Facebook Rejects Ad For ‘I Am A Christian’ Movie

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

Facebook rejected an ad by the producers of the film I Am A Christian because the company says it degrades people.

The film is to be about the life of a Sudanese woman, Meriam Ibrahim, who was sentenced to 100 lashes and death by her government for her refusal to renounce her Christian faith. Ibrahim was pregnant at the time, and her story captured international attention. She gave birth to a baby girl in prison.

The Sudanese high court eventually overturned Ibrahim’s sentence; and she, her husband, and two children took refuge in the U.S. embassy in Sudan. The United States government offered asylum; and after some high-level diplomatic negotiations with the assistance of the Italian government, Ibrahim and her family were allowed to emigrate to the U.S. last summer.

When the producers of the independent film I Am A Christian–slated to star Clueless actor Stacey Dash and Hercules actor Kevin Sorbo–tried to promote a crowdsourcing site for the project on Facebook, they received an opaque message back from the company.

As reported in the Christian Examiner:

In a press statement, Brian Harrington, a spokesman for the movie group, claimed Facebook sent a message which said the ad was not approved “because it doesn’t follow Facebook’s Advertising Guidelines for language that is profane, vulgar, threatening or generates high negative feedback.

“Ads can’t use language that insults, harasses or demeans people, or addresses their age, gender, name, race, physical condition or sexual preference,” the message added, according to Harrington.

He said a subsequent exchange with Facebook evinced a response that said the ad did not conform to Facebook’s “language policies.”

“We’ve found that people dislike ads that directly address them or their personal characteristics such as religion.

“Ads should not single out individuals or degrade people. We don’t accept language like ‘Are you fat?’ ‘Wanna join me?’ and the like. Instead, text must present realistic and accurate information in a neutral or positive way and should not have any direct attribution to people.”

The ad the producers wanted to put on Facebook asks:

“Are you a Christian? We challenge you to change your profile picture to this ‘I Am A Christian’ photo for one week! Change your picture now, and challenge your friends to do the same. Stand up and declare Yes, I Am A Christian!!!”

The photo with the ad also included a website link, www.YesIAmAChristian.com, and a message encouraging viewers to “Join the movement.”

i-am-a-christian

Apparently, asking Facebook users if they are Christian was the offensive message.

Meriam Ibrahim does not support the making of the film I Am A Christian because it is being made without her consent.

h/t: Daily Caller

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Look What One Of The World’s Biggest Schoolbook Publishers Just ‘Banned’ To Avoid Offense

wikipedia

It could hardly have come at a worse time — the notice from one of the world’s biggest publishers of schoolbooks and teaching materials that its authors should avoid using the word “pigs” and should not write about anything that could be perceived as pork-related…including sausages.

Right in the midst of the Paris-centered celebration and defense of freedom of expression that’s drawn millions to stand up for the liberties that radical Islam would try to destroy, along comes this “guidance” from Oxford University Press.

As reported by London’s Daily Mail, “Schoolbook authors have been told not to write about sausages or pigs for fear of causing offense…among Jews and Muslims.”

Many millions of students and teachers use books from Oxford University Press, which, according to its website, publishes more than 6,000 titles a year worldwide.

“Our range includes dictionaries, English language teaching materials, children’s books, journals, scholarly monographs, printed music, higher education textbooks, and schoolbooks.”

An article in the International Business Times notes that the no-pig, no-pork publishing guidance was disclosed during a BBC radio show on free speech in the wake of the brutal Islamic terrorists’ attack on Charlie Hebdo. One of the show hosts ridiculed the advisory:

Now, if a respectable publisher, tied to an academic institution, is saying you’ve got to write a book in which you cannot mention pigs because some people might be offended, it’s just ludicrous. It is just a joke.

A spokesman for the prestigious Oxford University Press reportedly defended the new guidelines in light of heightened “sensitivities” to cultural differences around the world and the potential for creating an offense.

“Our materials are sold in nearly 200 countries, and as such, and without compromising our commitment in any way, we encourage some authors of educational materials respectfully to consider cultural differences and sensitivities.”

On the BBC radio program, as reported by The Daily Mail, Tory MP Phillip Davies lambasted the publisher’s “nonsensical” no-pig guidelines, especially in textbooks and academic works where freedom of expression should be at its fullest display.

On the one hand you have politicians and the great and the good falling over each other to say how much they believe in freedom of speech and on the other hand they are presiding over people being unable to use and write words that are completely inoffensive.

We have got to get a grip on this nonsensical political correctness.

h/t: International Business Times

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Mark Steyn: Media Retreating Further Into Self-Censorship

Fox News Channel

Conservative political commentator Mark Steyn was a guest on Fox News Channel’s The Kelly File, where he blasted the lack of so-called solidarity with the dead journalists of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo following the brutal terrorist attack on Wednesday.

I see all these teary candlelit  vigils and everyone suddenly claiming to be for freedom of speech.  I think a consequence of this is a lot of people will retreat even further into self-censorship.

Steyn had some choice words for the New York Daily News for blurring the Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Muhammad.

The New York Daily News won’t even show – dishonors the dead in Paris – by not even showing properly the cartoons. They pixelated Muhammad out of it so it looks like Muhammad is in the Witness Protection Program but they left the hook-nose Jew in. And that exactly gets to the double standard here. You can say anything you like about Christianity. You can say anything you like about Judaism. But these guys, everyone understands the message, that if you say something about Islam these guys will kill you. And we will be retreating into a lot more self-censorship if the “pansy-ified” western media doesn’t man up and decide to disperse the risks. So they can’t just kill one little, small French satirical magazine, they gotta kill all of us.

Steyn had contempt for President Obama’s United Nations speech after the Benghazi attack in 2012 when he said that “The future shall not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

He talked the talk. These savage murdering fanatics in Paris today walked the walk.  So words matter.

h/t: The Right Scoop

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Christian Programming Is Being Blocked From Your TV Lineup





Flickr Creative Commons Greendyker No Christianity logo

It is difficult to flip the channels through cable – or even network – television anymore without stumbling upon vile language, graphic sexuality, and shocking acts of violence. With the entertainment market so splintered among niche networks, there is no shortage of virtually any type of programming.

For those paying attention to our nation’s protracted slide into secularism, however, it may come as no surprise that there is one notable exception: religious content. There are few faith-based options among most content providers and, as recent reports indicate, at least one company is thinning its offerings even further.

DirecTV recently announced it will drop the Inspiration Network from its lineup, leaving its stable of profane and worldly channels untouched. Incredibly, reports indicate the provider also misrepresented the development by suggesting the network initiated the split.

In reality, it appears the decision was wholly that of the provider. Perhaps the most baffling aspect of the decision lies in the fact that DirecTV did not gain anything – or save any money – by dropping the network.

Unlike the majority of channels carried by the company, the Inspiration Network does not charge a license fee to providers. Many failing networks cost carriers millions per year, however, and still remain prominent options in cable packages across the nation.

For example, DirecTV spends an estimated $25 million annually to carry Islamic news network Al Jazeera. Christian content the company received for free, however, was somehow deemed unacceptable.

Supporters of the network – and Christian programming in general – are adding their names to a petition that will be sent directly to DirecTV. Those upset with the company’s decision are also encouraged to call 1 (844) 438-4677 to express their disappointment.

A number of moral leaders, including former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, have taken to social media and other outlets to sound off on the issue.

 

Unfortunately, this cancellation is just one of countless signs that, in an age of ultra-tolerance of almost any perverse lifestyle, the only character trait allowed to be openly savaged is a faith in Jesus Christ.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at tips@westernjournalism.com

 





Media Once Again Silent Regarding Major Pro-life Campaign

Abortion Protestor SC 214x300 Media once again silent regarding major pro life campaign

The mainstream media are perfectly willing to exaggerate attendance at ideologically friendly events, thus propelling them to a level warranting coverage. When a protest or demonstration suggesting a conservative ideal attracts significant support, though, the same sources pretend it never happened.

Such is the case with a pro-life campaign known as “40 Days for Life.” The international initiative kicked off Wednesday and is set to include stops in 306 cities during upcoming weeks. At an evening vigil in Washington, D.C., which included prominent speakers and served as the first push to increase participating in the event, just one media source showed up — the conservative Media Research Center.

The campaign is dedicated to spreading a message of hope to women facing unwanted pregnancy through prayer, fasting, community outreach, and by standing vigil outside of abortion mills.

Nearly 600,000 individuals are involved in 40 Days of Life, which claims that its efforts have resulted in more than 7,500 saved lives.

Speaking to a crowd virtually bereft of journalists, Billy Valentine of the Susan B. Anthony List detailed recent strides in the pro-life movement, including an increase in shuttered abortion clinics and positive legislative trends.

These inconvenient facts run afoul of the media’s abortion narrative. The same sources tried desperately to prevent coverage of the Kermit Gosnell trial, which exposed the twisted, sadistic actions of an immoral butcher. While a reporter’s job is ostensibly to cover news events, many in today’s media are more concerned about protecting the institution’s sacred cows.

According to MRC research, network media outlets have never covered the 40 Days for Life campaign, an event whose participation rate alone should warrant at least some reportage.

While the leftist news industry once had a firm stranglehold on what information consumers could access, that trend is quickly reversing course in the age of new media. Though entrenched progressives will continue to shun any event that does not support their radical worldview, conservatives can and will get their message out through less hostile resources.

It can be incredibly frustrating to witness the mainstream censorship of relevant news based only on ideological differences, but that stubbornness only leads to a decreased market share for the dinosaurs within establishment media.