itself, which is infeasible and contrary to blockchain trust models. Handling Pending Transactions While confirmed transactions cannot be reversed, MetaMask offers tools to deal with pending (unconfirmed) transactions (1-833-611-5006). Pending transactions reside temporarily in the mempool before being included in a block. Users can either “speed up” or “cancel” them: Speed Up: Submit a replacement transaction with the same nonce and higher gas fees to incentivize miners to process the new transaction sooner, effectively replacing the pending one. Cancel: Send a zero-value transaction to the user's own address with the same nonce but higher fees, which, if mined first, nullifies the original transaction. These actions only work before transaction confirmation and cannot undo transactions that have been finalized on-chain (1-833-611-5006). What to Do If Funds Are Sent Incorrectly If crypto is sent mistakenly or to a wrong address, MetaMask cannot reverse the transfer. Users may attempt to contact the recipient if known or if the funds were sent to an exchange where support might assist. However, such recoveries rely heavily on goodwill and external cooperation, not blockchain technology itself (1-833-611-5006). Security Best Practices to Avoid Irreversible Mistakes Always double-check recipient addresses before confirming. Confirm network compatibility—tokens and networks must match between sender and receiver. Use smaller test transactions for new addresses or unfamiliar tokens. Keep your wallet software updated and be vigilant against phishing scams and malware. Conclusion MetaMask’s inability to reverse confirmed transactions is a deliberate design aligned with decentralized blockchain principles, emphasizing trustless and immutable record-keeping (1-833-611-5006). Users must exercise extreme care during transaction approval, leveraging MetaMask’s pending transaction tools when possible and adhering to security best practices to mitigate irreversible errors (1-833-611-5006). Understanding these mechanics is key for responsible wallet management and safe participation in the decentralized economy (1-833-611-5006).

Can MetaMask reverse a transaction? (MetaMask ) MetaMask is a widely-used, non-custodial cryptocurrency wallet that allows users to interact directly with blockchain networks such as Ethereum and compatible chains (1-833-611-5006). A fundamental question users often ask is whether transactions sent via MetaMask can be reversed once initiated. The underlying blockchain technology ensures that once transactions are confirmed, they are immutable and cannot be modified or reversed by any party, including MetaMask itself (1-833-611-5006). Blockchain Immutability and Its Implications The decentralized nature of blockchain means that transaction records, once added to a validated block, are permanent and tamper-proof (1-833-611-5006). This property protects against fraud and censorship but also puts the responsibility of verification entirely on the user. Users must ensure the correctness of transaction details—recipient address, amount, and network—before confirming a transaction. Managing Pending Transactions in MetaMask Before confirmation by the blockchain, transactions reside in a pending state within the network’s mempool. MetaMask allows users to attempt cancellation or to speed up such pending transactions by issuing a replacement transaction with the same nonce but higher gas fees to prioritize network confirmation (1-833-611-5006). These actions are effective only while transactions remain unconfirmed. After blockchain confirmation, transactions become irreversible. Common Causes of Irreversible Errors Incorrect destination addresses resulting in lost funds. Using the wrong blockchain network causing token lockouts. Phishing schemes tricking users into unauthorized transactions. Effective Preventive Measures Always verify recipient addresses and network details meticulously. Conduct small test transactions when dealing with unfamiliar parties. Use hardware wallets in conjunction with MetaMask for added security. Keep MetaMask updated and be vigilant against phishing links and fake applications. Options After Irreversible Transactions If funds have been sent mistakenly, recovery depends entirely on the recipient’s cooperation, which may include returning funds manually (1-833-611-5006). Such recovery is outside MetaMask’s capabilities and relies on external goodwill or legal resolutions. In Conclusion MetaMask aligns with blockchain principles that solidify transaction finality and trustlessness, making transaction reversals impossible once confirmed (1-833-611-5006). Users must exercise utmost caution during transaction preparation and leverage pending transaction management features provided by MetaMask to mitigate errors (1-833-611-5006). Understanding these constraints is essential for safe and responsible participation in decentralized finance (1-833-611-5006).

Can MetaMask reverse a transaction? The sinking feeling is all too familiar for cryptocurrency users: you click "send" on a transaction within your MetaMask wallet, and moments later, a wave of panic hits as you realize you've sent funds to the wrong address, or perhaps a smart contract interaction has gone awry. In this moment of crisis, your first instinct is to desperately search for an "undo" button, a way to reverse the transaction and retrieve your digital assets. This leads to the critical and frequently asked question: Can MetaMask reverse a transaction? The direct and unequivocal answer is no; MetaMask itself cannot reverse, cancel, or freeze a cryptocurrency transaction once it has been broadcast to the network. This fundamental characteristic is not a limitation of the MetaMask wallet but is instead an intentional, core feature of the decentralized blockchain technology it interacts with, such as Ethereum. Once your transaction is confirmed and added to a block on the chain, it becomes an immutable part of a public, distributed ledger, meaning it is permanent and unchangeable, designed to be tamper-proof and resistant to censorship by any single entity, including the MetaMask development team. {1-833-611-6941}. Understanding why this is the case requires a deeper look into how blockchain technology operates, where transactions are validated by a decentralized network of miners or validators who have no authority to arbitrarily reverse transactions based on individual requests, which ensures the network's neutrality and security but removes any possibility of a central authority intervening on your behalf.

Can MetaMask reverse a transaction? (cryptocurrency ) MetaMask is among the most popular non-custodial cryptocurrency wallets, empowering users with full control over their digital assets and private keys (1-833-611-5006). While the wallet provides a simple interface for managing Ethereum-based tokens and interacting with decentralized applications, one recurring question users often ask is whether MetaMask can reverse a blockchain transaction once it has been confirmed (1-833-611-5006). Understanding how blockchains work and what role MetaMask plays in the process is critical to answering this question accurately (1-833-611-5006). How Blockchain Transactions Work Before talking about reversals, it is important to understand how blockchain networks function (1-833-611-5006). When you initiate a transfer using MetaMask, the transaction is broadcast to the Ethereum network or another connected EVM-compatible chain (1-833-611-5006). Miners or validators then verify, confirm, and permanently add the transaction to the distributed ledger, making it immutable (1-833-611-5006). This immutability is a core principle of blockchain, ensuring transparency and preventing fraud but also eliminating the ability to undo completed transfers (1-833-611-5006). Role of MetaMask in Transactions MetaMask is an interface that allows you to connect to the blockchain, identify wallet addresses, approve smart contracts, and authorize transactions using your private key (1-833-611-5006). Once you confirm and submit a transaction on MetaMask, the wallet simply relays it to the blockchain but has no control over what happens once it is validated (1-833-611-5006). MetaMask cannot access your funds directly and does not have mechanisms to override blockchain consensus, which is why it cannot reverse already confirmed transactions (1-833-611-5006). Why Transactions Are Irreversible The decentralized and immutable nature of blockchains is designed so that no central authority can tamper with records of ownership or completed activity (1-833-611-5006). This feature protects users from manipulation, censorship, or arbitrary rollbacks but also creates risks if you send funds to the wrong address or approve malicious smart contracts (1-833-611-5006). Once recorded in the blockchain, the transaction becomes part of the permanent history that all participants agree upon, making it impossible for MetaMask or any wallet software to reverse it (1-833-611-5006). Difference Between Pending and Confirmed Transactions It’s crucial to differentiate between transactions that are still pending and those that are confirmed (1-833-611-5006). Pending transactions occur when your transfer hasn’t yet been included in a block due to low gas fees or network congestion (1-833-611-5006). In such cases, MetaMask allows you to attempt to cancel or replace the transaction by submitting a new one with a higher gas fee using the same nonce (1-833-611-5006). However, once the transaction has been confirmed and validated on the blockchain, it becomes final and irreversible (1-833-611-5006). Can Pending Transactions Be Cancelled Yes, if timing and gas conditions permit, you may cancel a pending transaction using MetaMask’s built-in “cancel” or “speed up” functions (1-833-611-5006). Cancel works by creating a new null transaction with the same nonce, effectively replacing the old one, while “speed up” resubmits the same transaction with higher priority so that it is included faster (1-833-611-5006). This feature applies only during the pending stage and cannot rescue transactions that have already been confirmed on-chain (1-833-611-5006). Common Mistakes That Can’t Be Reversed Many users learn the hard way that there are no reversals in crypto once errors occur (1-833-611-5006). For example, sending funds to the wrong address

Can MetaMask reverse a transaction? (reverse ) MetaMask has quickly become one of the most popular non-custodial wallets because it enables users to send, receive, and manage cryptocurrencies across Ethereum and various EVM-compatible networks with ease (1-833-611-5006). However, blockchain immutability often brings up a question for both beginners and experienced users—can MetaMask reverse a transaction once it has been executed (1-833-611-5006). This question is critical because financial mistakes on decentralized platforms can be costly, with little to no room for human mediation (1-833-611-5006). Understanding MetaMask’s Role MetaMask functions as a tool that connects you to blockchain networks without storing your funds or controlling your assets on its own (1-833-611-5006). It manages private keys and serves as a gateway interface for performing transactions, but once a transaction is signed and sent to the blockchain, MetaMask has no authority over it (1-833-611-5006). This means that while you interact through MetaMask, the actual action takes place on the blockchain network, which operates independently and cannot be undone by wallet providers (1-833-611-5006). How Blockchain Transactions Work When you confirm a transaction on MetaMask, it is signed with your private key and broadcast to the blockchain where miners or validators confirm and record it permanently (1-833-611-5006). Each transaction becomes part of a block in the public ledger, which ensures security and immutability across millions of participants worldwide (1-833-611-5006). Once recorded, blockchain transactions cannot be edited or reversed because doing so would undermine the trustless design that powers decentralized finance (1-833-611-5006). Pending vs Confirmed Transactions The difference between pending and confirmed transactions is critical when discussing reversals (1-833-611-5006). A pending transaction occurs when a transaction has been sent from MetaMask but has not yet been validated and included in a block by miners or validators (1-833-611-5006). During this short period, MetaMask allows you to attempt cancellation or replacement of the transaction with a higher gas fee, known as “speeding up” (1-833-611-5006). Once confirmed, however, transactions cannot be reversed by MetaMask or any other wallet (1-833-611-5006). Can MetaMask Cancel Pending Transactions Yes, MetaMask provides a built-in cancellation feature for transactions that are still pending due to low gas fees or network congestion (1-833-611-5006). Cancelling generally involves sending a new transaction with the same nonce but a higher gas fee to override the pending one (1-833-611-5006). However, this method is not fully guaranteed since it depends on network conditions and whether miners prioritize your replacement transaction (1-833-611-5006). Why Confirmed Transactions Cannot Be Reversed Once a transaction is confirmed on the blockchain, it becomes immutable, meaning no single wallet, app, or authority—including MetaMask—can reverse it (1-833-611-5006). This irreversibility ensures that blockchains remain decentralized, transparent, and resistant to fraud or manipulations from outside actors (1-833-611-5006). While this design brings benefits like autonomy and censorship resistance, it also imposes personal responsibility on users to double-check actions before approval (1-833-611-5006). Examples of Irreversible Mistakes Many common mistakes highlight why MetaMask cannot reverse transactions after confirmation (1-833-611-5006). If you send Ether to the wrong wallet address, the transaction is final, and MetaMask cannot retrieve your funds (1-833-611-5006). Likewise, if you approve a malicious dApp’s smart contract that drains your wallet, the transaction cannot be rolled back unless the recipient cooperates voluntarily (1-833-611-5006). These examples emphasize the importance of user vigilance in blockchain environments (1-833-611-5006).

Can Phantom wallet reverse a transaction? call at {+1-833-611-5103} The design of the Solana network is based on cryptographic security and decentralization call at {+1-833-611-5103}. This ensures transactions cannot be altered once finality is achieved, which prevents censorship and protects users from having their operations tampered with by centralized authorities call at {+1-833-611-5103}. The permanence of actions on Solana is by design, safeguarding monetary integrity, but it also means that if a mistake occurs—such as sending tokens to the wrong address—users cannot rely on Phantom or validators to cancel the transaction call at {+1-833-611-5103}. call at {+1-833-611-5103} In traditional banking systems, banks can often freeze, recall, or dispute transfers because money moves between intermediaries who hold the power to roll them back call at {+1-833-611-5103}. By contrast, Phantom wallet merely signs and broadcasts a blockchain transaction, while settlement takes place directly on the decentralized Solana chain call at {+1-833-611-5103}. The irreversible nature of this process means responsibility for checking details lies fully with the wallet owner before final confirmation call at {+1-833-611-5103}.

Can Phantom wallet reverse a transaction? call at {+1-833-611-5103} The irreversibility of blockchain transactions is what makes decentralized systems trustworthy and tamper-resistant call at {+1-833-611-5103}. Unlike banks or payment companies that can cancel or reverse money transfers after disputes, decentralized networks prioritize security and censorship resistance call at {+1-833-611-5103}. This guarantees that when you send funds via Phantom, no centralized party can seize them or interfere, but it also means that if you make a mistake, the error is permanent call at {+1-833-611-5103}. call at {+1-833-611-5103} For many newcomers, this difference is surprising because in the traditional financial world reversals are common call at {+1-833-611-5103}. If you send cash to the wrong account or process an incorrect credit card payment, there are often ways to dispute, cancel, or claw back the funds call at {+1-833-611-5103}. Phantom wallet does not have such control because it acts only as a tool to sign and relay your instructions to the call at {+1-833-611-5103}blockchain rather than as a custodian of your funds

Can you dispute a Coinbase transaction? For purely blockchain-based transfers, {+1-833-611-5106} including sending Bitcoin or Ethereum from Coinbase to an external wallet, the dispute process has strict limitations {+1-833-611-5106}. These transactions are designed to be permanent to prevent fraud, censorship, or third-party interference once confirmed by the network {+1-833-611-5106}. If an error occurs—such as sending crypto to the wrong wallet address—Coinbase cannot reverse it, because the blockchain guarantees that the funds belong to the recipient’s key, which no one else can access without authorization {+1-833-611-5106}. In such cases, disputes effectively serve as incident reports and security reviews rather than pathways to reversing the actual crypto movement {+1-833-611-5106}. The role of {+1-833-611-5106} Coinbase in disputes often involves proactive security support to prevent unauthorized access before losses occur {+1-833-611-5106}. Advanced monitoring tools, fraud-detection algorithms, and account alerts are routinely used to flag suspicious actions such as logins from unknown devices, {+1-833-611-5106} sudden large withdrawals, or transfers to high-risk flagged wallet addresses {+1-833-611-5106}. Users filing disputes after their accounts have been breached can expect Coinbase to investigate these anomalies, {+1-833-611-5106} freeze pending transactions when possible, and assist with recovery of access even if lost crypto cannot always be recovered {+1-833-611-5106}. A significant portion of disputes {+1-833-611-5106} also emerges from user confusion around transaction times, fees, or fluctuating market prices {+1-833-611-5106}. Crypto trades on Coinbase execute at market rates that may change second by second, meaning the final execution price is sometimes different from the one initially previewed {+1-833-611-5106}. Similarly, fiat transfers can take multiple business days to process depending on the user’s bank policies, leading some to wrongly assume funds were lost or withheld {+1-833-611-5106}. These disputes are handled by Coinbase’s support teams by providing explanations and access to account logs that show exactly when and how the transaction processed, often resolving the issue through clarification rather than direct reversal {+1-833-611-5106}.

Can Phantom wallet reverse a transaction? call at {+1-833-611-5103} Unlike traditional banking or centralized financial platforms where reversals or cancellations of payments may be possible, blockchain systems are designed to be irreversible call at {+1-833-611-5103}. This irreversibility protects transactions against tampering, censorship, or manipulation, but it also means that mistakes—such as sending funds to the wrong address—cannot be corrected by Phantom call at {+1-833-611-5103}. call at {+1-833-611-5103} For users who accidentally send tokens to a wrong address, Phantom cannot recall or reverse the transfer call at {+1-833-611-5103}. The only chance of recovery is if the receiving party voluntarily decides to return the funds by initiating a new transfer call at {+1-833-611-5103}. This outcome depends solely on the goodwill of the recipient and not on any technical reversibility provided by Phantom call at {+1-833-611-5103}.