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

Stephanie Kelton joins David Pakman to discuss the recent multi-trillion dollar coronavirus stimulus passed by the federal government. Kelton is an American economist and one of the world's leading experts in Modern Monetary Theory. She is a professor at Stony Brook University. She also served as an advisor to Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign.

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out TDPS 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

Bernie Sanders Coronavirus COVID-19 David Pakman Stephanie Kelton Stimulus Stony Brook University The David Pakman Show

See the rest here:

Where Did We Find All That Stimulus Money? - Free Speech TV

Once again, our nation is faced with the painful process of sorting through grave sexual assault allegations against a powerful man. Once again, the public assessment of the veracity of those claims is lining up all-too-neatly with the partisan needs of the moment. Those who object to the rush to judgment against the accused will often ask if how wed respond if, say, Joe Biden or Brett Kavanaugh was someone you loved. What if he was your father or grandfather. Would you feel like theyd been treated fairly?

The counter is quick. What if Tara Reade or Christine Blasey Ford was someone you loved? Can you imagine how youd feel as they mustered up the courage to tell a dreadful story and then you watched them endure the inevitable slings and arrows of scorn, hatred, and mockery?

But theres a different, better construct. What would the world look like if an imperfect population that possessed imperfect knowledge loved them both?

As some readers may know, last year I was cast into the middle of a comprehensive political argument about the future of conservatism. At issue was nothing less than the tactics, morality, and philosophy of the conservative movement. At issue was classical liberalism itself. On the one side were those who argued that the American system of governmentconceived as it was (however imperfectly) in libertywas destructive tothe common good. The injustices and immorality that exist all around us (drag queen story hours were used as Exhibit A of the failure of the American system) were evidence of the degrading effects of a political philosophy that emphasized freedom and individuality.

I must confess that I was not prepared to be thrust into the middle of a debate about the future of the American form of government. My training isnt in philosophy but in law. Others were better equipped to defend liberalism as conceived. My entire lifes work was liberalism as applied. In other words, as a civil liberties litigator, my work centered around putting the legal flesh on the philosophical bones of the great pronunciations of American revolutionary and constitutional history.

Moreover, given that professional history, I perhaps erred in focusing relentlessly practical arguments (whats your alternative to current First Amendment jurisprudence?) as opposed to more fully explaining the fundamental justice of the American system and how so very many of our great failings have occurred when weve departed from our constitutional ideals, not when weve complied with them.

Even more importantly, its worth explaining how the social compact outlined in the Bill of Rightsand amplified in the Civil War amendmentsis the closest thing the mind of man has devised to creating a biblically sound system of government in the modern history of the human race.

In my defense of the American founding, a number of Christian thinkers took issue with the importance I placed on liberty as a primary value. I have repeatedly and enthusiastically quoted these words from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

While these Christian thinkers appreciate the Declarations high view of humanity, they quite rightly dont look at Jeffersons work as equivalent to the word of God. Instead, they urged me to focus on the biblical mandate given to rulers time and time again in scripture. Protect liberty isnt the mandate. Instead, its to do justice.

For example, consider Micah 6:8, a scripture I quoted in my Sunday newsletter last week: He has told you, O man, what is good; andwhat does theLordrequire of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and towalk humbly with your God?

From Genesis 9 to Romans 13 and in many places in between, the emphasis on justice shines through. In a piece last September, Baptist scholar Jonathan Leeman provided multiple examples of exhortations to Israels kings that highlight the kings duty to do justice:

So David reigned over all Israel. And David administered justice and equity [righteousness] to all his people (2 Sam 8:15).

Israel stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him to do justice (1 Kings 3:28).

Because the Lord loved Israel forever, he has made you king, that you may execute justice and righteousness (1 Kings 10:9).

Byjusticea king builds up the land (Prov. 29:4).

This is an entirely fair pointbut its worth noting that protecting liberty is not only just on its own terms, protecting liberty also facilitates and protects the continued quest for the more perfect union.

Lets put it this waythe Declaration of Independence was American classical liberalism conceived. The Constitution is American classical liberalism operationalized. The Bill of Rights and the Civil War amendments represent the indispensable foundation of American justice.

(By the way, Im going to get back to Joe Biden and Brett Kavanaugh. I promise.)

Lets start with the concept of equalitynot that all men and women are entitled to equal station in life (there is only one greatest basketball player of all time, and his name is LeBron), but rather that all men and women are of equal worth. All men are created equal says Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The 14th Amendment then operationalizes that principle by declaring that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To say that all men and women enjoy equal protection does not tell us what is the best health care policy or tax structure for advancing the common good. It does, however, establish a principle of justicethat policy should be oriented towards the reality of equal human worthas well as an obligation of law, that states cannot invidiously discriminate against their own citizens.

Jefferson enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as mankinds unalienable rights. The Bill of Rights operationalizes that declaration by protecting rights of free speech and religious liberty from state encroachment, and protecting life and liberty from arbitrary state punishment or from state cruelty and malice.

Again, preserving equal access to those rights isnt merely just by its own terms, it facilitates the pursuit of justice and the common good. Lets take free speech, for example. There are those who decry the First Amendment when it protects speech they dont like or find hateful or blasphemous, but the marketplace of ideas is also where we expose hate and unreason to critique and defeat.

There is a reason why the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass called free speech the great moral renovator of society and government. He continued to say free speech, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants ... Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence.

Due process is just, and its indispensable to the pursuit of justice. It is the answer to the question at the start of this newsletterin the most fraught of claims and the most vicious of crimesWhat if we loved them both? What if both accused and accuser were of equal worth? When we consider the right to bring a claim, the requirements of evidence, and even the time limits imposed on cases (given the difficulty of both defending against and proving very old allegations), we not only humbly acknowledge our inability to peer into a persons soul to discern truth, we also acknowledge that even the mightiest man can and should be brought low when the evidence dictates.

But protecting due process (like protecting free speech) is hard. Just as permitting bad speech is a necessity for maintaining the larger, just legal structure of free speechindividual injustices can also protect the larger, necessary structure of due process. This is what happens when a murderer walks free after his own constitutional rights were violated, or when even meritorious claims are barred by statutes of limitation.

Resting behind each one of the key assertions of liberty in the Bill of Rights is the implicit declaration, I am not God. I cant look into a mans soul and discern guilt or innocence. I cannot look at the complexities of law and policy and unerringly discern the common good. Complying with the Constitution is how fallen people both preserve and seek justice when truth is difficult to discern.

Now, lets bring this back to Joe Biden and Brett Kavanaughto Tara Reade and Christine Blasey Ford. I know that neither controversy was or will be resolved in a court of law, where due process is formalized and mandatory. But I also know that the obligation to seek justice is personal and cultural as well as political and legal. The core elements of justice in our American systemwhich rest in eternal truths of human worth and human fallibilityare also applicable to our moral obligations as citizens when we judge these public disputes.

Each person involved in the controversy is of equal worth, a human being created in Gods image. That means the accusers have a right to bring their claim and be heard, respectfully and fully. That means the accused have their own rights to defend themselves, and a presumption of innocence is wise. Our own extreme fallibility and inability to peer into a human soul means that we should diligently seek external evidence that corroborates or rebuts any allegation or defense.

Moreover, the difficulty in proving or defending old allegations, means that we should ask adults to make complaints on a reasonably timely basis, even when filing complaints takes courage.

It is true that our culture has frequently failed women. It has failed in the obligation to treat them with respect or to fully hear or fairly consider their claims of terrible crimes. It is also true that our culture has also failed men, especially black men. There are simply too many terribly tragic tales of men dying at the hands of a mob in the face of an unsubstantiated claim of sexual misconduct. Even today, there are echoes of that awful injustice in the way in which black men are treated in campus courts.

But the answer to historical injustice isnt another, equal and opposite injustice. Thats the score-settling that leads to endless ideological and partisan conflict. Instead, the answer is to discern the correct standard, and hew to it as closely as we can. Conservatives should not seek revenge for Brett Kavanaugh. Progressives should not give in to the temptation of believing a Democrat through highly-subjective judgments of demeanor or temperament. Thats the Gods-eye view. And human beings are terrible at playing God.

Due process is just. It concretely recognizes the equal worth of every member of the American family. Due process is also how we seek justice. Its our best method of discerning the truth of contentious claims. The principles of the Bill of Rights represent the way in which a fallen people pursue a divine command.

One last thing ...

Im not sure why, but lately Ive been listening to music that I listened to years agoincluding songs by the late Rich Mullins, old songs by Michael Card, and this song. Its by Robin Mark, and I remember listening to it at the bedside of a dear friend as he lay dying from cancer. Its beautiful and meaningful, especially at a time when death and disease still stalk our land:

Photograph of Joe Biden by Getty Images. Photograph of Tara Reade by the Associated Press.

View original post here:

What if We Loved Them Both? - The Dispatch

Sholten Singer Justin Rohrwasser was hand-picked by Bill Belichick to follow in the footsteps of Stephen Gostkowski and Adam Vinatieri.

Justin Rohrwasser was driving across New York state last Sunday, from Buffalo to his home outside of Albany, when his emotions overwhelmed him.

He just broke down crying in the car, said John Barber, Rohrwassers high school football coach. My first reaction was, Where are you? Ill come get you. He said, No, Im fine, Im driving home.

They were supposed to be tears of joy for Rohrwasser, who last Saturday realized his dream of getting drafted into the NFL. After a college career that took him from the University of Rhode Island to Erie (N.Y.) Community College to Marshall University, Rohrwasser was the first kicker drafted into the NFL this year, taken in the fifth round by the Patriots. Coach Bill Belichick handpicked Rohrwasser to be the possible successor to Stephen Gostkowski and Adam Vinatieri.

Instead, Rohrwasser was crying tears of pain. And fear. And disappointment.

Not long after Rohrwasser was drafted, one of his tattoos caught the attention of social media.

On his left forearm is the Roman numeral III encircled by 13 stars a logo of a group called the Three Percenters.

The organization is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-government group." Anti-government groups, according to the center, advocate or adhere to extreme anti-government doctrines, but do not necessarily advocate for violence or racism.

Members of the Three Percenters have made news in recent years for harassing Muslims and Mexicans; for planning to detonate a car bomb in Oklahoma City; for occupying an Oregon wildlife refuge for five weeks in 2016; and for having a presence at the Charlottesville, Va., white supremacy rally in 2017.

The group says on its website that it is very pro-government, so long as the government abides by the Constitution." Its members view themselves as defenders of the Constitution, who fight for small government, free speech, and gun ownership rights, according to previous reporting on the subject.

The Three Percenters got national notice when some of their members traveled to Charlottesville in 2017 intending to help keep the peace and defend both the white supremacists and their counter-protesters right to free speech. After the bloody clash, the Three Percenters national council ordered a stand-down order, saying, We will not align ourselves with any type of racist group.

Rohrwasser got the tattoo when he was in college. A review of photographs on his social-media profiles suggests that he had it as early as December 2015, when he was a freshman at Rhode Island.

He said after being drafted last week that he didnt fully understand what the group represented to the public.

I have a lot of family in the military," he said. "I thought it stood for a military support symbol at the time. Obviously, its evolved into something that I do not want to represent.

"When I look back on it, I should have done way more research before I put any mark or symbol like that on my body, and its not something I ever want to represent. It will be covered.

Rohrwasser told WBZ the next day that he will completely remove the tattoo instead of covering it up.

Exactly when and why Rohrwasser got the tattoo could not be determined. The Patriots did not let Rohrwasser and his family be interviewed for this story. Belichick was not asked about the tattoo during his post-draft media availability and was not made available for this story.

Rohrwassers world came crashing down last Saturday. His Twitter and Instagram feeds were scoured, turning up tweets and likes of Rohrwasser supporting President Donald Trump, controversial right-wing figures such as author Ayn Rand, and anti-political correctness psychologist Jordan Peterson.

For him to be called a racist thug and a Nazi and Hitler, it just turns my stomach, because thats not who he is, said Barber. What shouldve been the best day of his life people that Im trying to be polite they dont understand the full story of who he is, just want to take something out of context and destroy a kid, which wasnt called for.

Kicking his ticket

Rohrwasser, 23, grew up in Clifton Park, N.Y., about 20 miles north of Albany. Listed now at 6 feet 3 inches and 230 pounds, he was a standout soccer and football player who attended Catholic Central in Troy, and played for a co-op team called Holy Trinity. He was the starting quarterback, kicker, and punter during his senior season, and led the Crusaders to a 5-3 record. In one game, he quarterbacked his team down the field in the closing seconds, then kicked the winning 37-yard field goal.

Rohrwasser knew that kicking was his ticket. In the winter, he kicked in the schools indoor batting cage. In the summer, his father and coach shagged balls for him.

Every kickoff was through the end zone, Barber said. His extra points and field goals were just automatic. He had that pop on the ball.

It all led to a partial scholarship at Rhode Island, where he kicked in the 2015 and 2016 seasons.

He was tremendous, a great kid in the program, Rhode Island head coach Jim Fleming said. I thought he was an intelligent, well-spoken, good dude. Kids liked him. He wasnt a normal introverted kicker. He had some personality to him.

Fleming said he never noticed the III tattoo, but said he would often engage in political discussions with Rohrwasser, who wasnt shy about his conservative beliefs. In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, Rohrwasser often wore a red Make America Great Again hat, according to Fleming.

He was an interesting cat to talk to, Fleming said. We dont let the hats in meetings, but hed wear it in the hallway, on campus. Id joke, You take that freakin hat off, and then wed have conversations about it.

And he was a very mature kid. We had some interesting conversations about what he thought and why he liked Trump and those kinds of things. As I remember it, he always came back to the economic component; that made him jump on the Trump bandwagon more than anything else.

"I was not concerned whatsoever about him dividing the team. So I feel bad for the kid right now. Hell weather the storm, hopefully.

Rohrwasser connected on 15 of 20 field goal attempts in his two seasons, with a long of 42, but the Rams won just three games and Rohrwasser wasnt getting many opportunities.

He transferred to a community college near Buffalo, then received a scholarship offer at Marshall for the 2018 and 2019 seasons.

Rohrwasser thrived at Marshall. He hit on 15 of 21 field goal attempts as a junior, then 18 of 21 his senior year, earning first-team All-Conference USA honors and drawing buzz as an NFL prospect. Rohrwassers finest moment came at the end of a win over Western Kentucky last season when he lined up for a winning 53-yard kick. He wound up attempting the kick three times because WKU iced him twice with timeouts, and he nailed all three.

I was probably more nervous than he was, holder Jackson White said. I remember I looked back at him on the third kick, he gave me the nod and he just smiled at me. I was like, Oh, hes going to crush this kick. It was amazing.

Several of Rohrwassers Marshall teammates said they never heard him speak about his tattoo or make uncomfortable political statements.

We have lockers next to each other," long snapper Matt Beardall said. "Ive seen the tattoo a thousand times and had no idea what it stood for or what it meant.

"Justin did love to talk politics and stuff, but it was never to this extent or what the tattoo stands for. If something happened in D.C., you could go to Justin and he would tell you what happened because he would follow the politics from both sides of things. It was never left or right, he was always in the middle and he just wanted to understand everyones point of view.

Hes not an extremist like everyone is calling him to be, and its really sad that some people who dont know him are calling him names and making judgments.

Among Rohrwassers other tattoos are an American flag, one stating Liberty or death, and another that states, Dont tread on me. He also has tattoos of the all-seeing eye, the Dave Matthews Band, and one with a black spade that reads, Born to lose, Live to win, a symbol and motto often attributed to heavy metal singer Lemmy of Motorhead. Rohrwasser previously told the Marshall website that the tattoos are all random.

Marshall running back Brenden Knox, who is Black, said he and Rohrwasser became close friends while attending community events together, like speaking at local elementary schools and visiting the hospital before the Gasparilla Bowl. Knox said he never felt threatened by Rohrwassers political views.

We sat together a lot on buses, and when I first saw [the tattoo] I honestly did not think twice about it. I thought it was Illuminati stuff or something like that, Knox said. A lot of times were around our teammates more than our friends and family back home and you really get to know a guy. And I never got any type of vibe that set me off on edge. A guy like that, you want to stand up for him when everybody else is saying things that arent true.

Best foot forward

Rohrwasser was fortunate that Marshall held its Pro Day on March 11, before the NFL shut down all travel because of COVID-19. Performing in front of about 16 NFL teams, Rohrwasser nailed 12 of 13 kicks, with a long of 58. The only kick he missed was from 66 yards, but it had the distance and barely missed.

Patriots special teams coordinator Cameron Achord was in attendance, intently taking notes and speaking with Rohrwasser after the event.

Only the people that were at Pro Day knew the interest the Patriots had in Justin, Beardall said. I was like, This guy really, really wants him. He was their sleeper, and they knew he wasnt a sleeper.

Rohrwasser wasnt ranked highly by most scouting analysts, and ESPN didnt have any footage of him for its broadcast. But Beardall had a hunch the Patriots would draft him on Day 3.

Hes like, Ill probably just sign an undrafted rookie contract with the Patriots, Beardall said. Then when the fifth round came around, I was sitting on the couch talking to my brother. I was like, What if they pull the trigger on Justin right here? And the next thing you know, they did.

But Rohrwassers celebration quickly turned to a nightmare as his social media accounts (since locked) were scoured and his name became associated with the alt-right and white nationalism.

It was very hard, just to see that and things that are being said about him and some of the backlash came at me also, said Barber, the high school coach. His senior year, he dated my niece for five to six months. Hes a good kid. When we talked on Sunday, he broke right down crying. So it was difficult.

Some of Rohrwassers ex-teammates and coaches came to his defense this past week. Marshall junior defensive end Koby Cumberlander, who is Black, said on Twitter, Im going to keep defending my dawg, crazy how people are quick to judge someone they dont even know.

White, the holder, said he believes Rohrwasser that he didnt fully understand the associations made with the Three Percenters.

I believe in him. I dont think hes part of anything, White said. I know for a fact that hes very passionate about supporting the military. Hes a conservative guy, hell tell you that. But I was looking on Twitter and people were ragging on him about the tweets that he liked about Trump. I think its crazy theyre trying to destroy his career.

His friends believe that the controversy will eventually subside, and Rohrwasser will be a benefit to the Patriots.

All of the Patriots fans have only heard the untrue stories about Justin, said Beardall. Theres so many true, great stories about him that theyre going to see once he starts. Hes going to interact in the community, hes going to read to elementary schools thats what we did on Wednesdays. Hes a stand up dude.

I totally know hell be fine once he puts his pads on. Hell go out there and kick and make the Patriots fans super happy.

See the original post here:

For Justin Rohrwasser, the controversy about his tattoo started soon after being drafted by Patriots - msnNOW

Sen. Sylvia Santana, D-Detroit, said the scene made her so fearful she wore a bulletproof vest at her desk. It makes the work environment very, just, temperamental when youre trying to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, she told Bridge Magazine Friday.

While there was no physical violence, and most of the hundreds of demonstrators were not armed, at least one protester held a sign encouraging violence against Whitmer: Tyrants Get The Rope. Another brought a Confederate flag outside the Capitol in apparent ode to the Civil War.

Whitmer called the protest disturbing.

Senate Majority Leader MIke Shirkey, a Second Amendment champion who has encouraged demonstrations against the governor, on Friday denounced some among the protesters as a bunch of jackasses.

Many protested safely and responsibly, and I respect and appreciate their efforts, Shirkey, R-Clarklake, said in a statement. Several other so-called protestors, used intimidation and the threat of physical harm to stir up fear and feed rancor. I condemn their behavior and denounce their tactics.

Michigan is among a handful of state capitols with no rules prohibiting firearms or requiring visitors to pass through metal detectors. Visitors are, however, banned from bringing signs or posters inside, a policy ostensibly designed to prevent damage to walls of the historic building.

Its been that way for as long as John Lindstrom can remember.

The recently retired publisher of the Gongwer subscription newsletter, a journalist who spent 42 years covering the Capitol, recalls only a handful of instances where stronger regulations were temporarily put in place.

You can't carry a gun into a courthouse, you cant even carry a phone into a courthouse, and yet we are literally operating with people hovering over us with their weapons. Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield

In 1999, for instance, House Republican leadership installed a metal detector outside the gallery amid protests over Republican Gov. John Englers plan to take over struggling public schools in Detroit.

It was mostly protesters from the city, and there were a lot of objections to that, Lindstrom said, referencing the predominantly African-American city. A lot of (protesters) were very upset and argued they were being discriminated against, treated badly, because they were forced to go through a metal detector.

There were no similar safeguards when an overwhelmingly white group of protestors rushed into the Capitol on Thursday.

In late 2012, Michigan State Police closed the entire Capitol building to visitors amid a massive protest over controversial right to work legislation after arresting eight people who they said attempted to push past troopers and rush the Senate floor.

The longstanding ban on signs, which sparked free speech complaints, may date back to the 1980s, when someone in a union protest over workers compensation changes damaged a painting of former Gov. Kim Sigler, according to Linstrom.

An awful lot of states have put restrictions on how people can get into their capitols and what they can bring in with them, Lindstrom said. But Michigan is one of the few that is basically still a wide open building.

The Michigan Capitol Commission writes rules for visitors to the building but has not adopted any regulations on firearms, citing Constitutional guarantees. The makeup of the commission is largely decided by legislative leaders, currently Republicans, who effectively appoint four of six members.

We have been following the statutes, said Michigan Capitol Commissioner John Truscott, who served as press secretary to GOP Gov. Engler. He noted there are not any laws prohibiting firearms at the building.

But Truscott acknowledged commissioners are reviewing open-carry laws and discussing whether regulations at the Capitol are in order.

With this being thrust in the national spotlight, it's raising a lot of questions, he told Bridge Magazine.

Metal detectors have been used during presidential visits in the past, Truscott said. Then-President Bill Clinton, for instance, spoke at the building in the 1990s, and the Secret Service implemented several strict security measures at the time.

But in general, our goal has been to keep the building as open as possible to the public, he said.

In recent years, Democrats have proposed banning guns in the Capitol, but they have had no luck as the minority party in both the House and Senate since 2010.

Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield, said he hopes this weeks scene at the Michigan Capitol will renew interest in legislation he has sponsored with Rep. Robert Wittenberg, D-Huntington Woods, that would prohibit guns in the Capitol but allow signs.

Armed demonstrators shouting at lawmakers from the Senate gallery Thursday had a clear motive, he said: It was intimidation.

I don't even think they knew who they were yelling at, Moss said, noting the Senate went in and out of recess several times as GOP leaders worked on legislation attempting to limit the governors emergency authority. They were heckling Democrats because they knew what our position was, but they were also calling the Republicans spineless for delaying the action.

While he waited for Republicans to begin voting, Moss said his social media feeds were flooded with questions from users across the country wondering about the armed protesters.

How can this happen? they asked, according to Moss. You can't carry a gun into a courthouse, you cant even carry a phone into a courthouse, and yet we are literally operating with people hovering over us with their weapons.

Tom Lambert, legislative director for Michigan Open Carry Inc., has lobbied lawmakers against limiting guns at the state Capitol and said it would be a mistake to change rules even if some legislators felt threatened this week.

If that's the standard we're going to use for things, where does that stop? he said. Do we limit constitutionally protected assembly based on a subjective fear, especially one where no one has ever been harmed? I get there's the possibility out there. But we don't take these big steps based on possibilities.

From pictures he saw from Thursdays protest, Lambert said the armed protesters did not appear to brandish their weapons, according to state law, which defines brandishing as pointing, waiving or displaying a firearm in a threatening manner with the intent to induce fear in a reasonable person.

Simply displaying a firearm, simply carrying a firearm is not intended to cause fear, Lambert said.

Santana said she was afraid Thursday, and not just because of the armed protesters.

She was already on edge after watching demonstrators at a previous April rally waive Confederate flags, invoking memories of legal slavery, and angry that a Republican Senate colleague had worn what appeared to be a Confederate-print facemask on the floor the week before.

Santana introduced legislation this week that would prohibit Confederate flag displays on Michigan Capitol property and said she also thinks its time to revisit building firearm rules.

There was no way that I was going to come and do the business of the day and work in a bipartisan fashion with the fear of somebody having the ability to shoot, she said.

RESOURCES:

See the article here:

Maybe it's time to rethink allowing guns in Michigan Capitol, officials say - Bridge Michigan

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)

See the original post here:

Handful of armed protesters gather in Raleigh to promote free speech and gun rights - Winston-Salem Journal

from the authoritarian-nonsense dept

We've been writing a number of pieces lately about how incredibly dangerous China's internet censorship has been during COVID-19, from silencing medical professionals to hiding research results tod trying to ignore Taiwan's success in fighting COVID-19, it's shown a pretty clear pattern that Chinese internet censorship is literally killing people. This is not to say that the US government's response has been much better -- it's obviously been a disaster, but at least we have more free speech online and in the press, which is enabling all sorts of useful information to spread.

But you might not know that if you read this odd piece in the Atlantic by Jack Goldsmith and Andrew Keane Woods arguing that China has the right approach to handling free speech online during a pandemic, and the US has not. While the overall piece is, perhaps, a bit more thoughtful than the headline and tagline, it has moments that simply defy any sense of what's happening in the world.

In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong. Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a societys norms and values.

Again, this defies all evidence of what we've seen to date.

The piece, bizarrely, conflates pervasive digital surveillance with open free speech online:

Two events were wake-up calls. The first was Edward Snowdens revelations in 2013 about the astonishing extent of secret U.S. government monitoring of digital networks at home and abroad. The U.S. governments domestic surveillance is legally constrained, especially compared with what authoritarian states do. But this is much less true of private actors. Snowdens documents gave us a glimpse of the scale of surveillance of our lives by U.S. tech platforms, and made plain how the government accessed privately collected data to serve its national-security needs.

And that's got literally nothing to do with America's approach to free speech online.

The "second" wake up call does relate to speech, but perhaps not in the way the authors mean:

The second wake-up call was Russias interference in the 2016 election. As Barack Obama noted, the most consequential misinformation campaign in modern history was not particularly sophisticatedthis was not some elaborate, complicated espionage scheme. Russia used a simple phishing attack and a blunt and relatively limited social-media strategy to disrupt the legitimacy of the 2016 election and wreak still-ongoing havoc on the American political system. The episode showed how easily a foreign adversary could exploit the United States deep reliance on relatively unregulated digital networks. It also highlighted how legal limitations grounded in the First Amendment (freedom of speech and press) and the Fourth Amendment (privacy) make it hard for the U.S. government to identify, prevent, and respond to malicious cyber operations from abroad.

Yes, the Russians conducted a misinformation campaign -- but it still remains unclear how effective that was beyond at the margins (and, to be fair, in a close election, the margins can be meaningful). But that's hardly a reason to throw out the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment has also allowed there to be widespread discussion and debate about all of this, and has helped to get companies better situated to deal with and respond to disinformation campaigns. It has also allowed tons of people to be on the digital frontlines pointing out mis- and dis-information and working on responding to it to limit its impact. There will always be some and there will always be attempts to exploit it, but the idea that China's approach is better seems totally counterfactual to reality (or what plenty of people who have suffered from Chinese internet censorship will tell you).

Incredibly, the authors blame Section 230 for "the free for all" online... but then when they talk about the companies trying to combat disinfo just two paragraphs later, they somehow miraculously leave out the fact that it's Section 230 and the 1st Amendment that allow them to moderate the content on the platform:

Ten years ago, speech on the American Internet was a free-for-all. There was relatively little monitoring and censorshippublic or privateof what people posted, said, or did on Facebook, YouTube, and other sites. In part, this was due to the legal immunity that platforms enjoyed under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And in part it was because the socially disruptive effects of digital networksvarious forms of weaponized speech and misinformationhad not yet emerged. As the networks became filled with bullying, harassment, child sexual exploitation, revenge porn, disinformation campaigns, digitally manipulated videos, and other forms of harmful content, private platforms faced growing pressure from governments and users to fix the problems.

[....]

After the 2016 election debacle, for example, the tech platforms took aggressive but still imperfect steps to fend off foreign adversaries. YouTube has an aggressive policy of removing what it deems to be deceptive practices and foreign-influence operations related to elections. It also makes judgments about and gives priority to what it calls authoritative voices. Facebook has deployed a multipronged strategy that includes removing fake accounts and eliminating or demoting inauthentic behavior. Twitter has a similar censorship policy aimed at platform manipulation originating from bad-faith actors located in countries outside of the US.

It's the American approach to free speech that makes this even possible.

Then the article argues that misinformation in the age of COVID-19 is something... new. And that it's so serious that perhaps we should change how we think about free speech:

What is different about speech regulation related to COVID-19 is the context: The problem is huge and the stakes are very high. But when the crisis is gone, there is no unregulated normal to return to. We liveand for several years, we have been livingin a world of serious and growing harms resulting from digital speech. Governments will not stop worrying about these harms. And private platforms will continue to expand their definition of offensive content, and will use algorithms to regulate it ever more closely. The general trend toward more speech control will not abate.

Note that they seem to be conflating a few things here. There is the US government's approach to speech (bound by the 1st Amendment, there are very few areas where speech may be limited), and there are internet companies' approaches to hosting speech upon their private platforms. And while those platforms are becoming more aggressive in cracking down on misinformation, there remain plenty of other platforms online that are chock full of misinformation as well. But that's got little to do with our laws (beyond the fact that, as noted above, the 1st Amendment enables platforms to decide for themselves how to handle these things).

But it seems odd for an article that suggests a governmental approach to stifling speech is a good idea literally days after the US President suggesting injecting disinfectant into people as a way to deal with COVID-19. It's not the internet that is the cause of misinformation, guys. And saying that government should crack down on misinformation isn't going to work when it's the head of state spouting off the misinformation, which is then broadcast live by TV networks.

The article then tries to tie free speech to surveillance, but I'm unclear why or how those two things are as connected as the article suggests they are. You can have one without the other -- yet the article continues to assume that if you want free speech, then you must have mass surveillance along with it. It uses the examples of Clearview AI and Ring as examples of greater surveillance, but those have little to nothing to do with the American approach to free speech.

The article all too glibly insists that private company data tracking is the "functional equivalent" of the infamous social score now used in China, without recognizing a number of fundamental differences -- with the largest being the fact that the social score in China is a government program and is used in all sorts of nefarious ways. Yes, the article argues that thanks to COVID-19 it's likely that the US government and companies will be more closely tied, but gives no reason to support that conclusion as inevitable:

Apple and google have told critics that their partnership will end once the pandemic subsides. Facebook has said that its aggressive censorship practices will cease when the crisis does. But when COVID-19 is behind us, we will still live in a world where private firms vacuum up huge amounts of personal data and collaborate with government officials who want access to that data. We will continue to opt in to private digital surveillance because of the benefits and conveniences that result. Firms and governments will continue to use the masses of collected data for various private and social ends.

The harms from digital speech will also continue to grow, as will speech controls on these networks. And invariably, government involvement will grow. At the moment, the private sector is making most of the important decisions, though often under government pressure. But as Zuckerberg has pleaded, the firms may not be able to regulate speech legitimately without heavier government guidance and involvement. It is also unclear whether, for example, the companies can adequately contain foreign misinformation and prevent digital tampering with voting mechanisms without more government surveillance.

The First and Fourth Amendments as currently interpreted, and the American aversion to excessive government-private-sector collaboration, have stood as barriers to greater government involvement. Americans understanding of these laws, and the cultural norms they spawned, will be tested as the social costs of a relatively open internet multiply.

COVID-19 is a window into these future struggles.

Perhaps. It will certainly be interesting to see where the future heads, but the idea that COVID-19 inevitably means that the US will be less speech protective in the future is far from the only possible path forward. And the idea that China somehow has the right idea has little support anywhere. The authors may be correct that the government will try to expand surveillance and limit speech, but that's been happening for years. COVID-19 changes little in that regard.

Filed Under: andrew keane woods, authoritarianism, censorship, content moderation, covid-19, free speech, freedom, internet, jack goldsmith, moderation, pandemic, surveillance

Visit link:

How Can Anyone Argue With A Straight Face That China's Approach To Speech Online Is Better Than The US's During A Pandemic - Techdirt

ANTIOCH, Calif. At a special meeting Friday night, the Antioch City Council unanimously removed Ken Turnage from the planning commission for declaring on social media that nature should take its course as the coronavirus kills the weak, the old and the homeless.

The impact of commissioner Turnages statements on his Facebook post have caused unnecessary damage during a time of extreme difficulty for this community and for the state and our nation as we deal with extreme consequences, loss of life, severe illness, economic fallout, Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts said during the three-hour meeting, which drew about 100 public comments, most of them denouncing the planning commission chairmans views.

Turnage, 47, a local home contractor and former Antioch citizen of the year, recently wrote on his personal Facebook page that society should adopt a herd mentality, and although that means the weak, elderly, homeless and others would perish, the nation and planet would strengthen when this is all settled.

He also wrote that this virus is like a human version of a forest fire, a forest fire will burn through and burn off all the dead trees, old trees, fallen brush, and scrub shrub-sucklings that drain the resources of the forest and causing it to be unhealthy.

We would have significant loss of life, we would lose many elderly, 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, he added.

In a phone call to the council during the Zoom meeting, a defiant Turnage stood by his words, reiterating his belief in ecological balance, which he said he wrote about to spark debate.

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 agenda is shameful, Turnage told the council, adding his ouster would amount to a violation of First Amendment rights.

Being removed from the planning commission because my opinion is not liked or agreed with is not a fair reason to be removed, he said. In fact, in a country where we value free speech, it is unconscionable and sends a message that only like-minded people can serve this city.

When he finished speaking, several residents called in to express their opinions and officials read 92 emails into the record. The comments ranged from support for Turnages character and his right to free speech to comparing his viral post to Adolf Hitlers Mein Kampf.

Lucas Stuart Chilcote said that despite Turnages service to the community, that activism doesnt provide you a get-out-of-jail card for making such insensitive comments.

Leslie May called Turnages Facebook post unfathomable.

No, this is not the way of the world, she said. We are not sacrificial lambs or any of the negative connotations he alluded to. We are original offsprings of the pioneers of this nation.

Many of us have served in the military to protect the very land of the people who enjoy it now, whether young or old.

Mary Dunrose called Turnages views sociopathic and a lawsuit waiting to happen.

This is a person who helps promote senior housing, and he thinks all seniors should be dead, she said. He is not impartial he promotes discrimination.

Laura Gilbert wrote that Turnages musings bear a troubling resemblance to the sentiments espoused by the man my 94-year-old father fought to defeat in World War II. Letting remarks like these slide is how the unthinkable becomes possible.

Antioch homeless advocate Nichole Gardner wrote that Turnage and his supporters need to understand that this is not a freedom of speech issue. We should not have people calling to reopen the government so that we could allow nature to run its course and have people who have strong immunities go out and infect the weak, the poor, and the elderly so that they could die, while also representing those same individuals.

But Ron Zaragoza urged the council to let Turnage remain on the commission.

Society has become much too quick to demonize and punish each other, he wrote. We should not throw stones in the big glasshouse that we all live in together.

Retired police Chief Allan Cantando also supported Turnage, noting other council members have written questionable posts. Lets call it like it is its a critical attack, he said in a call to the council, suggesting the proposed removal was politically motivated.

(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)

Longtime volunteers Beverly Knight and Michele Kuslits also defended Turnage, saying he has a right to freedom of speech.

But City Attorney Thomas Smith said freedom of speech wasnt the issue.

The focus is what is the reaction and impact that this speech has had on the residents of Antioch and the confidence and the trust in the government, Smith said. This has incited an impact and you as policymakers will have to determine what that impact is.

(END OPTIONAL TRIM)

Councilman Lamar Thorpe called the situation unfortunate before making a motion to remove the commissioner. This is sad for the entire community, he said, noting he had lost confidence in Turnages ability to lead.

Motts called the post absurd, adding that she has received emails from around the country about the viral posting.

It should be noticeably clear to all of us that the words you put out to the public, even on social media, can have grave consequences, she said.

(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)

Councilwoman Monica Wilson, who had called for Turnages resignation Tuesday, simply reiterated that he must go.

Mayor Sean Wright, who had called for the special meeting after Turnage rejected his request to resign, got the last words in before the council voted.

City officials are held to a higher standard, he said. When our words as public servants undermine the citys overall position and cause the citizens to lose confidence in us especially in a pandemic when people are losing their lives and families are victims to illness its something that must be examined. The only way out of this crisis is to support one another with our words and our actions.

2020 East Bay Times (Walnut Creek, Calif.)

Visit the East Bay Times (Walnut Creek, Calif.) at http://www.eastbaytimes.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

PHOTO (for help with images, contact 312-222-4194)

Originally posted here:

Council ousts planner who said let coronavirus take the weak, old and homeless - Gazettextra

ORCHID: To Canfield City and its police department for paying tribute to this years class of 2020 by placing Canfield Seniors 2020 decals on their cruisers. This is just the police and citys way of saying, Sorry, but we know youre resilient and youre going to kick butt,' said police Chief Chuck Colucci. We couldnt agree more!

ORCHID: To Mercy Health Youngstown for implementing an order this week that every patient leaving a Mercy Health facility be tested for COVID-19 before transfer to a nursing home. Were testing so the nursing home knows the status of that patient before that patient arrives. We felt that was the best way to help the nursing home as our partner in this, Mercy Health Youngstown Clinical Director Dr. James Kravec said. That appears to be a sound practice.

ONION: To the person who used social media to post a vile, racist remark regarding Youngstown fire Chief Barry Finley. Mayor Jamael Tito Brown correctly condemned the post, saying, Where hate is delivered as a siren song for dangerous and destructive behavior, this language cannot go unchallenged. Hate and threats of violence delivered under the mantle of free speech must be addressed. Free speech is one thing, but there is no place in our society for shameful threats and racist remarks.

ORCHID: To the Lowellville Police Department and especially Capt. Stacy Karis for putting together and handing out free activity kits full of toys to Lowellville kids this week. Karis said she came up with the idea to keep kids active, especially when they have to stay home and bunker. Funds came from the Lowellville Police Association, and the kits included things like Frisbees, jump ropes, kites, bubble wands, squirt guns and lots of sidewalk chalk. Great idea!

ORCHID: To Karen Conklin of Liberty, who retired last month from the American Red Cross, where she served as executive director of the Lake to River chapter. A national territorial realignment by the American Red Cross was announced at the same time, making the local Lake to River Chapter now part of American Red Cross of Greater Akron and the Mahoning Valley. She said she believes realigning blood services and humanitarian services will benefit the Red Cross. Conklin, who has served the Valley well in many nonprofit capacities for an incredible 50 years, has earned her retirement.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Continue reading here:

Orchids and Onions | News, Sports, Jobs - Youngstown Vindicator

The tension between private liberty and public health in the United States is hardly new. Americans have demanded the latter in times of plague and prioritized the former in times of well-being since at least the Colonial Era. Politicians and business leaders have alternately manipulated and deferred to that tension for about as long.

In 1701, members of the Massachusetts Bay Colony fought a yearlong political battle to enact the nations first quarantine laws against opponents who said such measures were too severe. In 1918, during the flu pandemic, the mayor of Pittsburgh brought a ban on public gatherings to a swift and premature conclusion over concerns about a coming election.

In 2020, the same tension is back with a vengeance. The nation is under siege from the worst pandemic in a century, and the United States is on track to suffer more deaths than any other industrialized country from SARS-CoV-2, the medical name for the novel coronavirus.

Attorney General William Barr last Monday ordered Justice Department lawyers to be on the lookout for state and local directives that could be violating the constitutional rights and civil liberties of individual citizens. He was talking about state and local orders closing businesses and requiring people to shelter in place to help combat the spread of the virus. The Constitution is not suspended in times of crisis, Mr. Barr said in an April 27 memo.

Yet the same Mr. Barr, early in the outbreak, was seemingly so concerned about its impact that he proposed letting the government pause court proceedings and detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies effectively suspending the core constitutional right of habeas corpus.

Temporary limitations on some liberties dont seem to concern most Americans at this moment. Polls show that 70 percent to 90 percent of the public support measures to slow the spread of the virus, even if those measures require temporarily yielding certain freedoms and allowing the economy to suffer in the short run.

Indeed, it is wealthy and powerful conservatives and their allies, including President Trump and Fox News, who are driving the relatively small protests demanding a liberation of the states from oppressive lockdowns as opposed to any overwhelming public sentiment to that effect.

Whats more, every country that has managed to get its Covid-19 outbreak under control has done so with measures far more aggressive than anything tried in the United States so far.

In China, South Korea and Singapore, the authorities quickly established comprehensive testing, along with rigorous contact tracing, isolation and quarantine. In the United States, such efforts are still under construction and are proceeding at a snails pace; three-plus months into the crisis, just a tiny fraction of the needed tests, contact tracers and quarantine facilities are operational anywhere.

Civil liberties may feel to some like a second-order problem when thousands of Americans are dying of a disease with no known treatment or vaccine. Yet while unprecedented emergencies may demand unprecedented responses, those responses can easily tip into misuse and abuse, or can become part of our daily lives even after the immediate threat has passed. For examples, Americans need look no further than the excesses of the post-Sept. 11 Patriot Act.

As the nation starts looking ahead to the next phase of its battle against the coronavirus, we need to have a more honest conversation about the extent to which governments may impose restrictions on their citizens that would not and should not be tolerated under normal conditions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION

Consider the rights to free speech, association and religious exercise under the First Amendment: These freedoms are central to our self-definition, and yet they have all been infringed on to varying degrees across the country, as states ban gatherings where the virus can spread quickly and easily. In Maryland and Iowa, for example, all types of large events and gatherings, including church services, have been prohibited. (Many other states have exempted religious services from their bans, which raises the separate question of whether the government is impermissibly favoring religion.)

Bans like these are legal, as long as they are neutral and applicable to everyone. A state may not shut down only certain types of events, or prohibit speakers expressing only certain viewpoints. Under Supreme Court precedent, any infringement on speech or religion must be incidental to the central goal of the restriction, which in this case is clear: stopping the spread of the coronavirus.

But even if all these bans are legal on their face, what happens as the 2020 election approaches? Speech and association rights are at their peak in the political context, and Americans will be especially wary of any incursions on those rights in the months or weeks before Election Day. What if a state lifts some restrictions on large gatherings, then reimposes them in the days before an election? That may be necessary if there is another wave of the virus, and yet in a highly polarized political environment, citizens might well distrust official motivations behind a crackdown, and that could generate public unrest.

This is why its so important for the authorities to build that trust now, and to rely openly on scientific consensus when imposing and lifting bans on gatherings and other events.

SURVEILLANCE AND CELLPHONES

Another area of concern is the governments ability to know where we are and whom were with. In normal times, the authorities generally have to obtain a warrant to search your personal property, like a cellphone, or to retrieve its data to find your location.

But giving the government access to all that data carries huge risks. There were already far too many examples of law-enforcement officials abusing their access to cellphone data in the pre-Covid era, taking advantage of revolutions in technology to track people in ways that no one would imaginably consent to. Even if people give their consent to be tracked during the pandemic, governments have a very poor track record of relinquishing new powers once they have them.

The question then becomes: Can cellphone data be used in a way that helps stem the spread of the coronavirus while also being kept out of the hands of the government to avoid abuse, now or down the road?

Apple and Google are in the process of producing an app that would use secret codes to track people through their phones, while leaving the location data on those phones. People who test positive would be given the choice of putting their phone on a list. Other peoples phones could automatically check that list, and if any were within range of the infected person, those people would be notified that they could be at risk.

Fine, in theory. But for a system like this to work, the public needs to buy into it. Enough people have to use these apps to make them effective at least 60 percent of cellphone users, by some estimates and no city or country is anywhere close to that level of adoption. In Norway, only 30 percent of people have downloaded this type of location app.

Another hurdle is that the big technology companies have a poor record of protecting their users private information.

In the end, contact tracing a central feature of any comprehensive public-health response will need to be a cooperative endeavor, involving not only downloadable apps but perhaps hundreds of thousands of human beings, all doing the hard work of direct outreach to find those people at the highest risk of infection.

LIBERATING AMERICA

It would be one thing if the calls to reopen America from President Trump and his allies were part of a coordinated pandemic response strategy by a federal government that had taken strong and science-based measures from the start. But the White House failed to do that at virtually every turn, which makes the current protests ring hollow.

Its possible that at least some of the current lockdowns could have been avoided had the Trump administration led the way back in January when we still had time to take advantage of the information coming out of China and prepare the United States for what lay ahead. In that sense, these devastating shutdowns represent a catastrophic failure of timely government action. Even today, top officials are refusing to take the most basic safety measures. On Tuesday, Vice President Mike Pence toured the Mayo Clinic but refused to follow the clinics requirement to wear a mask. What message does he think that sends to the American people? (On Thursday Mr. Pence visited a plant producing ventilators in his home state, Indiana, and wore a mask.)

In a large self-governing society, civil liberties exist as part of a delicate balance. That balance is being sorely tested right now, and there is often no good solution that does not infringe on at least some liberty. At the same time, the coronavirus provides Americans with an opportunity to reimagine the scope and nature of our civil liberties and our social contract. Yes, Americans are entitled to freedom from government intrusion. But they also have an obligation not to unnecessarily expose their fellow citizens to a deadly pathogen. Protecting Americans from the pandemic while also preserving our economy and our civil liberties is not easy. But its essential.

See more here:

We the People, in Order to Defeat the Coronavirus - The New York Times

Chinese authorities in Tibet have further tightened controls over information flows in the region, arresting Tibetans last year for sharing news and opinions on social media and for contacting relatives living in exile, according to rights groups and other experts.

Particular targets of censors and police were images of exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama shared on mobile phones and calls for the preservation of the Tibetan language, now under threat from government orders to establish Chinese as the main language of instruction in Tibetan schools.

Cedric AlvianiEast Asia Bureau Chief of Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) told RFAs Tibetan Service that freedom of expression in Tibetan areas of China, already heavily restricted, has not improved due to the censorship and surveillance set up by the [ruling] Chinese Communist Party.

It is still extremely difficult and dangerous for Tibetans to investigate and smuggle information outside Tibet, he said, adding that Beijings refusal to allow foreign journalists free access to Tibet has made it even harder for the outside world to assess conditions there.

RSF ranked China 177th out of 180 countries in an annual global press freedom index earlier this month.

Its much more dangerous [for Tibetans] to speak to foreign journalists or to overseas media like Radio Free Asia than it is for other Chinese people, said Sarah Cook, Senior Research Analyst for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan for Freedom House.

People there are subject to heavier reprisals than in other parts of China, Cook said.

Increasingly tight curbs

International press freedom groups have highlighted Chinas increasingly tight curbs on media workers across the country ahead of World Press Freedom Day Sunday.

Some of those sentenced to long prison terms last year in Tibetan areas had sought to draw attention to corrupt officials or environmental concerns, while others had simply voiced support for use of the Tibetan language or had shared images of the Dalai Lama, regarded by Chinese leaders as a dangerous separatist.

On Dec. 6, 2019, Anya Sengdra, a resident of Kyangche township in Qinghais Gade (in Chinese, Gande) county, was given a seven-year term after being arrested on charges of disturbing social order after he complained online about corrupt officials, illegal mining, and the hunting of protected wildlife.

Meanwhile, Sonam Palden, a 22-year-old Tibetan monk, disappeared after being arrested on Sept. 19 in Sichuans Ngaba (Aba) county after posting online comments criticizing Beijings policies in the region, and a Tibetan man named Lhadar, 36, was detained in October in Tibets Nagchu (Naqu) county and also vanished in custody.

It is assumed he was arrested for leaking state secrets, a local source told RFA in an earlier report, citing a charge often used to stop the spread of news of protests against Beijings rule in Tibetan areas or other information considered politically sensitive by authorities.

And on Feb. 20, 2019, Tsering Dorje, a 45-year-old resident of Peleb village in the Tashi Dzom township of Shigatses Dingri (Tingri) county in Tibet, was taken into custody only hours after speaking with his brother in exile about the importance of teaching the Tibetan language to their children.

'Suspicious conversations'

In the free world, people exchange information [like this] on a routine daily basis, Karma ChoyingSecretary to the International Relations Department of Tibets India-based exile government, the Central Tibetan Administrationtold RFA in a recent interview.

[But] these types of conversations are observed suspiciously by the Chinese government, he said.

Chinas restrictions on free speech and the sharing of information in Tibet violate Chinas own laws, said James Tager, Director for Free Expression Research and Policy for the writers group PEN America.

We should recall that Chinas own constitutional system guarantees freedom of speech and the press, and that the Constitution as well as the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law contains significant protections for the rights of ethnic minorities within China, Tager said.

So when the international community asks the Chinese government to guarantee press freedom and free speech, including for those who speak or write or report in the Tibetan language and on Tibetan concerns, we are not making a radical demand, he said.

Instead, we are holding the Chinese government to its own words.

Reported by RFAs Tibetan Service. Translated by Tashi Wangchuk. Written in English by Richard Finney.

View post:

China Inflicts Ever Tighter Information Controls Over Tibet, Long Off-Limits to Foreign Press - Radio Free Asia

April Love Geary is ashamed to be from Huntington Beach because of all the "white privilege" punks, as she put it, protesting SoCal beach closures.

Robin Thicke's fiancee went off Friday on the protesters, calling them out for their utter disregard of people's health during this coronavirus pandemic. She said "it's the most white privilege bulls**t" thing she's seen.

Check out the video ... April says it's ridiculous that Black Lives Matter protesters across the country have been met by cops in riot gear, while Huntington Beach protesters -- with much less melanin -- are allowed to exercise their right to free speech. All while cops stand idly by without riot gear.

She urges protesters to keep their asses at home, and adds, "It's not that hard."

The demonstrations started after California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered the closure of all Orange County beaches, starting this weekend. Some protesters carried signs that read, "Masks don't work. My body, my choice."

As we reported ... heavily-armed protesters stormed Michigan's statehouse after Gov. Gretchen Whitmer extended the state's emergency stay-at-home order until the end of May.

No one's armed in the OC, but April's still super pissed.

See the rest here:

Robin Thicke's Fiancee Goes Off on Huntington Beach Protestors - TMZ

Ominous times, these are. And it is becoming increasingly difficult to make sense of what is happening to this country and to us, as individuals. Yes, this dark mood is dictated by the exigencies and uncertainties of Covid-19. But there has also been a particular onslaught this week of pain and distress that affects our mood and our capacity to stay calm. Is it something in our stars?

That I am a journalist certainly does not help. There is this professional obligation to keep abreast of all the major events and developments that lurk just beneath the surface. This means that I do not have the option to shut out the world and its obtrusive vulgarities.

Ah, but there is a catch here. I am not able to write all that I know, see, feel or think. Ironically, it is so in a world of media epidemic of its kind where they wear masks and creep in shadows. Against this backdrop, suppression of the professional and independent media is bound to promote national incoherence and ideological deception.

Now, there is more than one reason why I am distracted, in the midst of the pandemic, to talk about the media. In the first place, today Sunday, May 3 is the World Press Freedom Day. May 3 was so declared by the UN General Assembly and the idea was to raise awareness of the importance of the freedom of the press.

Over the years, the free media has suffered so much at the hands of authoritarian regimes that this Day is not at all a celebration and the ceremonies are becoming more elegiac. This years theme is: Media for Democracy: Journalists and Elections in Times of Disinformation. Its concept note acknowledges that today, the contribution of free, pluralistic, independent and safe journalism is under unprecedented stress.

For us, in Pakistan, there is this deepening anguish about the continued detention of Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman, editor-in-chief of Jang and Geo Group. What this means has become very evident. Jang/Geo is the largest media group in the country by a wide margin and its struggle for freedom and technological as well as editorial innovation is universally recognised. But what is at stake here is more than one media groups independence. Essentially, it is an attack on the democratic evolution of Pakistan and its national sense of direction.

Then, there is this mysterious report about veteran journalist Sajid Hussain, who had also worked in this newspaper. He was missing from the Swedish city of Uppsala since March 2, where he was given political asylum. It is now confirmed that his body was discovered from a river.

In addition, I would like to mention the launch on Thursday of the annual report of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), with specific reference to its chapter on Freedom of Expression. HRCPs annual reports on the state of human rights in Pakistan are universally cited as a very credible document. It is also very extensive, covering almost all the areas that relate to human rights.

With reference to curbs on free speech, HRCP Secretary General Harris Khalique said: The last year will be remembered for systemic curbs on political dissent, chokehold on press freedom and grievous neglect of economic and social rights.

Numerous journalists reported that it had become even more difficult to criticise state policy. Zohra Yusuf, former HRCP chairperson, said that this, coupled with the erosion of social media spaces and a deliberate financial squeeze on the media, had led to Pakistans position slipping on the World Press Freedom Index.

Warning that the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic will worsen the human rights record of the country, HRCP spokesperson I A Rehman said that 2019 was the year of widespread social and economic marginalisation that left the weakest segment of society invisible and unheard.

At this point, I would like to shift to a rather enigmatic statement made by Prime Minister Imran Khan about how the elite had readily imposed a lockdown to deal with the pandemic without thinking of the poor. We are familiar with the prime ministers lockdown dilemma. His concern that a strict lockdown will deeply hurt the poor and the daily wage earners is surely valid.

However, his assertion that the elite had made the lockdown decision to subvert the interests of the poor raises a number of questions. Isnt he himself at the helm? How could the elite overrule him? And if they did, how would he deal with them to defend the rights of the poor and the underprivileged?

If the deprivations of the poor are meant to drive the social and economic policies of this government, the HRCP report is a certification of the state of the weakest segment of the society during 2019, when the present government was in power. Imran Khan had made some other remarks during his speech at COMSTECH headquarters in Islamabad about the development priorities of the previous governments and the division of the national resources. Will Pakistan now be a welfare and not a national security state?

To be fair to Imran Khan, questions about the power of the elite the ruling elite? need to be seriously explored. One wonders if he has ever given much thought to the vested interests of the individuals he has gathered in his large cabinet. Actually, it is as good a representation of the elite of this country as you can draw together.

Besides, if the intention is to empower the poor and to respect their human dignity, the entire system will have to be made more equitable. To understand this challenge, a beginning can be made with a careful study of the HRCP report and a tutorial may be held for the cabinet, with someone like I A Rehman as the tutor.

To conclude, let me quote Dom Helder Camara, who was Brazils Catholic Archbishop and was known as an advocate of liberation theology. He said: When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.

The writer is a senior journalist.

Email: [emailprotected]

Read the original post:

Invisible and unheard - The News International

From threatening the press during Nehrus rule and co-oping it during the times of Indira Gandhi to intimidating and bullying in the present Sonia Gandhis era the Congress party, the epitome of liberal values of India, has come one full circle.

On the occasion of Press Freedom Day, the Congress party, ironically, took to social media to blame BJP claiming that it stiffed free voice on the country. To all the journalists we would say, Daro Mat, the Congress tweeted.

The Congress party lamenting over lack of freedom for the press to express their opinion in the country is just paradoxical. The audacity of the Congress party to take up the cause for press freedom at a time when the party itself is hounding journalists for speaking against them comes as a shocker.

- article continues after ad -- article resumes -

Since the times of Jawaharlal Nehru to the present Sonia Gandhis era, the Congress party has been highly intolerant when it comes to accepting criticism from the press. The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has left no room for dissent and has acted strictly against the press whenever they have raised fingers against their misdeeds.

Here is a list of violation of press freedom committed by the Congress party:

The chain of dictatorial tendencieswhich started ever since Jawaharlal Nehru became the first Prime Minister of the country has continued to flourish in the partys genes even after seven decades. Perhaps, the time has come for people to realize that the Congress party being some apostle of free speech is an overstatement, if not pure propaganda.

Here is the original post:

As Congress talks about Press Freedom, here is the partys track record, and its just an indicative list - OpIndia

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at http://www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at http://www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

Read more:

Prominent Criminal Conviction Partially Overturned on Free Speech Grounds - JD Supra

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced both individuals and companies to adopt new practices and new technologies quicklysometimes creating serious risks to our civil liberties. Join EFF for a livestreamed video discussionabout what we've learned as online platform moderation becomes more automated, with platforms like Facebook flagging and censoring morecontentthan ever before.Following that discussion will be a conversation aboutprivacy, apps, and digital rights, and how to protect yourselfasyou adopt new technologies like Zoom, and as companies like Google and Apple create new apps and products intended tofight the pandemic.

We're excited to be joined byJeff Deutchof Syrian Archive and Mahsa Alimardani of Article 19 for a discussion ofcontent moderation, moderated by EFF's Director for International Freedom of Expression, Jillian C. York. EFF Legal Director, Corynne McSherry, will also join. Then, Legislative ActivistHayley Tsukayamawill moderate a panel on the pandemic, apps, and privacy, with EFF Staff Technologist Bennett Cyphers, Project Manager Lindsay Oliver, and Grassroots Advocacy Organizer Rory Mir.

Register Here

Have questions now? Sendthem to jason@eff.org.

This event will be livestreamed viaTwitch, where you can chat and ask questions. It will also be streaming onFacebook LiveandYouTube Live. (ForTwitch'sPrivacy Policy, see here.)

A recordingwill be made available.

EventTime:Wednesday, April 22, 12:00PM Pacific / 3:00 PM Eastern (check your local time here)

Social media has never been more crucial than it is right now: its keeping us informed and connected during an unprecedented moment in time. At the same time, the content moderation challenges faced by social media platforms have not disappearedand in some cases have been exacerbated by the pandemic. In the past weeks, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook have all made public statements about their moderation strategies at this time. While they differ in details, they all have one key element in common: the increased reliance on automated tools. Learn how this pandemic has changed our ability toshare information with one another nowandpossibly,forever.

EFF's Corynne McSherry and Jillian C. York will be joined by Mahsa Alimardani, a freedom of expression researcher at Article 19 who is also working on her PhD at the Oxford Internet Institute; and Jeff Deutch, the lead researcher at Syrian Archive and a PhD candidate at the Humboldt-University in Berlin.

Pianist MC Angebot will join us for a few songs during our break.

Zoom might've received the most attention in the last few weeks, but plenty of new apps and tools that are being implemented during the pandemicoften without much oversightare cause for concern. What could the "proximity tracing" that companies like Apple and Googlehave been talking about mean for our civil liberties? When it comes to working from home, what privacyshould remote workers expect? And, due to many reports EFF has received about the use of privacy-invasiveproctoring tools for students shifting to remote learning and testing, we'll be discussing the various ways that these sorts of apps often burrow themselves into user's machines.

EFF Legislative ActivistHayley Tsukayama will be joined by EFF Staff Technologist Bennett Cyphers, Project Manager Lindsay Oliver, and Grassroots Advocacy Organizer Rory Mir.

Read the original post:

At Home With EFF: COVID-19, Free Speech, and Privacy - EFF

Last year, New York University professor Ulrich Baer published a book in which he argued that they do.

Today, writing for the Martin Center, Robert Shibley eviscerates that book.

Shibley writes:

The result is a book that does nothing to change the minds of those not already disposed to agree with the author, and almost seems intended to alienate them. Baer repeatedly cites Donald Trumps election, in lurid terms, as a justification for universities to forbid speech that creates inequality. Every example paints his ideological opponents in a bad light, and those who agree with him in a positive one.

In sum, Baer contends that there are some arguments that certain campus groups should never have to hear because theyre supposedly threatening. And who gets to decide what arguments must be forbidden? Campus officials who are invariably allied with the students who want to silence people they disagree with, of course.

Shibley concludes his review:

One comes away from What Snowflakes Get Right with a sense of puzzlement. Why write a book arguing that people shouldnt have to argue about some things, and do it in a way so poorly designed to change minds? Baer is an accomplished and intelligent professor, but he simply is not equal to the task of justifying the restriction of differences of opinion, on college campuses of all places, of some of the most hotly debated issues in our society. I suspect theres no one out there who is.

Read the original:

Do the Snowflakes Have a Case against Free Speech? - National Review

According to recent statements made to CBC reporters by Dominic LeBlanc, the federal government is drafting new legislation to punish those responsible for spreading online disinformation about COVID-19 online. Though the specific terms of this legislation are not yet clear, Justin Trudeaus Liberals have deliberately made their intent publicly known and it is more important now than ever to speak up to pre-emptively end this catastrophic assault on free speech in Canada.

The first thing that occurred to me when I heard about this plan is the obvious fact that this government feels it is a better use of their time and energy to police online rabble rousers than to come up with practical solutions for the pressing problems facing Canadians during this national crisis. We are facing one of the most economically and socially destabilizing events since World War II, but instead of focusing on pertinent threats it has dedicated crucial staffing resources and meeting time to this issue.

Justin Trudeaus handpicked Privy Council, Mr. LeBlanc, must explain to the countless Canadian businesses, families, and individuals facing truly existential and time-sensitive challenges why this has been a top priority for his office and this government. With record high unemployment, struggling capital markets, and urgent healthcare supply and infrastructure demands, non-violent online discourse should be the last priority of this government; regardless of how fictitious the content is.

This planned legislation is a display of shameless audacity on behalf of the Liberals and NDP supporters like Charlie Angus. Attacking Canadians free speech rights during a national crisis is an unacceptable abuse of public trust, and it adds insult to injury to an already struggling and concerned citizenry. Canadians everywhere are deeply concerned about their personal finances, keeping their families safe from this virus, and the obvious challenges posed by self-isolation. It is utterly deplorable that they now have to worry about a tyrannical federal government encroaching on their free speech rights.

This comes not long after the Liberals attempted to grant themselves unprecedented spending powers without parliamentary oversight until the end of 2021, another attempt at a shameless power grab in the midst of a crisis. The very institution that should fight to uphold our cherished civil liberties now seems to be in the business of slowly undermining them, and that makes me concerned about the future of our country.

Now is not the time for cheap shot partisan attacks and political theatre, but a time for unity across all parties. This is about defending the freedoms that our brave men and women in uniform have given their lives for on countless occasions. This is about protecting one of the most important freedoms that exist in our democracy. Violating the sanctity of free speech unleashes a host of new possibilities for bad actors in government and threatens our ability to write articles like this one criticizing their actions.

Justin Trudeau has said in the past that he admires Chinas basic dictatorship, a place where the internet is heavily policed and the outside world is firewalled from the eyes of Chinese people; but Canadians reject this dark vision of the future and will not stand for this brazen assault on our rights. Justin Trudeau must stop taking plays out of the Chinese Communist Party playbook and refocus any and all available resources to rebuild our economy and protect our citizens from this virus. During this unprecedented crisis we are all on team Canada, but there is nothing Canadian about censoring free speech. Especially not while we face the greatest crisis of a generation.

Warren Steinley is a conservative MP for Regina-Lewvan

Link:

Trudeau is exploiting the coronavirus crisis to silence free speech - The Post Millennial

Olly Mann and The Week delve behind the headlines and debate what really matters from the past seven days.

In this weeks episode, we discuss:

BBC Twos The Restaurant that Burns Calories was met with backlash after being accused of triggering people with eating disorders. But do the public health concerns over obesity justify it being aired? Are Brits particularly guilty of overeating? And are eating disorders being taken seriously enough?

The UK had slipped two places to number 35 on the annual press freedom index, below countries including Costa Rica, Ghana and South Africa. What's the reason for the fall? Does the UK value a free press? And how will the coronavirus crisis affect journalists and media groups around the world?

One of America's biggest investment banks has just said that it expects the gold price to soar to $3,000 an ounce in the next 18 months,which would be more than 50% above gold's previous all-time high. Isthat reasonable? What would have to happen to drive the price that high? And what's the point of gold anyway?

You can subscribe to The Week Unwrapped on theGlobal Player,Apple podcasts,SoundCloudor wherever you get you get your podcasts.

View original post here:

The Week Unwrapped: Food, free speech and gold - The Week (UK)

Sonali Kolhatkar speaks with Bradford R. Kane.

Even as a large majority of the American public supports the coronavirus-related lockdowns of their states, small but vocal groups of protesters, egged on by some city and state level leaders, and most of all provoked by President Trump are calling on governors to liberate them from quarantine. They say their liberty is more important than anything including life itself.

Now, a long-time government insider has written a book about what he called Pitchfork Populism and attempted to analyze how American democracy has dramatically changed since the fall of 2016.

Bradford R. Kane, has served in the US Congress as Legislative Counsel to Congresswoman Cardiss Collins; as Counsel to the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection; and as a member of President Clintons Task Force on Health Care Reform. He also worked for the state of California as Deputy Controller, Legislation, and then as a Deputy Secretary of Information Technology. His latest book is called Pitchfork Populism: Ten Political Forces That Shaped an Election and Continue to Change America.

Rising Up with Sonali is a radio and television show that brings progressive news coverage rooted in gender and racial justice to a wide audience.

Rising Up With Sonali was built on the foundation of Sonali Kolhatkar's earlier show, Uprising, which became the longest-running drive-time radio show on KPFK in Los Angeles hosted by a woman.

RUS airs on Free Speech TV every weekday.

Missed an episode? Check out Rising Up 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.

Bradford R. Kane Election Free Speech TV GOP Political Politics Republican Party Rising Up with Sonali Sonali Kolhatkar United States

Visit link:

Rising Up With Sonali Ten Political Forces That Shaped an Election Ten Political Forces That Shaped - Free Speech TV