National Archives Forced to Apologize After Blurring Profane Women’s March Signs in Captured Photos | Eastern North Carolina Now

Publisher's note: This informational nugget was sent to me by Ben Shapiro, who represents the Daily Wire, and since this is one of the most topical news events, it should be published on BCN.

The author of this post is Emily Zanotti.

    The National Archives has been forced to apologize to women who marched as part of the inaugural Women's March after they had the audacity to blur out images and mentions of the female anatomy for a photo of the march placed in a public display.

    The Associated Press reports that the National Archives obscured several signs that made mention of ladyparts as well as a handful of "anti-Trump" signs, both so that the photo could be put on display in the National Archives building and so that the American institution wouldn't be seen as taking a side in an ongoing, often acrimonious, political debate.

    "The exhibit about the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, blurred some anti-Trump messages on protest signs in a photo of the 2017 Women's March in Washington," the AP reported, adding that the exhibit was double-sided, so that visitors to the building could view a photo of a suffrage march when standing in one spot, and a photo of the Women's March when standing in another. A placard nearby noted that the display was designed to celebrate 100 years of women's suffrage.

    "Archives spokeswoman Miriam Kleiman told the Post for its report that the nonpartisan, nonpolitical federal agency blurred the anti-Trump references 'so as not to engage in current political controversy.'" The many references to the vagina were blurred out in "deference to student groups and young people who visit the archives."

    Women's March-ers became furious after the Washington Post published an "expose" on the edits, noting that a sign reading "God Hates Trump" had been blurred to hide the President's name, and suggested that the National Archives' effort to protect children from gratuitous photos and depictions of the female anatomy was the group's way of "erasing women."

    The archives apologized, noting that the photo they used wasn't from the actual national archives, but a photo they licensed specifically for use in that particular display. They pledged to obtain a second version of the photo, this time without edits.

    "As the National Archives of the United States, we are and have always been completely committed to preserving our archival holdings, without alteration," the Archives said in a statement. "In an elevator lobby promotional display for our current exhibit on the 19th Amendment, we obscured some words on protest signs in a photo of the 2017 Women's March. This photo is not an archival record held by the National Archives, but one we licensed to use as a promotional graphic. Nonetheless, we were wrong to alter the image."

    That wasn't sufficient for the Women's March, however.

    "Apologizing is not enough," Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union said in response. "The National Archives must explain to the public why it took the Orwellian step of trying to rewrite history and erasing women's bodies from it, as well as who ordered it."

    Leftists on social media speculated, of course, that the order to edit the photo came straight from the White House. The National Archives says they made the decision, however.

    The fourth annual Women's March took place on Saturday to almost no fanfare. While the first march, held just days after President Donald Trump was sworn in, was record-breaking, subsequent marches have not been. This year, only a few thousand people showed up for the march in Washington, D.C., and the national Women's March organization - now mostly in ruins after several founding members were accused of harboring anti-Semitic views and aligning with the virulently anti-Semitic Nation of Islam - chose to host gathering to "raise awareness" about issues like climate change and reproductive rights instead.