The Supreme Court on Tuesday weighed whether Congress can legally require that foreign affiliates of U.S. groups fighting AIDS overseas explicitly oppose prostitution and sex trafficking as a condition for receiving federal funding.

The justices previously ruled that Congresss funding requirement violated the First Amendment when it applied to U.S. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) engaged in the global fight against HIV and AIDS.

Following the Supreme Courts 2013 ruling, several American NGOs filed a second lawsuit seeking to have those protections extended to their foreign partners.

David Bowker, who argued the case on behalf of the NGOs, said free speech rights should apply equally to U.S. groups and their foreign affiliates because of the closeness of their relationship. Applying different requirements could run the risk of doublespeak and undermine the groups mission, he said.

There can be a risk of attribution across corporate lines, where the entities in question are so clearly identified as they are here, Bowker said, emphasizing the close connection, when those entities speak together with one voice and make their speech and policy decisions together.

Chris Michel, an assistant U.S. solicitor general, said that while lawmakers cannot require the American groups to disavow the international sex trade, imposing such requirements on their foreign affiliates is a lawful exercise of Congresss power of the purse.

Respondents themselves are not subject to a funding condition so they can't have an unconstitutional conditions claim, he said. And the foreign entities that are subject to the funding condition have no constitutional rights, so they can't have an unconstitutional conditions claim either.

The law in question is a 2003 statute known as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act. The law originally said only U.S. NGOs with a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking were eligible for funding, before the justices struck down that provision.

See the original post here:

Justices weigh whether US requirements on overseas NGOs violate free speech | TheHill - The Hill

The acrimonious split of Masha and Ronnie Shak ended up where many divorces do these days on Facebook.

As the proceedings unfolded, Mr. Shak offered a running commentary on social media, shared with the couples rabbi, assistant rabbi and members of their synagogue, court documents show.

He created a GoFundMe page entitled Help me KEEP MY SON. He called his ex-wife an evil liar. He illustrated the posts with a video of their one-year-old son, and told their friends to unfriend her.

That was until a probate court judge banned Mr. Shak from posting on social media about his divorce, a common practice known as a nondisparagement order.

As important as it is to protect a child from the emotional and psychological harm that might follow from one parents use of vulgar or disparaging words about the other, merely reciting that interest is not enough to satisfy the heavy burden of restricting speech, Justice Kimberly S. Budd wrote in a 13-page ruling.

Jennifer M. Lamanna, a lawyer who represented Mr. Shak in the appeal, called the ruling a game-changer because family and probate judges in the state frequently give such orders, and treat violations as contempt of court, carrying severe penalties.

There are thousands of these out there, which is why this is, for Massachusetts purposes, a landmark ruling, she said. People ask for them routinely and they are just handed out.

She said the orders, used for decades to control disparaging speech, have been expanded in recent years to focus on social media.

Under such orders, she said, my client could write a nasty letter to everyone he knows, but hes not allowed to put it up on social media. You can whisper in your synagogue, make nasty remarks about your ex-wife, but you cant put it up on Facebook.

Ms. Shaks attorney, Richard M. Novitch, said the ruling had an immediate, negative effect, prompting Mr. Shak to resume his postings on social media. Within the last 24 hours of the Shak case being issued by the S.J.C., hes right back at it, blowing up on social media, he said. Theres nothing that stops him.

While Mr. Novitch called the decision constitutionally sound, he said that common sense would suggest that children should be insulated from the combat between parents.

It will give license to a lot of bad actors to say what they want, regardless of where and when and the circumstances, he said.

The case underscored the role social media can play in modern divorce, as dueling parties try to win support from their circle of acquaintances.

Shortly after filing for divorce and seeking to remove Mr. Shak from their shared home, Ms. Shak filed a motion to prohibit him from posting disparaging remarks about her on social media. Two family court judges complied, with the second, George F. Phelan, issuing an order preventing both Mr. and Ms. Shak from posting any disparagement of the other party on social media until their son reached the age of 14.

Judge Phelans ruling prevented both spouses from using four specific expletives, as well as other pejoratives involving any gender, noting that the Court acknowledges the impossibility of listing herein all of the opprobrious vitriol and their permutations within the human lexicon.

It also banned the parents from posting photographs of their son in poses the judge considered inappropriate.

The court finds that the fathers posing, taking and posting of the photo of the parties child (then less than one year old) with a cigarette in his mouth was in poor taste, even if intended as a joke, and causes the Court to question the fathers maturity, the judge wrote.

But Judge Phelan also put the order on hold, to be reviewed on constitutional grounds by the Supreme Judicial Court. And this week, the court found it unconstitutional.

An order preventing someone from carrying out a certain kind of speech, known as prior restraint, is legal in the United States when the threat of damage caused by that speech is compelling. But though the state does have an interest in protecting children from being exposed to disparagement between their parents, it is not grave enough to justify restricting freedom of speech, the ruling said.

The ruling noted that one spouse, if offended by the others speech, has the option of suing for defamation or seeking a harassment prevention order. It also noted that the judges ruling does not apply to voluntary nondisparagement agreements.

What are people with common sense going to do? Theyre going to go out in the hallway and reach an accord in which each agrees not to disparage the other, said Mr. Novitch, Ms. Shaks attorney. It will be based on the agreement of the parties, not on judicial fiat.

Ruth A. Bourquin, a senior attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union, the co-author of an amicus brief supporting Mr. Shak, said she was relieved by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling. Were so grateful that the S.J.C. reiterated the first amendment principles, and recognized that they applied here, she said, comparing social media to the new town square.

Thats what it is, she said. Just because its bigger doesnt mean we can say that the rights of free speech dont apply. Having a government actor say you can say this, and not say that, is a somewhat scary alternative.

View original post here:

Divorcing Parents Have a Right to Post Their Stories Online, Court Says - The New York Times

I read Ewan Gurrs column about the SNPs Hate Crime Bill which appears to me to stand up for every minority while punishing anyone who in their opinion says anything that slights them.

Late comedians such as Dick Emery, Benny Hill and Dave Allen would all be arrested, while Frankie Boyle will maybe be put down.

As for myself and thousands of other football fans, are we to be charged for chanting Stand up if you hate Dundee/Hibs/Hearts or any other club?

What has happened to free speech?

The mind boggles.

Yours,

Concerned Reader.

Throughout my life, I have disagreed with many and disliked some but do not think I can say I have ever hated anyone.

The SNP can now resolve that question with their authoritarian new Hate Crime Bill which carries a maximum seven year jail term for anyone who stirs up hatred or insults anyone on the basis of age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or variations in sex characteristics.

The intent of the legislation proposed by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Humza Yousaf, is not in question because hate is not pleasant for anyone who has ever been on the receiving end.

However, the Bill extends to those who possess inflammatory material or employers who fail to report those who promote it.

Could we eventually see a church minister prosecuted for failing to officiate a same sex wedding, a history student penalised for purchasing a copy of Mein Kampf for an essay on the Second World War or Frankie Boyle being hauled before a judge for hurting the feelings of a paedophile?

Currently, Scotlands two biggest SNP-led councils are being taken to court over the alleged suppression of freedom of speech and dialogue concerning the postponed Gender Recognition Act is expected to become more intense.

The Scottish Government could not have selected a worse time to present this Bill if they tried.

See the rest here:

Readers' Letters: 'Hate bill an attack on free speech and could affect football and comedy' - Evening Telegraph

Last week, a video titled The Plandemic popped up in a furious, urgent flood of posts in my Facebook feed.

People urged each other to watch the video before censors banned it from YouTube.

Wake up! wrote one friend.

Please watch this before they ban it! pleaded another.

So I watched it.

Although small sections of the film piqued my curiosity, it was simply another run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory -- rich in frightening charges yet poor in verifiable evidence.

And then I waited.

Sure enough, mere hours later, skeptics began posting comments and links to articles challenging the credibility of the videos subject -- Dr. Judy Mikovitz.

But just as sure enough, rather than letting viewers watch the video and debate its merits for themselves, YouTube removed it, stating that it violated the communitys guidelines.

I had to shake my head.

Surely the social media giants know the psychology behind banned material?

Take something away and it doesnt go away. It pops up elsewhere, this time having earned tantalizing new cache.

How many headlines scream: This was banned because they dont want you to know the truth!

Click.

Though now mainly observed on social media, this effect isnt anything new.

When a library in Concord, Mass., banned The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from its shelves, Mark Twain wrote with delight, They have expelled Huck from their library as trash and suitable only for the slums. That will sell 25,000 copies for us sure.

Whats that line about those who refuse to learn from history?

Facebook, YouTube and the big tech powers-that-be shouldnt censor material that doesnt break the law.

Even when someone thinks its questionable.

Even when someone thinks its dead wrong.

Even, I hate to say, when someone thinks its fake news.

Because the problem here and forever-after will be in determining just who the censor should be.

To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? asked the late Christopher Hitchens during a lecture on free speech, Or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the job of being the censor?

Is the answer a bunch of software engineers huddled together in a Silicon Valley conference room, or equally as bad, a committee of experts they hire to do the job for them?

They simply dont have to do anything of the sort platform users and social media communities already monitor information themselves in a much more transparent, democratic, free and American exchange of ideas.

This is America. We dont ban speech here. Or at least we shouldnt.

Still, if YouTube and Facebook dont ban controversial posts, will that mean that misleading, incomplete or inaccurate information will sometimes go viral?

Yes. Of course. Thats a problem.

Taking material down wont stop it from spreading and wont stop some people from believing it.

But it will remove our opportunity to openly debunk it.

Leaving it up gives others the opportunity to comment, challenge, educate and even apply peer pressure when appropriate since most of us want to avoid the stigma of sharing bad info. We dont want to be associated with being duped. There is a lot of community pressure to do your research, check your facts and be skeptical.

Censorship is troubling for another reason: It can silence small, minority, dissenting opinions that are true, that do point out corruption, that should be spread because they unearth information wed never know otherwise.

The fantastic Netflix documentary The Pharmacist is a perfect example. No doubt Dan Schneider seemed like a quack conspiracy theorist for calling out Purdue Pharma, OxyContin and corrupt pill-mill doctors in Louisiana.

That is, until millions of ruined lives later it turned out he was right.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Let people speak their minds. Bring ideas into the light where they can be discussed, debated, proved or disproved in the open.

If people are worried that the videos, articles and posts they want to share will be banned, they may be more likely to urgently and quickly fire them off with less pause.

And we really should pause.

Rachel Blackmon Bryars is a Huntsville-based columnist for Al.com, co-host of Belle Curve Podcast and managing partner of Bryars Communications, LLC. Keep up with her work on her Facebook page.

More articles about the pandemic by Rachel Blackmon Bryars:

Go here to see the original:

Its un-American and ineffective to ban speech - AL.com

Everybody wants a bailout. Higher education has its hand out, too.

The University of California alone suffered an estimated $558 million in unanticipated costs because of the coronavirus pandemic just for the month of March.The American Council of Education already has asked for $46.6 billion in federal bailout money. If they get it, theyll be back for more once it runs out.

Even on the right, which is justly wary of the higher education establishments inefficiency and partisan bias, millions of Americans acknowledge the value of college education done right.

Even on the left, millions of Americans ask whether their tax dollars should subsidize colleges that are bureaucratic, insulated and often anti-American. Even President Obama and former vice president Joe Biden, the Democrats presumptive nominee this year, criticize higher educations excessive political correctness.

Longtime professors such as myself ask whether Congress can support higher education without subsidizing segments of our universities that are dysfunctional, spendthrift and hostile to free speech. For some good answers, legislators and others concerned with higher education should read the new report from the National Association of Scholars (NAS).

The authors of the report, Critical Care: Policy Recommendations to Restore American Higher Education after the 2020 Coronavirus Shutdown, mainly former professors, understand the ivory towers strengths and its flaws. They argue that any bailout needs guiding principles:

The reports recommendations provide detailed guidance for applying these principles.

First, no taxpayer dollars should provide emergency relief to the 100 or so colleges and universities with the biggest endowments. As the ongoing college admissions scandals show, many elite institutions appear to have prioritized revenue over integrity for decades. In any case, they are fabulously well endowed, with the resources to take care of themselves.

Second, in recent decades the number of higher education administrators has increased far beyond what colleges need. Bureaucrats now hugely outnumber professors and instructors, and as Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt show in The Coddling of the American Mind, particularly regarding free speech and academic rigor, such bureaucrats often do more harm than good. Accordingly, institutions receiving bailouts should agree to a 50 percent cut in administrative overhead as a condition of aid. Generally, aid should reward colleges that keep tuition and fees low.

Third, bailouts should put students first. During this national emergency, we should freeze student loan repayments. Longer term, we must focus taxpayer funding on low income students, and make colleges pay back 30 percent of defaulted student loans, to keep colleges from accepting students with few prospects for success just to take their tuition money. Distance learning and traditional classrooms should get the same subsidies. To encourage academic rigor, we should refuse funding for colleges that award college credit for remedial courses.

Fourth, just as no federal funds go to colleges practicing racial discrimination, we should not bail out colleges that attack free speech and intellectual diversity with bureaucratic speech codes, bias response teams and ideological discrimination in faculty hiring and student admissions. Taxpayer funding should go only to colleges that encourage civil debate and discourage ideological bias.

Finally, the NAS proposes that bailout funds go only to U.S. colleges that promote American values, by subsidizing national security related disciplines, giving American students preferences over international students, limiting Chinese government influence, and cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), rather than having sanctuary campuses for those here illegally.

My own list of proposals would read a little differently. I would require colleges that receive a taxpayer bailout to endorse the Chicago principles on freedom of expression. Online classes are usually less academically rigorous, so why subsidize more distance education? Like NAS, I oppose sanctuary campuses since no college that flouts federal law should get federal funds; yet I also would suggest reforming immigration law because America benefits from admitting talented and hard-working people from around the world.

Notwithstanding those disagreements, I support most of the reforms in the NAS report. Most voters and elected officials will, too. When Congress considers bailing out higher education, the first thing they should read is Critical Care.

Robert Maranto is the 21st Century Chair in Leadership in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas. He served in the U.S. government in the Clinton administration, and co-edited The Politically Correct University.

View original post here:

No bailing out higher education without reform | TheHill - The Hill

First, I would like to correct something printed in your paper twice now. The reason I mocked Nez Perce County Commissioner Don Beck (not Commissioner Doug Zenner) was not for refusing to attend the protest, but for his condescending statement informing me that the protest was in violation of the stay-at-home order. That was the whole point of the protest.

His patronizing response came only after I called his office and sent two emails. Zenner was at least not disrespectful in his response, although we disagree on the shutdown. Thats why I appreciate Commissioner Doug Havens. He will actually communicate with me in a timely manner, regardless if he agrees with me or not. What a novel idea. Other leaders should remember they swore an oath to the Constitution, not the governor, and that they answer to the people.

Additionally, Beck wrote me: This is not a political issue.

If the situation we are in is not a political issue, why are the politicians making the decisions? And that begs the question: Then what do we need you for? What we need are leaders who make recommendations, not unconstitutional orders that infringe on hard-won and cherished liberties. Hiding in your office and receiving a paycheck from the taxpayers while those same taxpayers are scrambling to make ends meet is not leadership. I propose that every elected officials pay should be based on what he would receive on unemployment during the duration of this shutdown. Also, they wouldnt receive a penny until all other claims are processed. Do you think that might change a few of the hearts and minds of our politicians? I do.

Protesters and business owners are not disobeying to be selfish but because they have the right to provide for their families, and to remind us that preserving our freedom is essential to the republic. Unlike tone-deaf Gov. Brad Little, Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin gets it. Many people still have not received any unemployment pay. What would you have them do? If it were your family that was about ready to lose their home and standing in line at the food bank, would you be so supportive of this continued shutdown? Without fail, the people who want to force people to remain in their homes are people who dont need to worry about money. They have forgotten the principles of the Golden Rule. So many take the stance, I got mine, to heck with the everyone else. That attitude is truly selfish.

Anyone who is fearful or in an at-risk health category and has the financial or logistical ability to stay home indefinitely is completely free to do so. I dont deny that it may be advisable for some. Every person has the right to self-determination whether the government likes it or not.

This is the very principle that the USA was founded on and we are forgetting that. That is what scares me much more than the virus, because taking our liberty for granted is a cancer that will eat the soul out of America. This cannot be the new normal, as some have said. That is why we protest these illegal orders.

Marty Trillhaase, do you think that if the First Amendment rights that I cherish disappear (the freedom of religion, of speech, to assemble and to petition of the government for grievances), that your freedom of the press will somehow be magically protected? Or that when I lose my rights, that I will care about fighting for yours? You should be supporting us on principle, even if disagreeing on the issues. Local news media refuse to announce events that violate the governors order but use their liberty to bash fellow citizens who are trying to exercise their rights of free speech, freedom to assemble and freedom to pursue life and happiness. Can you not see the hypocrisy?

Before the last event, we submitted multiple announcements to media outlets including the Lewiston Tribune and were told by your city editor that We are not running event notices for events that violate the stay-home order and social distancing protocols. You may have noticed we discontinued our Happenings listings when the stay-home order was issued.

If the free press wont make a public announcement about events sponsored by local community members about issues regarding their fundamental rights, then is the free press really fulfilling its constitutional mandate? Will the press continue to choose to protect the government from the grievances of the people or to protect community from being aware of the concerns of their fellow citizens? Are we only permitted one approved narrative these days? In taking this position, the Lewiston Tribune is making itself more irrelevant by the day.

Consider the following: The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press. Ida B. Wells

Covering an event after the fact has some value and may sell papers, but restricting the free flow of information beforehand does a great disservice to the community you say you serve.

Boots, a longtime Lewiston resident, was co-organizer of recent rallies protesting Gov. Littles stay-at-home order.

Excerpt from:

Deriding protesters exhibits selfishness by those with little to lose - Lewiston Morning Tribune

After being haunted with countless allegations of censoring conservative content across its platform, Facebook finally ended up setting up an Oversight Board, colloquially known as the Facebook Supreme Court to ensure that there is a balanced political discourse on the platform.

Based on what a coalition of 60 conservative organizations and publishers say though, it is revealed that Facebooks attempt seems like its going to be anything but a success.

Simply put, Facebooks Oversight Board is the ultimate court of the platform that has the authority to overrule and control speech on the platform. But based on what the coalition, led by L. Brent Brozell III, the founder of Media Research Center and several other conservative figures said, the Oversight Board members list shows incredible bias.

According to the Free Speech Alliance, they say Facebooks board mostly comprises prominent left-wingers and progressive figures such as the former editor-in-chief of The Guardian, a left-wing academic, pro-abortion activists, and several anti-Trump individuals.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

Conservatives warned from the start that any oversight mechanism was fraught with danger. Our fears were well founded. This new board will damage Facebook more than it can imagine.

Furthermore, the coalition of conservatives that included Media Research Center, ACT for America, and the Eagle Forum, among others, in a combined statement, also pointed out that Facebooks oversight was too international, restricting it from fully considering and accounting for the countrys free speech rights and First Amendment when making any critical judgments.

We had cautioned that the oversight would be too international and unable or unwilling to embrace Americas First Amendment ideals of free speech, while embracing an internationalist construct pleasing to the radical left and likely to make Facebooks restrictive content policies even worse.

Furthermore, the statement said that the oversight board, with four co-chairs, only had one conservative and three leftists, making it unbalanced. The only conservative among the co-chair is Prof. Michael McConnell, a professor from Stanfords law school.

And thats precisely what the company delivered. The new Oversight Board announced itself with a New York Times op-ed from the four co-chairs. Only one of the four, Stanford Law School Prof. Michael McConnell, is at all conservative. And not as strong as many would like.

On a concluding note, the statement asked Facebook to either recruit more conservatives on its board or simply scrap the whole program altogether. All-in-all, the statement simply said that the new oversight board is too leftist-dominated to take any stern action against conservative censorship on the platform.

When you announce your next 20 members, ensure that they will balance out the aggressively leftist tilt of this new venture your company has taken. Better yet: Get rid of the whole thing, the letter ends.

See the original post:

Free Speech Alliance calls for an end to Facebooks Supreme Court of speech authority - Reclaim The Net

Image Description: Books on a shelf about eugenics.

Warning: this article refers to content which may be considered disturbing, including incitement to hatred, physical violence, racism, ableism, eugenics, and Nazis. It also discusses trigger warnings, triggering content, prejudice, discrimination, and hate crimes.

The most frustrating thing in the debate about the SU motion, and in the broader societal discourse it represents, is that so many people refuse to acknowledge that it is a matter of where to draw the line. Both sides agree that sometimes free speech should be curbed to prevent harm. Thats why incitement to hatred is illegal. And both sides agree that free speech should not be curbed by people being mildly irritated. Calling someone stupid is not very nice, but we should not ban the word.

The point is that there are two key qualities which are incompatible, and hence we must draw a line. Legally, in the UK, the line between freedom of expression and preventing harm has been represented by hate speech. Where we put the line depends on the context: the legal context is one of effectively banning speech by illegalising it. The debate about the SU motion? Also, at its core, about free speech and preventing harm. But we can have a slightly lower bar than the UKs legal bar because we are not banning speech. We are just making it non-mandatory and giving it trigger warnings.

But it would be helpful if people like Dawkins could recognise that the SU is sometimes right. Moreover, if the SU could recognise that Dawkins is sometimes right. Let me illustrate. Imagine a 20-minute long video portraying in graphic detail the physical violence involved in a warincluding gruesome shots of people being shot. I think Dawkins and everyone on the side of free speech shouting about snowflakes would agree that this should not be mandatory. They would probably agree that before being shown it, we would expect a warning of what is to come. If you are not convinced by this example, just make the content more and more graphicat some point, you will agree. There are some things people should not be forced to see, even for the sake of education. Butobviouslynot everything. Some things must be mandatory.

So, the simple question is this: where do we draw the line? How do we define which content counts, and which does not? It is worth really emphasising this: the definitions matter. Not only do they matter, but they are vital when discussing and resolving this debate. Because the real disagreement is about where we should locate the definition. The reason why there is so much debate and concern echoed by moral philosophers and commentators on Twitter alike is because they worry about the definition setting too low a barespecially when it is imprecise. So, if we really do want to introduce TWs and non-mandatory content, it is worth getting this right.

There are some things people should not be forced to see, even for the sake of education. Butobviouslynot everything. Some things must be mandatory.

And that is why the SU motion failed usbecause their motion was devoid of definitions, sloppy, and unclear. It is also why the debate around it is always so slippery and inconclusive. For where did they draw the line and thus what did the motion achieve? Those who are in favour of the general sentiment, or align themselves with the SU/liberally, interpret it as drawing the line where they feel it should be. No wonder, then, that they support it. Those shouting about free speech and snowflakes are also imagining up a line. Moreover, they are imagining it being so low as to genuinely threaten free speech. No wonder, then, that they are so vocally against it.

But no ones ever going to resolve the debate when we are at crossroads like this. We need to look not at where the SU might have drawn the line, or what they might have intended. Rather, we should look at what the SU did, and where they drew the line. I think we should interpret the SUs intentions charitably. Maybe they did have a clear line in mindmaybe they intended to draw a line which is well-motivated. But that is not what is on paper. That is not what the motion does.

Let us first consider the intention to make certain content non-mandatory. What definition did they use to define whether content should be mandatory rather than non-mandatory? Well, officially, the appendix defines this as content which would legally be considered criminal hate speech. Thats assuming that concept is applied to trans, non-binary, disabled, working-class, and women* groups, as well as those already protected. But in the Council Notes section 2, it suggests setting guidelines on non-mandatory content based on what is prejudicial towards these same groups.

So, which is it? Prejudicial content, or criminal hate speech? And it matters because they are completely different. When Boris Johnson wrote the disgusting phrase regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies, he was unequivocally being prejudicial. But it was not criminal hate speech. The SU draws two very different lines, and it is unclear why. This is sloppy, and as I will explore, it has extremely problematic consequences.

One worry is that this falsely equates prejudicial content with criminal hate speech. As I say, these are not the same. That is why they are dealt with separately in the law. The CPS notes that a hate crime can include verbal abuse, intimidation, threats, harassment, assault and bullying, as well as damage to property. Sure, these things might be done on the grounds of prejudicethen it would be a hate crime. But prejudicial content itself is not a hate crime.

And that is why the SU motion failed usbecause their motion was devoid of definitions, sloppy, and unclear. It is also why the debate around it is always so slippery and inconclusive. For where did they draw the line and thus what did the motion achieve?

Its clear that the SU doesnt really mean to make use of the criminal hate speech criterion because the *one* example it gives as the sort of content that ought to be non-mandatory wouldnt itself be considered criminal hate speech. Yes, the article entitled Why We Should Pick the Best Children is prejudiced. But it does not constitute verbal abuse, intimidation, threatening, harassment, assault/bullying or damage to property. And the protection of freedom of expression explicitly states that this does not prohibit or restrict discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule [or] insult.

Just to give an example, in 2009 Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were acquitted after insulting Ericka Tazi for wearing a hijab. If insulting someone for wearing a hijab does not count as criminal hate speech, it is unlikely insulting someone for their disability counts. Certainly, the items on the reading list would not.

Some may think that content which does not amount to criminal hate speech should be non-mandatoryin which case, the SU motion was insufficient. Others may think that this definition is about rightbut then, the SUs example and the intent was wrongin which case, the SU motion was insufficient. There is a common theme: the SU motion was insufficientand all because it was sloppy with definitions.

Either way, the fact that their example does not count as criminal hate speech leaves us with just prejudicial as a definitionwhich is far too low a bar. But before I explain why, note that the SU determines content should have a TW on the same basisif it is prejudicial. The phrase trigger warning is used just once in the entire motion and appendix; as it happens, in the last sentence of the appendix. There it proposes introducing TWs for prejudicial material. But content should not be made non-mandatory (or require a TW) just because it is prejudicial. Prejudicial is too low a bar to set.

Some may think that content which does not amount to criminal hate speech should be non-mandatory Others may think that this definition is about rightbut then, the SUs example and intent was wrong There is a common theme: the SU motion was insufficientand all because it was sloppy with definitions.

Lets start by showing how setting too low a bar for content to become non-mandatory is genuinely and seriously problematic. That is if we made all content which irritates people non-mandatory; or content we dislike, annoys us, or that we simply disagree with. All these stifle debate and stop people from engaging with rival or opposing views. And no matter what, you will have to come across such beliefs in the worldit is part of life to disagree and get a bit annoyed. And the benefit of engaging with irritating content is that we engage with other viewpoints. But also that we learn about other viewpoints: what they are, why people believe them, and how we might convince others to change their mind. These are key reasons we should engage with prejudicial content.

Consider content which discusses Nazi propaganda. Nazi propaganda is certainly prejudicial. But should such content be made non-mandatory? Absolutely not. How can one learn about what happened without understanding what the Nazis believed? How can one appreciate the dangers of something similar happening againand how to stop itwithout understanding what the Nazis were saying? And how can one convince the very few contemporary Nazi sympathisers they are wrong without engaging with their prejudiced views? One cannot. Engaging with prejudicial views is as essential to a university education as engaging with positions one dislikes or disagrees with.

But there are times when Nazi propaganda, or prejudicial content more generally, should be made non-mandatory. For instance, when it commonly evokes feelings of trauma or severe distress in people. But this content should not be made non-mandatory because it is prejudicial, but because it is triggering.

That is my proposal for how the SU should have gone about this. Content should be made non-mandatory if it is genuinely psychologically triggering. This goes neatly together with my other proposal: we should introduce trigger warnings for triggering content, not prejudicial content. And, bonus: this makes it super clear which content is/is not mandatory: the content with TWs is non-mandatory.

If we made all content which irritates people non-mandatory; or content we dislike, annoys us, or that we simply disagree with. All these stifle debate and stop people from engaging with rival or opposing views. And no matter what, you will have to come across such beliefs in the worldit is part of life to disagree and get a bit annoyed.

But that is not what the SU proposed. Their proposal only mentioned TWs once and did not attempt to define them. Sure, its really hard to define when trigger warnings should be introducedyou have to account for what counts as feelings of trauma. Moreover, you have to consider how commonly a stimulus must cause such feelings in people to require a trigger warning. But the SU didnt even try, nor did they outsource the definition to an appropriate body that has done the job for them. Guy Boysens article comes to mind.

(c.f. Evidence-based answers to questions about trigger warnings for clinically-based distress: A review for teachers).

Trigger warnings should be reserved for content, which is genuinely triggering, not just prejudicial. One could introduce content warnings (CWs) for that. But that is another debate. Equivocating prejudicial and triggering content trivialises TWs. So many people as it completely misunderstands the entire concept of triggers. Therefore, the last thing we should do is completely misrepresent and trivialise them.

And this trivialisation of TWs can be found in the SU motion, which was marked with a TW for misogyny. The only word in the entire motion (and its appendix) which could be considered misogynistically triggering is misogyny (or derivatives) itself. And this obviously cannot be triggering because the very word appears in the trigger warning itself! Where they find misogynistically triggering content in the Councils motion/appendix, I do not know. Similarly of the TWs for transphobia and classism. The only trigger warnings which arguably do apply are ableism and eugenics because of the mention of the FHS Medical Law and Ethics reading list titles.

A recent article eloquently explained that reading could be triggering because it questions someones existence based on their identityincluding, for example, a disability. This is an extremely valid discussion, and it is not an open-and-shut case. It is not clear whether such content is triggering or should amount to hate speechbut I agree with the author that such content hinders rather than helps students learning. In short, as Kate Manne wrote, trigger warnings are not about feelings being highly unpleasant or prejudiced but about them temporarily render[ing] people unable to focus, regardless of their desire or determination to do so.

Trivialisation of TWs can be found in the SU motion, which was marked with a TW for misogyny. The only word in the entire motion (and its appendix) which could be considered misogynistically triggering is misogyny (or derivatives) itself. And this obviously cannot be triggering because the very word appears in the trigger warning itself!

In response, I think it would be easy to slightly broaden our definition to make content that questions someones existence based on their identity non-mandatory and include content warnings for them. And we can do this without making the far more problematic, broad-sweeping, and vague definition about prejudicial content.

But that is not what the SU did. So, what does their proposal entail?

Firstly, by being so utterly unclear, future interpretations about what content should be non-mandatory/display TWs could range from any mildly upsetting content to only incitement to hatred. But the latter is far too high a bar and does not rule out enough content. Hence, the SU motions sloppiness might enable future commentators to completely undermine the intention of the motion.

Yet more worrying is the mildly upsetting interpretation, under which virtually all content would be non-mandatory, and feature TWs. By their own demonstration, any content including the word misogynistic should have a TW, which is ludicrous. The reason for this is that the motion entirely fails to distinguish directly prejudicial from indirectly prejudicial content. Consider the difference between contemporary content arguing in favour of the holocaust and historical studies of the holocaust that quote historical content arguing in favour of the holocaust. The former I call directly prejudicialand indeed, directly counts as hate speech. The latter is indirectly prejudicial: it is not itself prejudicial, or hate speech, but it features content that is.

I imagine that the motion primarily meant to make content non-mandatory if it directly counts as criminal hate speech or is directly prejudicial. But there is no real reason why the embedded hate speech in indirectly hateful content would be less triggering than the hate speech indirectly hateful content. Quotations of Nazi propaganda are as capable of render[ing] people unable to focus and triggering feelings of trauma as the Nazi propaganda itself.

So, the motion would not only rule out all content that is directly prejudicial but all content that is indirectly prejudicialwhich includes virtually any work of history or literature. And this is unbelievably problematic. Is it wrong to make a lecture mandatory which, in a discussion of Martin Luther King Jr., considers the prejudice levelled against him and other people based on race by looking at quotations which are prejudicial? As far as I am concerned, no one can engage with the issue of the Civil Rights movement without considering the prejudicial beliefs and statements faced at the time. That is why it should be mandatory.

Consider the difference between contemporary content arguing in favour of the holocaust, and historical studies of the holocaust that quote historical content arguing in favour of the holocaust. The former I call directly prejudicialand indeed, directly counts as hate speech. The latter is indirectly prejudicial: it is not itself prejudicial, or hate speech, but it features content that is.

And if such a low bar is adopted, it would not even help. If we start adding TWs to the majority of items, students avoiding these TWs will feel like theyre stuck with two rubbish options. Either they could risk reading content marked with a TW because theyre overwhelmingly commonwhich is unfair on them. Or, they could stick with reading an insufficient part of the reading listwhich is not only unfair on them academically but also undermines academic engagement with a variety of viewsthe whole point of university. Similarly to making most of the content non-mandatory. And, as noted, it would massively trivialise TWs.

Most worrying of all is the ominous last line of the appendix. This states that prejudicial content should require trigger warnings at a bare minimum. In combination with the fact that it fails to define what counts as prejudicial content, this predicts extremely oppressive future policies. Do we ban all prejudicial content? Even indirectly prejudicial content? Do we ostracise or even kick out people promoting or discussing it?

The SU may have not intended for the potential consequences I have discussed, where completely benign items are made non-mandatory. Or where virtually nothing on the history syllabus is mandatory, and where virtually everything requires a trigger warning. But the devil truly is in the details because intention doth butter no parsnips when it comes to subsequent interpretation and actual consequences. When looking back on what has been passed on paper (or rather, over the internet), the original intentions and the context in which it was written will be irrelevant and lost to the winds of time. The scarily broad applications I have highlighted could be enforced.

I can hear people saying that being pedantic like this is not good enough reason to quash the motion. But we should judge the motion not on what it may or may not have intended, but on what it does. Scrutinising keywords and definitions is vital to determining what a policy achieves. Imagine a political policy which intends to help the least well-off in society but does notit is in fact to the detriment of the least well-off. Should we cheer on the political policy because of its good intentions, or criticise its actual consequences and shortcomings? I know where I stand.

The devil truly is in the details because intention doth butter no parsnips when it comes to subsequent interpretation and actual consequences. When looking back on what has been passed on paper the original intentions and the context in which it was written will be irrelevant and lost to the winds of time. The scarily broad applications I have highlighted could be enforced.

So, criticisms of the SU motion are valid. The intention behind it may or may not have been right, but there is no point criticising or praising their intentions since they are so unclear. And anyway, criticising what a motion does is not the same as criticising its intention. And what it does is bad. The motion trivialises TWs. It hinders intellectual engagement. It enables restrictions on academic free speech. So, I suppose, Dawkins was right.

Mental health, trigger warnings and the rights of minority students are so important. And they do have a tough battle. So, we owe it to students to deal with them properly. And this SU motion completely fails to do so.

Liked reading this article? Sign up to our weekly mailing list to receive a summary of our best articles each week click here to register

Want to contribute? Join our contributors grouphereor email us clickherefor contact details

Post Views: 108

Read this article:

Long Read: The SU Motion failed us - Oxford Student

The spread of the novel coronavirus is triggering hate against Asian Americans. One Texas city is trying to do something about it.

The San Antonio City Council unanimously passed a resolution on Thursday denouncing bigotry, anti-Semitism, crimes against Asian Americans and "hateful speech" amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The resolution, proposed by Mayor Ron Nirenberg, states that "COVID-19 is a public health issue, not a racial, religious or ethnic one, and the deliberate use of terms such as 'Chinese virus' or 'Kung Fu virus' to describe COVID-19 only encourages hate crimes and incidents against Asians and further spreads misinformation at a time when communities should be working together to get through this crisis".

The resolution also says that the Jewish community has been targeted with blame and conspiracy theories regarding the disease.

"The City of San Antonio denounces anti-Semitism, anti-Asian bigotry, and all hateful speech, violent action and the spread of misinformation related to COVID-19 that casts blame, promotes racism or discrimination or harms the City of San Antonio Asian and Pacific Islander, Jewish, immigrant or other communities," the resolution says.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, or ADL, reports of xenophobic and racist incidents targeting members of the Asian-American and Pacific Islander, or AAPI, communities in the US have surged since January.

Those incidents include Asian Americans being told to "Go back to China", being blamed for "bringing the virus" to the US, being referred to with racial slurs, spat on, and in some extreme cases, being physically assaulted.

ADL compiled a list of anti-AAPI incidents that have been reported by media outlets across the country since January. The number of incidents is close to 100.

One of the most recent reports showed that in New York, an Asian man was attacked on the subway by a stranger who shouted at him, "You're infected, China boy. You need to get off the train." The assailant then grabbed the victim and attempted to pull him out of his seat.

Some comments regarding the report of San Antonio's new anti-hate speech resolution at ksat.com have been negative, indicating that such bias and discrimination are prevalent.

'Rather disheartening'

"It's rather disheartening to see such a large number of negative, angry, and downright crude comments that have appeared on local social media and news media websites since the passage of this resolution by the San Antonio City Council," said Jon Taylor, professor and department chair of the political science and geography department at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

"Calling people out for their hateful comments is a reminder that words can and do have meaning and consequences. Those opposed to this resolution don't see it quite that way and view it as an infringement of their free speech rights. And that's their right as Americans. But that doesn't mean that people can't be civil," Taylor said.

Steven Pei, a professor at the University of Houston and honorary chair of United Chinese Americans, or UCA said: "We appreciate very much that the San Antonio City Council declared war against hate speeches such as 'Chinese virus' and 'Kung Fu flu' to ensure safety of the entire community."

He pointed out that Asian Americans did not spread the virus; on the contrary, they have made great contributions to combat the virus by raising funds to donate personal protection equipment to medical workers, first responders and communities in need across the US.

Read more here:

US city takes on bigots by denouncing words of hate - Chinadaily.com.cn -

ODOM Weis Markets

BOSWORTH Weis Markets

Marywood

University

Sunny Sinha, Ph.D., associate professor in the School of Social Work and lead author of A Survey of the Mobile Phone-Based Interventions for Violence Prevention Among Women, was recently published in Advances in Social Work. The article addresses Information Communication Technologies, particularly mobile phone technology, and its increase in relationships between individuals by enhancing their ability to frequently communicate with one another through different mediums including text, audio, video and emojis.

Sinha is a Fahs-Beck scholar, a doctoral dissertation grant program that helps support dissertation expenses of students in the U.S. and Canada.

Misericordia

University

Joshua D. Winneker, J.D., associate professor of business, recently co-authored the scholarly article, Higgins V. Kentucky Sports Radio Reframed: Balancing Free Speech and Emotional Distress Liability When Fans Take Things Too Far, in the Charleston Law Review with Sam C. Ehrlich, J.D., a doctoral candidate at Florida State University.

In the research paper, the authors address the intersection of intentional infliction of emotional distress tort liability and the defense of free speech protection under the First Amendment when dealing with abusive and unruly fans during and after sporting events. Ian Silfies of Palmerton, a university student double majoring in philosophy and Government, Law and National Security, served as a research assistant for the scholarly project.

The paper focuses on the controversial college basketball game that pitted the University of Kentucky against the rival North Carolina Tar Heels on March 26, 2017. After the game, Kentucky coach John Calipari expressed his dissatisfaction with the officiating.

The Italian

American Podcast

Stephanie Longo of Dunmore was recently named associate producer and administrative officer of the New York-based podcast, dedicated to helping Italian Americans celebrate their heritage.

A graduate of the University of Scranton (BA, Italian and French; MA, history) and Regent University (MA, journalism), she possesses a Women in Leadership certificate and a Women in Entrepreneurship certificate from Cornell University and is a graduate of the Leadership Lackawanna Core Program.

Longo is also the book reviews editor for Ovunque Siamo: New Italian American Writing. She is the former director of marketing and communications of the Greater Scranton Chamber of Commerce.

Tobyhanna

Army Depot

Arleen Coates joined as the depots first full-time retirement services officer in January.

Coates and her team provide pre-retirement and retirement services to military members on active duty, veterans and family members in the armed forces of the United States. The staff, among other things, is trained to help clients choose survivor electives for spouses and children, and update information to reflect major changes, such as death or divorce.

The retired United States Army officer leads an all-volunteer force that dedicates more than 5,000 hours a year to helping people in 17 counties throughout Northeast Pennsylvania.

University

of Scranton

Michael E. Kelley, Ph.D., BCBA-D, joined as a faculty member in the Counseling and Human Services Department. He holds a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst-Doctoral degree, which is a doctoral designation for Board Certified Behavior Analysts with doctoral training in behavior analysis.

Kelley will take a leadership role with the universitys Autism Collaborative Centers of Excellence, which is part of a multi-year, multi-million dollar regional initiative led by the AllOne Foundation He will also teach in the universitys post-graduate Applied Behavior Analysis Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study.

Post-pandemic clinical nursing education: The value of academic-practice partnerships, an article written by three university professors of nursing, was published in April by American Nurse. In the article, authors Mary Jane K. DiMattio, Ph.D., professor of nursing and director for the Universitys Office of Educational Assessment; Sharon S. Hudacek, Ed.D., professor of nursing, and Catherine P. Lovecchio, Ph.D., associate professor of nursing, underscored the benefits of academic-practice partnerships in nursing as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The university has had Clinical Liaison Nurse Academic Practice Partnership with Regional Hospital of Scranton, Moses Taylor Hospital and Geisinger Community Medical Center.

Through this partnership model, the university was able to offer support to its clinical partners coping with the COVID-19 pandemic in several ways, including the donation of personal protective equipment supplies from student practical laboratories to partner hospitals and the lending of three ventilators from the universitys nurse anesthetist laboratories. The universitys Nursing Department also produced a video of support and thanks from current students and faculty to Clinical Liaison Nurse partners.

The universitys Clinical Liaison Nurse model, a community-based, academic-practice partnership that began in 2009, pairs expert staff nurses with academic faculty to create an improved learning environment for undergraduate student nurses and an added level of safety for patients.

Weis Markets

The company announced the promotion of Brian Bosworth to senior director of center store merchandising and sales and Ashley Odom to director of center store merchandising.

In his new position, Bosworth will oversee dry grocery, general merchandise, health and beauty care, frozen; dairy, grocery, beer, wine and spirits, and center store field merchandising. He joined the company in 2011 as a category manager and subsequently worked as center store sales manager and most recently as director of center store merchandising. He reports to Richard Gunn, senior vice president, merchandising and sales.

In her new position, Odom oversees the day-to-day management of frozen, dairy and beer, wine and spirits. She joined the company in 2018 as senior category manager for adult beverages. She previously worked in category management positions at Albertsons and Supervalu.

SUBMIT PEOPLE ON THE MOVE items to business@timesshamrock.com or The Times-Tribune, 149 Penn Ave., Scranton, PA 18503.

Visit link:

People on the Move - News - Wilkes-Barre Citizens Voice

Metro Times gained access to four private Facebook groups that can only be seen by approved members. The pages, which have a combined 400,000 members, are filled with paranoid, sexist, and grammar-challenged rants, with members encouraging violence and flouting the governors social-distancing orders.

On Sunday, after being contacted by Metro Times, Facebook removed one of the groups, Michigan United for Liberty, and deleted posts on others for violating the companys policy against inciting violence. Facebook announced last month that it will remove groups and events that encourage people to defy social-distancing measures. Facebook also is investigating the other groups.

We removed one group for violating our policies and will remove any other violations as we continue our review, a Facebook spokesperson tells Metro Times.

Assassinating Whitmer is a common theme among members of the groups. Dozens of people have called for her to be hanged.

We need a good old fashioned lynch mob to storm the Capitol, drag her tyrannical ass out onto the street and string her up as our forefathers would have, John Campbell Sr. wrote in a group called People of Michigan vs. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, which had nearly 9,000 members as of Monday morning.

Steve Doxsie had the same idea: Drag that tyrant governor out to the front lawn. Fit her for a noose.

Either President Trump sends in the troops or there is going to be a midnight lynching in Lansing soon, Michael Smith chimed in.

Others suggested she be shot, beaten, or beheaded.

Plain and simple she needs to eat lead and send a statement to the rest of the democrats that they are next, James Greena, of Fennville, wrote.

Chris Rozman said, She needs her ass beat. Most of these politicians need a good ass whooping. Just. Punch there lights out.

When someone suggested the guillotine, Thomas Michael Lamphere responded, Good ol fashioned bullets work better, but I like the enthusiasm.

Wonder how long till shes hit with a shotgun blast, Chris Parrish wrote.

Matthew Woodruff had another idea: Can we please just take up a collection for an assassin to put that woman from Michigan down, he asked.

We couldve taken over the capital last time if we wanted, Chris Coffey said. This was just a display. Next time wont be!

If she thinks the last protest was bad she hasn't seen anything yet, DonnaCookie Grady warned.

We havent had any bloodshed yet, but the populous is counting to three, and the other day was two, Dave Meisenheimer wrote in Michiganders Against Excessive Quarantine, which has more than 385,000 members. Next comes watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.

Gordon Chapman says hes going to the Thursday rally and hopes demonstrators are armed to the teeth.

Voting is too late we need to act now, Chapman said.

The potential for violence prompted some public officials, including Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel, to promote banning firearms from the Capitol building.

There are legislators who are wearing bulletproof vests to go to work, Whitmer told ABC News last week. "No one should be intimidated by someone who's bringing in an assault rifle into their workplace.

At 11 a.m. Monday, the bipartisan Michigan State Capitol Commission plans to discuss a firearms ban. In a letter to the six-member commission, Nessel told the panel that it has the legal authority to ban guns from the Capitol.

Nessels support of the ban drew anger on another private Facebook page, Whitmer Recall Movement, which has more than 3,500 members.

We are sharpening a stick for you Dana, Pete Scudamore wrote.

DO you want me to bring the rope, shouldnt be too hard to find a good tree, Russell Kynn asked.

Nessels spokeswoman Kelly Rossman-McKinney says the attorney generals office will not tolerate threats.

We take every threat seriously and, of course, we are doing everything we can to minimize threats, Rossman-McKinney tells Metro Times.

In January, Metro Times chronicled another Facebook page that was rife with sexism, Islamophobia, and threats against Whitmer and other politicians.

Whitmer responded with a letter to Facebook.

"As a lawyer who respects the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression, I realize there is only so much purview media platforms have for the content posted by their users," Whitmer wrote. "However, better enforcement of Facebook's own community standards where 'attacks' are defined as, 'violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation' this election cycle is needed now more than ever. Mine is not a singular ask."

The private Facebook groups are a hub for far-fetched conspiracy theories and disinformation, reinforcing peoples fears and anger. For some, the states stay-at-home order is an unconstitutional plot by liberals to strip residents of their freedoms and steal the election from President Trump. Some insist the coronavirus is a hoax, and others believe its a manmade disease designed to enrich billionaires and force vaccines on the masses.

One of the most popular and influential conspiracies is featured in Plandemic, a 26-minute documentary-style video with ominous music that racked up millions of views in the past week. The video features a widely refuted researcher named Judy Mikovits, who spins a baseless tale about wealthy people intentionally spreading the coronavirus to boost vaccination rates. She also warns against wearing masks, saying they can exacerbate viral symptoms. Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram have been removing the video, saying the false claims pose a threat to public health.

Not surprisingly, many members of the groups say they will never wear a mask because they believe they are unsafe or represent tyranny.

Birbot Arvo suggested he would resort to violence if police approached him about wearing a mask.

Cop or not. You come at me strong about a mask and I will break your face, Arvo said.

Nathan Silver declared he will not submit to their cultural Marxism.

I refuse to wear one, wrote Rich T. Tyra II. They cause more problems than they prevent and its a sign of being silenced and submission and its training for the forced vaccinations.

To Melody DeCaire, wearing a mask is useless because the coronavirus isnt real.

theres no such thing as Covid, she insisted. Its radation [sic] poisoning coming from the 5g, referring to the conspiracy theory that5G towers cause the illness.

As it struggles to stem the spread of disinformation, Facebook has become the go-to platform for anti-government talking points.

In an April 20 interview with ABC News Good Morning America,Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the stuff that people are saying that is false around a health emergency like this can be classified as harmful misinformation that has a risk of leading to imminent danger, and well take that content down.

When reached for comment, Facebook users who posted comments about violence said they were merely exercising their right to free speech.

Thomas Allan Morse, who wrote, Army 11 bravo vet here ready to rumble. Two to the chest one to the head, responded that he earned the right to exercise free speech because he served in the military.

Did you serve this country in the armed forces? Let alone ground combat? Morse asked Metro Times in Facebook messenger. I earned my 1st ammendment [sic].

He declined to say whether he planned to attend Thursdays rally.

Sexism also is rampant among members of the private groups.

I'm dying here a woman talking strategy is like a man explaining what its like to go through menopause. PLEASE, Eric John Mayer said.

James Davis added, Men advanced civilization from the days of banging two rocks together. I dont doubt there are smart women out there. However, the smart women are busy doing things like having families, not corrupting themselves with power and ruining peoples lives.

Facebook users called Whitmer a Nazi, spawn of the devil, wicked witch, arrogant facist pig, Gestapo Gretchen, tyrant, Soros puppet, and baby killer tyrant.

For Patricia Folk, threats are the logical next step to regaining her freedoms.

I honestly believe that the only way that Congress and the Senate are going to start listening to We the People are threats, Folk wrote on one of the private pages. They no longer respect the voter, or the people they represent. Maybe a tarred and feathered election official, may wake them up.

Read the original post:

Gov. Whitmer becomes target of dozens of threats on private Facebook groups ahead of armed rally in Lansing - Detroit Metro Times

There must be a balance between free speech and antagonism online.

by Chelsea Moore | 5/11/20 2:00am

The internets capacity to offer anonymity is at least theoretically one of its greatest strengths. Websites and social media can promote discussion on sensitive topics and allow otherwise-ignored populations to make their voices heard.

But online anonymity also has a tendency to empower the worst among us, enabling cyberbullying and defamatory gossip. These things have been unfortunately prevalent on Librex, an app increasingly popular at Dartmouth, where anonymity has amounted to little more than toxicity.

Librex is an anonymous discussion app that was launched at Dartmouth on March 5. About half of Dartmouth students have already downloaded it on their devices. On the app, students can create posts, comment and upvote or downvote others posts and comments all in complete anonymity. Though the platform intends to democratize college discourse and create a space for honest open discussion, its anonymous nature has only made it conducive to hateful and threatening content.

Many recent posts have targeted both specific groups and individuals on campus. Some comments, for example, have insulted certain Greek houses by exploiting stereotypes and spreading false rumors. The derogatory posts, however, have also extended to other groups, such as students who work on-campus jobs. Users have claimed that student workers adopt a hostile nature toward white and more privileged customers, while also incorrectly labeling these student workers as collectively low-income and Latino.

This form of discrimination has escalated to an even more extreme level targeting students running for positions in the Student Assembly elections. There has been little initiation of productive discussion, but rather purposeful insults thrown at the identities and backgrounds of those running. These include comparisons of SA candidates to dictators Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and racist attacks on campaigns.

By allowing users to post anonymously, apps like Librex encourage personal confessions, accusations and claims that most wouldnt normally feel comfortable making. Hiding behind a screen enables users to speak their minds freely without being held accountable, inducing both a lack of empathy and intellectual thinking. As a result of anonymity, however, people are more likely to abandon the social norms and accountability that would otherwise have kept their behavior in check. Instead of promoting legitimate discussion, apps like Librex breed cyberbullying, harassment and hate speech.

These effects are becoming increasingly better understood within the field of psychology. Psychologists have created new terms, such as the online disinhibition effect, to explain our tendency to open up in both good and bad ways when were sitting in front of a screen. Behavioral studies have also shown that people tend to act crudely or illegally when their identity is hidden. A 2012 study by psychological science researchers in Israel found that when students were anonymous and hidden from each other in an online chat, verbal aggression among participants was very high. This aggression plummeted to almost none when a video put the two partners in eye contact. These studies reveal that the web is deeply impersonal and that users often feel like distant strangers when online, making them more likely to attack others.

Advocates of anonymous communication claim that anonymity is essential to ensure free speech. And Librex has occasionally provided a platform for commiseration and conversation about topics like online class. There have been productive posts, including course recommendations and advice for incoming freshmen.

But if this dialogue comes at the expense of people's well-being, it should clearly be bounded.

If individuals, groups, cultures and backgrounds are being assaulted, the atmosphere becomes one of fear one that turns voices away, contradicting the purpose of anonymous apps and silencing populations at Dartmouth.

The answer is not necessarily to rid our society of all anonymous forums, nor for the creators of anonymous platforms to strictly moderate everything written on their sites. Rather, we need to recognize our role as users in order to realize the inherent dangers of anonymity.

Before an anonymous platform like Librex can be valuable, individuals need to hold themselves to a higher standard and use these apps with greater respect and responsibility. As members of a college like Dartmouth, it is our role as students to nurture congenial, productive conversation on platforms like Librex.

So, if you decide to use Librex, hold yourself personally accountable and foster an environment that encourages productive discussion, rather than abusive dialogue. If not, more voices will be silenced rather than empowered.

Here is the original post:

Moore: The Dangers of Online Anonymity - The Dartmouth

Re New Mexico takes more drastic measures against virus hotspot (May 2): On the same day people protested in San Diego, the governor of New Mexico had to declare an emergency, blocking roads into the city of Gallup as the virus surged overwhelmingly its hospitals. Gallup now has 14 times the number of COVID-19 cases than New Mexicos largest cities.

I pray the actions of San Diego protesters did not endanger themselves and others by unknowingly spreading the virus to participants and those they come in contact with.

We need less protest and more common sense. Lets not make Americas finest city the next Gallup.

Robert Tormey

Escondido

President Donald Trump has stated that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, he gave the highest award a citizen can get to a radio broadcaster who incites hatred. We do have freedom of speech, but when is someone who encourages hate deserving of receiving a presidential medal at a State of the Union Address?

As a moderate, I respect the conservative perspective, but shouldnt we be encouraging cooperation between liberals and conservatives to reach a balance?

If Trump wants to receive a Nobel Peace Prize, maybe he should not encourage his supporters to demonstrate during this pandemic. He claims to be a wartime president, yet he hasnt procured sufficient ammunition. Shouldnt our pro-life president prioritize life with tests, swabs and personal protective equipment for all? That may help him get his prize.

Jo Powers

North Clairemont

Opinion resources

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters.

News reports on the protests against stay-at-home orders have mentioned that there are sizable numbers of Trump supporters in the groups. They need to redirect their protests toward the White House.

Epidemiologists have consistently said that a large increase in testing, along with contact tracing, is essential to lifting our isolation. Trump has refused to use the Defense Production Act to increase testing supplies and shown no understanding that doing so would aid in getting businesses open again.

These protests are doubly counter-productive. They increase the possibility of creating more cases while doing nothing to get the government to assist in meeting its own guidelines for opening up.

Susan Schock

Mira Mesa

Re San Diego should reopen to the young and healthy, and focus more on those at risk for coronavirus (April 24): Chris Brewsters analysis of how to re-open things and simultaneously help solve the pandemic problem is an important idea. Many people dont know Brewsters background and accomplishments, but the important thing isnt who wrote that opinion. Whats important is what was said, the analysis, and the ideas.

The numbers and facts appear to be correct, and they lead to his conclusions and suggestions. They are a little radical compared to what our leaders are discussing, but it appears that they would do a better job at both achieving herd immunity and getting the economy going again. I hope many of our leaders read this analysis, dig into the ideas, and consider them carefully.

Laury Flora

Valley Center

Chris Brewsters opinion piece belonged under letters to the editor, not next to Fleischers.

Paul Jester

Miramar

Some who protest the measures put in place to combat COVID-19 see these measures as violations of their Constitutional rights and an instance of Big Government intruding in their lives. Some show up at rallies inexplicably armed to the teeth. Some even harass medical workers battling the virus.

I can only assume, then, that none of these folks will cash their $1200 bail-out checks from the government and will also assert their rights as individuals to care for themselves if they or their families contract COVID-19.

Rick KeenanSan Carlos

If the current approach to disease management - to sharply curtail economic activity - continues, it will cost roughly $500 billion per month in lost income nationwide (that is, about 30 percent of monthly GDP). That is catastrophic, of course, not only to those who are hit hardest (net of stimulus checks and rent holidays), but to future generations who are being saddled with unprecedented debt.

The bottom line is: we just cannot afford to keep doing what we are doing. The hard truth is that we are just going to have to learn how to live with this. We must not rush into a complete reopening (because, lets be clear, that is the same as doing nothing at all), but we must have a clear, and clearly communicated, plan, a path forward, that all can see and buy into and understand. There are trade offs here, just as there are when we decide to drive a car, fly in a plane, eat unhealthy foods, smoke, ride a bike, and in general live our lives. Lets get on with it.

Don Billings

Rancho Santa Fe

Huge headlines about protests and yet the article states 90 percent of the people support the stay-at-home measures. Why do you give credence and publicity to these few.

Yes, an article about them but 2-inch headlines? The media helped get Trump elected for doing this very thing, focusing on the drama instead of the real issues. You are better than this.

Joan Camana

La Mesa

As I look at the picture of the protesters, completely understanding where theyre coming from, I cant help thinking about the risks theyre putting on their children and grandparents (Not many masks in that crowd!).

It profusely reminds us of the genuine heroes who unselfishly risk their lives daily:

The nurses and doctors working in impossible conditions. Twelve hour shifts, the daily disinfecting nightmare, over-nighting in garages, hotel rooms, and cars so as not to infect their families (No hugs allowed!).

The grocery workers, the bus drivers, the police officers, the farm workers, all valiantly performing their obligations while trying to protect their families.

We owe them more than our thanks.

Steve Blumenschein

Clairemont

During this pandemic, I feel privileged to have a stable retirement income and a nice house. In my career as a social worker, I was exposed to people with much less privilege, many of whom probably did not get their nails and eyebrows done or go to a gym, rarely ate out except for fast food, and probably rarely got to go to the beach.

Instead of protesting for the right to go to the beach, wouldnt it be better to be protesting about the inadequate federal response to this crisis for the working people who have not received promised income relief and loans to keep their small businesses going?

Wouldnt it be nice to look back on our own behavior and be grateful that we behaved with grace and patience, that we showed compassion for the least fortunate, and that we were willing to sacrifice for the greater good?

Tom Packard

Encinitas

See the original post here:

Readers React: Are the reopen protests about free speech or presidential politics? - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Scotlands government, led by the pro-EU SNP party, has joined the ranks of many others around the world who are actively working on constraining free speech by amending existing laws and coming up with new solutions.

UKs Spiked magazine says that currently a law regulating what is known as hate crimes is modeled after that in England, covering threats, abuse, and insults.

But based on whats described as a hard-line report from 2018, Scotlands upgraded Hate Crime and Public Order Bill proposed by parliament now looks to change that and introduce three new offenses, the report says.

The first will enable for prosecution of doing anything, or communicating any material, which is threatening or abusive and is intended or likely to engender hatred based on age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender or intersex identity.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

In addition, having material of this kind in ones possession meant to be in any way communicated to others will in itself now be a crime, and finally, managers in organizations of any type not acting to prevent the new set of criminalized behaviors will be criminalized themselves.

The proposals critics say it is anti-liberal and must not be allowed to pass, pointing out that the bill takes the focus away from punishing acts of hostility based on their gravity regardless of who they target, and instead introduces a tiered approach, depending on groups that are designated as particularly vulnerable and therefore more worthy of the victimhood status.

The proposed law is seen as too broad and blunt, particularly compared to a similar one in force in England now, as it would seek to legally punish not only behavior that is stirring up actual threats, but also what is merely abusive.

Regardless, pressure groups will continue to inundate Scotlands police with reports complaining about speech as hate speech, but this type of law might sadly prove to he helpful to both, as it is likely to have self-censorship as one of its chilling effects.

Campaigning organizations supporting unpopular causes for example, attacking transgender orthodoxy may well feel they have to tone down what they say. It is depressingly easy to imagine editors and campaigners engaging in a good deal of self-censorship to avoid trouble with the police, Andrew Tettenborn writes.

Read the original post:

Scotland's SNP proposes new law that would deal a massive blow to free speech - Reclaim The Net

The Scottish government wants to modernise and consolidate the law on what people are permitted to say to each other. The Scottish administrations Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, introduced in Holyrood last week, aims to extend considerably the category of banned speech. This should ring loud alarm bells.

At present, Scots hate-crime law largely parallels the English law (actually it is slightly narrower). It criminalises the stirring up of racial hatred by any behaviour that is threatening, abusive or insulting, and it requires heavier sentencing for a number of crimes if they are aggravated by hostility towards the victims race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender status. Unlike English law, however, Scots law does not yet penalise the stirring up of anti-religious or anti-gay hatred.

In 2017, the SNP government decided this had to change. It appointed Lord Bracadale, a far from libertarian Scottish appeal judge, to review the matter. His spectacularly hardline report was published a year later. Based on this report, Holyrood now proposes leaving racial-hatred law largely alone while introducing, in effect, three new offences.

First: a general crime of doing anything, or communicating any material, which is threatening or abusive and is intended or likely to engender hatred based on age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender or intersex identity. Second: a crime of merely possessing any such material, if you hold it with a view to communicating it that is, in any way to anyone either in public or in private (such as showing a computer file to a friend over a dram). Third: criminal sanctions on anyone involved in the management of any organisation who fails to take steps to prevent any of the above. The penalty in all the above cases is up to seven years inside. And in addition to all this, the government proposes stiffer sentencing for hate crimes based on age.

There is so much wrong with these proposals. For one thing, the whole idea that hostility should aggravate an offence in relation to certain characteristics but not others needs reining in, not extending. To say that assaulting someone because he is old (and within the charmed circle of victim categories) deserves a heavier sentence than assaulting a teenager because he is the teachers pet (and therefore outside it) is discriminatory, grotesque and insulting. It is the hostility that matters, not whether the target falls within a group which has managed to persuade a government that it deserves victimhood status.

For another, the proposed new stand-alone offences not only carry an enormous potential sentence, but are intentionally vastly broader than those in force south of the border. In England, the stirring up offence is limited to religion and sexual orientation (and the latter was only introduced in 2008). Further, this offence is carefully and deliberately circumscribed, applying only to the deliberate fomentation of hatred, and requiring threatening words or behaviour.

The Scottish government has no patience with such softness. Its proposals would outlaw behaviour that is not threatening but merely abusive. According to the very revealing notes attached to the bill, this apparently strikes the right balance between criminalisation and freedom of speech.

The notes also say that requiring intent to stir up hatred is unacceptable because this would make it prohibitively restrictive in practice for prosecutors who might find it difficult to prove intent. Or, to put it another way, the English solicitude for the rights of the defendant makes it too hard for police and prosecutors to tell people with awkward views to put up or shut up.

Holyrood also admits that, with the exception of hostility to religion, there is actually no evidence of either any serious problem or pressing need to extend the criminal law to cover characteristics like sexual orientation, age, disability, transgender or intersex identity. But no matter. The introduction of a suite of stirring-up offences covering all of them, it is said, will introduce a measure of justified parity. This will allow the law to serve an important symbolic and educative function, sending a clear message that this type of behaviour attracts particular condemnation by society and will not be tolerated. In other words, it is now apparently the function of Scots criminal law to punish behaviour simply to make a virtue-signalling point, and to provide as many identitarian pressure-groups as possible with an equal chance to suppress speech and behaviour they do not like.

The law does include a defence of reasonableness, but what reasonable may mean to some impatient and humourless sheriff-depute on a wet Friday in Falkirk is anyones guess. There are also some token protections for the freedom to express religious views or argue intellectually about the morality of sexual practices. Nevertheless, these new laws are likely to have a considerable chilling effect.

There is no doubt that pressure groups, whether gay activist, born-again Christian or rampant anti-TERF, will keep up a steady stream of complaints to Police Scotland about behaviour which they would like suppressed in the media, on social media or elsewhere. There is equally little doubt that police officers will try to keep these groups off their backs by advising all and sundry that it is safer to avoid controversy. If all else fails, police will pressure the Procurator Fiscal to prosecute any refuseniks in order to keep them quiet in future.

For that matter, such prosecutions may often be unnecessary: laws like this breed self-censorship. Campaigning organisations supporting unpopular causes for example, attacking transgender orthodoxy may well feel they have to tone down what they say. It is depressingly easy to imagine editors and campaigners engaging in a good deal of self-censorship to avoid trouble with the police.

Indeed, this may not even be limited to editors in Scotland. Put yourself in the position of someone running a paper, magazine or blog which is published in England but read both sides of the border. If you are told that something which would never be prosecuted in England might lead the police to visit your Edinburgh distributors or even possibly land your company in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court, you are likely to modify your conduct accordingly.

Put bluntly, these are terrible proposals. The Scottish government has no interest whatsoever in freedom of speech. Instead it wants to project a comforting, woke image to professionals and other supporters in Pollokshields and Bruntsfield.

These laws must be opposed. Not only are they appallingly illiberal in themselves, but if passed they will not be the last word. Indeed, the bill itself envisages going further still: it contains a sinister power for the Scottish government to extend its effect in future so as to criminalise misogynistic speech, too. This would open yet another can of worms.

Nor is this only an issue for Scotland. The Law Commission in England is currently consulting on a possible expansion in English hate-crime law. If the Scottish proposals get the go-ahead, the omens in England are not good. You have been warned.

Andrew Tettenborn is a professor of commercial law and a former Cambridge admissions officer.

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Follow this link:

The SNPs war on free speech - Spiked

On Friday, about a dozen demonstrators marched around the old Capitol in Raleigh. As many as six had visible firearms, the Associated Press reported, including one with a pistol and several with long guns. The group marched peacefully and left in the afternoon about two hours after marching.

The small group of protesters, most of them carrying guns, gathered first at a cemetery near downtown, the News & Observer of Raleigh reported.

One of the men in the group told the News & Observer he thought Gov. Roy Cooper's stay-home order was unconstitutional, although it was not completely clear what the people were protesting. A Facebook post calling for a rally said it was to promote free speech and gun rights, the Associated Press reported.

A group of mostly armed demonstrators march around downtown Raleigh on Friday.

People with weapons march across a street in Raleigh on Friday. About a dozen demonstrators marched Friday afternoon around the area of the Old Capitol, Legislative Building and Executive Mansion. Several had visible firearms. It was not immediately clear what specific issues they were protesting, as none carried signs. A Facebook post calling for a rally on Friday morning had said it was to promote Constitutional free speech and gun rights. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

People hold weapons stand on a street corner in Raleigh on Friday. About a dozen demonstrators marched Friday afternoon around the area of the Old Capitol, Legislative Building and Executive Mansion. Several had visible firearms. It was not immediately clear what specific issues they were protesting, as none carried signs. A Facebook post calling for a rally on Friday morning had said it was to promote constitutional free speech and gun rights. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

Read more here:

Handful of armed protesters gather in Raleigh to promote free speech and gun rights - Greensboro News & Record

Many of the new surveillance powers now sought by the government to address the COVID-19 crisis would harm our First Amendment rights for years to come. People will be chilled and deterred from speaking out, protesting in public places, and associating with like-minded advocates if they fear scrutiny from cameras, drones, face recognition, thermal imaging, and location trackers. It is all too easy for governments to redeploy the infrastructure of surveillance from pandemic containment to political spying. It won't be easy to get the government to suspend its newly acquired tech and surveillance powers.

When this wave of the public health emergency is over and it becomes safe for most people to leave their homes, they may find a world with even more political debate than when they left it. A likely global recession, a new election season, and re-energized social movements will provide an overwhelming incentive for record numbers of people to speak out, to demonstrate in public places, and to demand concessions of their governments. The pent-up urge to take to the streets may bring mass protests like we have not seen in years. And what impact would new surveillance tools, adopted in the name of public health, have on this new era of marches, demonstrations, and strikes?

The collection and sharing of phone location data that was sold and deployed in order to trace the spread of the virus could be used by a reigning administration to crack down on dissent. The government and vendors have yet to make a convincing argument for how this measure would contribute to the public health effort. Indeed, they cannot, because GPS data and cell site location information are not sufficiently granular to show whether two people were close enough together to transmit the virus (six feet). But this data is sufficiently precise to show whether a person attended a protest in a park, picketed in front of a factory, or traveled at night to the block where a dissident lives.

Many other technologies that should never be deployed to prevent the spread of the virus would also harm free speech. Vendors are seeking to sell face recognition cameras to the government to alert authorities if someone in mandatory quarantine went grocery shopping. They could just as easily be used to identify picketers opposing government initiatives or journalists meeting with confidential sources. For example, the infamous face surveillance company, Clearview AI, is in talks with the government to create a system that would use face recognition in public places to identify unknown people who may have been infected by a known carrier. This proposal would create a massive surveillance infrastructure, linked to billions of social media images, that could allow the government to readily identify people in public spaces, including protesters, by scanning footage of them against images found online. Likewise, thermal imagining cameras in public places will not be an effective means of finding people with a fever, given the high error rate when calculating a persons temperature at a distance. But police might be able to use such cameras to find protesters that have fled on foot from police engaged in excessive force against peaceful gatherings.

The U.S. government is not known for its inclination to give back surveillance powers seized during extraordinary moments. Once used in acute circumstances, a tool stays in the toolbox until it is taken away. The government did not relinquish the power to tear gas protesters after the National Guard was called in to break up the Bonus Marchers assembled in the capitol during the Great Depression. Only after decades of clandestine use did the American people learn about the ways the FBI misused the threat of Communism to justify the wholesale harassment, surveillance, and sabotage of civil rights leaders and anti-war protesters. The revelation of these activities resulted in Sen. Frank Churchs investigations into U.S. surveillance in the mid-1970s, the type of forceful oversight of intelligence agencies we need more of today. And the massive surveillance apparatus created by the PATRIOT Act after 9/11 remains mostly intact and operational even after revelations of its overreach, law-breaking, and large-scale data collection on U.S. persons.

Even more proportionate technologies could be converted to less benign purposes than COVID-19 containment. Bluetooth-based proximity tracking apps are being used to trace the distance between two peoples' phones in an attempt to follow potential transmission of the virus. Done with privacy as a priority, these apps may be able to conceal the identities of people who come into contact with each other. Done wrong, these apps could be used to crack down on political expression. If police know that Alice was at a protest planning meeting, and police learn from the proximity app that Alice was near Bob that day, then police could infer that Bob was also at the meeting. Some versions of these apps also collect identifiers or geolocations, which could further be used to identify and track participants in protest planning meetings.

Done without collecting identifying information and minimizing storage, measures like aggregate geolocation tracking might assist public health response and be difficult to weaponize against protestors. But done with deliberate intention to survey demonstrations, aggregate location data might be disaggregated, merged with other data, and used to identify individual people. For example, police could single out individual protestors in a public plaza, track them to their respective homes and workplaces once the demonstration is over, and thereby identify them.

Free speech and political participation are chilled when governments put protests, protestors, activists, and organizers under surveillance. Studies have found that when people are aware of surveillance, theyre less likely to engage in political speech or debate the important issues of the day. The First Amendment also protects the right of association for purposes of collective expression. This right is threatened if people are worried that they will be put under surveillance for joining or meeting with specific people or groups. Suddenly a persons movements, correspondence, or personal relationships are scrutinized by strangers within the government. At a moment when our society is desperate to find innovative solutions to daunting political problems, we should loudly condemn any surveillance efforts which might chill our ability to freely discuss and associate about pressing issues.

EFF has clear guidelines for how we evaluate a piece of surveillance technology proposed as a tool of public health: Would it work? Is it too invasive? Are their sufficient safeguards? One of the biggest concerns is that new powers introduced at this current moment will long outstay their necessity, experience mission creep, and by overtly redeployed for other purposes. Now, more than ever, we must stay vigilant about any new surveillance powers, technologies, and public-private relationships.

Visit link:

The Dangers of COVID-19 Surveillance Proposals to the Future of Protest - EFF

A California city planning commissioner has been removed from his office after posting on social media that COVID-19 should be permitted to spread and possibly infect people who are elderly, mentally ill, homeless or others he said are drains on our resources.

The city council for Antioch, Calif., unanimously voted on Friday during a special council meeting to remove city Planning Commission Chair Kenneth Turnage II in response to a pointed Facebook post the commissioner wrote on April 23. The council members sharply criticized Turnages statements and cited a public outcry for the need to address them. Council Member Lori Ogorchock said that she found Turnages comments to be very insensitive and callous, especially towards the elderly and that she had heard concerns about them from older residents.

In Turnages statement, which was re-posted by East County Today, he called for an end to stay at home orders, which are intended to curb the spread of the coronavirus, and to let nature run its course. Turnage compared the virus to a forest fire, which will destroy part of the forest that drain the resources of the forest and [cause] it to be unhealthy. Turnage said that while many elderly people would be lost to the virus, that would reduce burdens in our defunct Social Security System, health care cost (once the wave subsided), make jobs available for others and it would also free up housing in which we are in dire need of.

This would run rampant through [the homeless] and yes I am sorry but this would fix what is a significant burden on our society and resources that can be used, Turnage concluded, In my opinion we need to adapt a herd mentality. A herd gathers it ranks, it allows the sick, the old, the injured to meet its natural course in nature.

Turnage defended his comments during the special council meeting as free speech intended to spark a debate. He argued that there is a scientific basis for the principal of ecological balance and accused council members of engaging in race-bating, and of violating his First Amendment rights.

My personal opinion had nothing to do with the city, or my position on the planning commission. So to try to somehow link them or create a nexus to further your political agendas is shameful, Turnage said. He said that he was sorry that he could have chosen different analogies.

City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, who had recommended that the city remove Turnage, said that the question at hand was not Turnages First Amendment rights, but the reaction and the impact that this speech has had on the residents of Antioch and the confidence and the trust in the government. Smith noted that because Turnage is an appointed official, not an elected one, it is the responsibility of the city council to hold him accountable.

During the public comment period of the meeting, multiple members of the public expressed concern that Turnage had sullied Antiochs reputation and had expressed a lack of empathy for the elderly, homeless and mentally ill. One member of the public described Turnages worldview as sociopathic and Nazi-like, especially because his position is responsible for helping to provide seniors with housing.

Others have expressed concern that Turnage is being silenced. Mike Burkholder, publisher of East County Today, defended Turnage in an opinion piece, while acknowledged Turnage is a friend of his.

Turnage did not immediately respond to a request from TIME for comment.

Thank you! For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder.

Write to Tara Law at tara.law@time.com.

Go here to read the rest:

California City Official Ousted After Saying COVID-19 Could 'Fix' Burdens on Society If Allowed to Spread - TIME

Dr. Andrew Glikson joins the Thom Hartmann program with a warning about the future of humanity and the earth. Glikson, an Earth and paleo-climate scientist, studied geology at the University of Jerusalem and graduated at the University of Western Australia in 1968

Can humanity atop capitalism from destroying the environment before it is too late? Are we already looking at the extinction of the human race?

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them.

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out TH on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Andrew Glikson Capitalism Catastrophe Climate Change Dinosaur Environment Extinction Global Warming Insects The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann

See the original post here:

Scientist Warns of Catastrophe Worse Than the Dinosaur Extinction - Free Speech TV

WATERTOWN In reading their essays, it doesnt take long to figure out where some writers stand on the removal last month of several videos posted on a social media platform representing Fort Drum soldiers.

U.S. Army Maj. Scott Ingram and Capt. Amy Smith, two chaplains who serve on the post, put two videos each onto the official Facebook page of the 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade. Eight soldiers expressed their objections to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which contacted Fort Drum leadership and requested the videos be removed. The MRFF said the videos violated the U.S. Constitutions Establishment Clause.

Mikey Weinstein, MMRFs founder and president, called them illicit proselytizing videos that should not have been posted to the official command Facebook page of the 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade. Fort Drum leaders deemed the videos inappropriate and ordered them to be removed.

Chris Rodda, MMRFs senior research director, made an interesting point in an article published April 20 by DailyKos.com. She wrote: The Fort Drum Chapel Facebook page has only 348 followers. The Facebook page of Fort Drums 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade has 7,828 followers. If you were a chaplain bent on proselytizing, which page would you want your videos on? Youd want those 7,828 soldiers and family members to get your message to walk with God while asking God, where are you, where are you in the midst of this COVID-19? Since the start of the COVID-19 crisis, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has been seeing an uptick in a particular type of complaint overt proselytizing videos on official military Facebook pages.

Chaplains in the armed forces have a job to do, and the novel coronavirus pandemic has everyone worried. So its understandable that ministers will use whatever assets they have available to reach out to military personnel.

But the MMRF raised a valid point about where these videos appeared. To the extent that its proper for the government to dedicate resources for spiritual purposes, its vital that this not be construed as an endorsement of any religious beliefs. So the Fort Drum Chapel Facebook page would have been a better spot for these videos rather than the site for the 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade.

However, not everyone agrees with this assessment.

The U.S. Armys 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade has acquiesced to demands from a secular advocacy group to remove prayer videos by its chaplains from the brigades main Facebook page, wrote Calvin Freiburger on Monday in a post for LifeSiteNews.com. Claiming to have received complaints about the videos from eight active-duty soldiers in the Division, the so-called Military Religious Freedom Foundation sent a complaint demanding that the illicit proselytizing videos be removed from the main page (which has more than 7,800 followers) and relegated to the Fort Hill Chapel Facebook page (which has fewer than 400). The MRFF is most well-known for pressuring the U.S. military to quash benign, non-coercive expressions of faith. It has taken credit for getting Bibles removed from Missing Man Tables across the country, demanded punishment for chaplains who wore their uniforms to an event hosted by a religious liberty group and agitated for heavy restrictions on proselytizing by military chaplains.

Catholic League President Bill Donohue commented: Weinstein complained to officers of the U.S. Armys 10th Mountain Division, and they yielded. Yet they had no need to they were deceived by the false arguments made by Weinstein. There is nothing illicit about the mere invocation of God by military chaplains. Had an atheist religion-hating member of the armed forces posted a video on Facebook celebrating Lucifer, Weinstein would have defended it as freedom of speech. Military chaplains do not lose their twin First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech by posting religious commentary on a private media outlet. Moreover, the separation of church and state provision of the First Amendment only applies to what government cannot do. Every president, acting as commander in chief, has invoked God, beginning with George Washington. To say that military chaplains have no right to identify themselves as officers when they engage in religious commentary is to say they have no public right to exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Only fascists think this way.

In an April 24 blog post on Patheos.com, Bethany Blankley wrote: Facebook has been censoring for a while, no longer allowing free speech, and targeting Christians specifically. This time, they took down U.S. Army chaplains messages of encouragement to viewers. Four recent videos involving chaplains posting messages were taken down after a complaint was filed stating that the messages ironically violated the First Amendment, the very amendment that protects such speech.

Writing April 25 for the Washington Sentinel, Warner Todd Huston proclaimed: Facebook has removed several prayers posted by several chaplains in the U.S. Army after a Christian-hating group complained that they represented illicit proselytizing of Christianity. Facebook removed four videos recorded by chaplains Capt. Amy Smith and Maj. Scott Ingram which had been posted to the Facebook page of the Armys 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade at Fort Drum, New York. Facebook moved to delete the offensive prayers after the anti-Christian group Military Religious Freedom Foundation demanded that the social media giant remove them. The group falsely claimed that the videos were a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution gives us all freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

To correct claims by both Blankley and Huston, Facebook did not remove these videos. They were taken down by members of the Fort Drum command team.

Donohue was mistaken by claiming that the videos appeared on a private media outlet. This is the official Facebook page for the 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade, which is a public entity and represents all its members many of whom are not religious.

Donohue wrote that the separation of church and state provision of the First Amendment only applies to what government cannot do. Yes! And it prohibits the government from endorsing any religious beliefs.

For Huston to write, The Constitution gives us all freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, is to misunderstand its meaning. There is no such thing as freedom of religious if we cant choose freedom from religion.

Governments that favor some religious expressions over others will ultimately discriminate against those who do not share these views. So to enforce the separation of church and state, its essential for the government to take an agnostic stance on the matter.

Thats what the U.S. Constitution does. We know this is true because some of the most vocal opponents to our nations charter when it was first proposed were Christians. They denounced it as a godless document that left spiritual questions to be decided by private citizens for themselves.

The MMRF was justified in objecting to the placement of these videos on the 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigades Facebook page. This doesnt address all the problems that result from the governments improper flirtation with religion, but its a step in the right direction.

Jerry Moore is the editorial page editor for the Watertown Daily Times. Readers may call him at 315-661-2369 or send emails to jmoore@wdt.net.

Visit link:

Jerry Moore: Army shouldn't play show-and-tell concerning religion - NNY360