Campus Free Speech Organization FIRE Is Protecting the Rights of Students Online – Breitbart

The Foundation for Individual Right in Education (FIRE) says that it will defend the rights of college students in online college classes to ensure thatacademic freedom and freedom of expression are protected during the Chinese virus pandemic.

The free speech organization vows to continue to defend the rights of students as universities transition toward greater use of technology to ensure that basic civil liberties are not compromised.

FIREs statement arrives on the heels ofrecent Zoom bombings a type of cyber attack in which Zoom video conferencing meetings are hacked by unwelcome visitors.

The video conference app which has surged in popularity due to an increase of virtual meetings across the country in response to the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic has garnered an influx of complaints from users who have had their virtual meetings hijacked.

The incidents have even elicited a response from New YorkAttorney General Letitia James, who sent a letterto Zoom with a number of questions to ensure the company is taking appropriate steps to ensure users privacy and security, according to a spokesperson.

Now, FIRE has issued reasonable steps for students, faculty, and administrators to take in order to protect their virtual classrooms while ensuring that the First Amendment rights of students are upheld.

Reasonable steps may include controlling students microphone access; imposing reasonable, viewpoint-neutral requirements on student use of virtual backgrounds; and asking students to disable their camera, said the organization in a recentstatement.

Faculty, or the administrator of the virtual classroom if not the professor, may restrict the ability of unauthorized individuals to access and disrupt class sessions using the platforms security settings, protecting their and their students right to a disruption-free environment, FIRE added.

The organization went on to state that faculty should recognize that students attending classes from their residences or remote locations may have limited control over their immediate physical surroundings, and should take reasonable steps to accommodate students in the manner that best approximates an in-person classroom experience.

Like faculty, studentsexpressive rights in the virtual classroom should mirror those afforded to them when attending class on campus, added FIRE. Students must be given the opportunity to participate in online learning free from discrimination, harassment, and other undue interference with their educational pursuits.

As is always the case, students must not be subjected to discrimination by their professors based on their viewpoint or opinion, which strikes at the core of both the First Amendment and liberal education, the organization affirmed.

You can follow AlanaMastrangelo on Twitter at @ARmastrangelo, and on Instagram.

Excerpt from:

Campus Free Speech Organization FIRE Is Protecting the Rights of Students Online - Breitbart

Telling churches to cancel in-person services is not a violation of the First Amendment, expert says – WHAS11.com

LOUISVILLE, Ky. Both Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer have recommended faith leaders not to host in-person services as the coronavirus outbreak continues.

During his Thursday press briefing, Beshear said 54 positive cases and six deaths were linked to a church revival in Hopkins County. He encouraged leaders to host services or studies online instead.

Still, one Bullitt County pastor said he refuses to comply as his First Amendment rights are at stake. Pastor Jack Roberts at Maryville Baptist Church said he's offering an online option but continues to hold services in-person, including a Wednesday night bible study.

Attorney Mat Staver, who represents Roberts, called the orders unconstitutional.

"Home Depot has no right to exist under the Constitution, churches do," Staver said. "You don't throw that out simply in times of crisis, you have to balance that right with the safety of the people."

While the First Amendment does protect freedom of religion, the University of Louisville law professor Sam Marcosson said the governor is in the right.

"The only First Amendment right that the church has is not to be singled out for differential treatment," Marcosson said. "So, if the governor was allowing sporting events but not churches, then they had a claim."

Marcosson compared churches remaining open during the pandemic to a person yelling fire in a theater.

"You're not allowed to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater," Marcosson said. "Yes, you have a right to free speech, but you can't exercise that right in a way that puts other people in danger."

Dr. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the governor is within his rights.

"There's not a First Amendment violation here," Mohler said.

He did, though, have a problem with Fischer saying no to drive-thru services. While Beshear supported Fischer's decision, he did not say he would make that recommendation for the state. Mohler said not allowing drive-thru services would single out churches.

"Religious liberty at the very least means that religious institutions cannot be singled out, if you can [have a] drive-thru a liquor store, you should be allowed to do a drive-thru service," Mohler said.

RELATED: Maryville Baptist Church holds Bible study against Gov. Beshear's recommendation

RELATED: Some churches to hold Easter services despite Beshear, Fischer's recommendations

RELATED: Passover, Good Friday and Easter: How to celebrate virtually during the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic

Make it easy to keep up-to-date with more stories like this. Download the WHAS11 News app now. For Apple or Android users.

Have a news tip? Email assign@whas11.com, visit our Facebook page or Twitter feed.

Visit link:

Telling churches to cancel in-person services is not a violation of the First Amendment, expert says - WHAS11.com

United Voices for ASU candidates receive three infraction points – The State Press

Elections commissioner says social media posts were a threat to ASU and President Michael Crow

Illustration published on Monday,March 20, 2017.

All seven Undergraduate Student Government Senate candidates in the United Voices for ASU coalition received three infraction points on their campaigns after a complaint was filed against their members' social media activity.

Judah Waxelbaum, chairman of the Arizona Federation of College Republicans and a junior studying political science, filed the complaint on April 5 citing the Arizona Board of Regents code of conduct that says behavior that could "present a risk or danger to the health, safety or security" of ABOR, the University, students or University property is prohibited.

"The Elections Department has reasonable evidence to believe that the United Voices for ASU Senatorial Ticket has raised reasonable concern for the risk or danger of the University community due to their tweets related to ASU President Micheal Crow," the decision says.

The decision, made by Elections Commissioner Carla Naranjo, recognizes that students have a right to free speech and political expression but says the social media posts contained in the complaint are threatening toward Crow.

The decision points out that USG is a nonpartisan governing body for all undergraduate students, something that the coalition's interactions on social media make hard to believe they would carry out, said Waxelbaum.

Waxelbaum said he was "disturbed" by the content in social media posts by members of the coalition which include profane language toward Crow, the University and suggest yelling to uphold their platform. The complaint also highlights tweets that depict violent actions toward federal presidential candidates.

"They don't seem interested in listening to those who they disagree with," Waxelbaum said. "And they're endorsed by community members and organizations that have no interest in civil dialogue."

United Voices for ASU's four-point platform demands refunds from the University for in-person tuition and housing, curved grading, free internet and transparency surrounding their response to COVID-19.

A week into campaigning, endorsements and coalitions are forming around candidates. The United Voices for ASU coalition and all of the candidates running have been endorsed by political student clubs like ASU Young Democratic Socialists of America, Students for Socialism and MECHA de ASU.

Other groups rallying around an issue like Students for Justice in Palestine and ASU No Mas Muertes have also endorsed the coalition. Clubs representing cultural groups like the African Students' Association, the Association of Latino Professionals for America and El Concilio have all voiced their support.

The coalition wants to represent what they call a minority at the University by building grassroots relationships and "representing the interests of all."

"When all of us stand together with unity, we have more chances of seeing a drastic change," said Alexia Isais, senatorial candidate for The College, member of United Voices and a sophomore studying political science.

While the coalition admits that they're proud of their resilience, other political clubs on campus haven't been too sure of their motives.

"I'm concerned that students might vote on the platform of reform due to COVID-19," said President of ASU College Libertarians, David Howman, a graduate student studying justice studies. "It's a talking point, not a real plan for unity."

Howman voiced that he was worried that those running with the coalition were in "pursuit of their own ideologies" and would set a "double-edged precedent" if people with partisan ideas joined a nonpartisan organization.

But United Voices members believe that other senatorial candidates had been more political than them. Members of the coalition said that their endorsements only represent niche groups of people who say they have never been heard before by USG or the University administration and might have a chance now.

"We're the underdogs in this election," said Bridget Saidu, senatorial candidate for The College, member of United Voices and sophomore studying philosophy and justice studies.

Another member added that the argument that the group was too political had no real grounds.

"USG is not apolitical, it's nonpartisan," said Daniel Lopez, senatorial candidate for The College, member of United Voices and junior studying philosophy and political science. "It's for helping students," he said, with everything from housing, food insecurity to discrimination, all things that he said are inherently political.

A campaign for USG is effectively suspended when the candidate receives nine infraction points.

"The level of punishment is unfortunate," Waxelbaum said. "The commissioner needs to take a serious closer look."

Campaigning began on March 30 and will end on April 14 when voting begins. Students will vote digitally on April 14 and 15 and results will be announced on April 16.

Editor's Note: Alexia Isais worked as an opinion columnist for The State Press in 2019. She was not involved in the reporting or editing of this story.

Reach the reporter at pjhanse1@asu.edu and follow @piperjhansen on Twitter.

Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.

View post:

United Voices for ASU candidates receive three infraction points - The State Press

The Naval Academy’s War with a Professor Who Sends Shirtless Pics, Offends Women and Minoritiesand Somehow Came Out On Top – Washingtonian

The US Merit Systems Protection Boardthe judicial dustbin where the United States does battle with employees it wants to fireis one building no bureaucrat ever wants to see. The jig may well be up by the time you arrive: Terminating a civil servant is so comically burdensome that the very fact of anyone assembling here means Uncle Sam has judged him worthy of the exertion. Certainly that was true last year when the court heard the case of US Naval Academy professor Bruce Fleming.

The Academys commandant had arrived that day in his Service Khakisgold clipped belt, shined black shoes, collar insignia denoting rank. Across the aisle, in a Corneliani jacket and yellow bow tie, was the flopping marlin the school had spent years trying to spear: Fleming, a longtime English teacher. Or, as the Navy would argue, a threat to order and discipline, a corrupting influence, and, reading between the lines, a profound pain in the ass.

A grudging civility hung in the air. After three military investigations, one department inquiry, a three-year-long federal lawsuit, and one whistleblower complaint, most everybody knew everybody by now. This time, the Navy had brought allegations on behalf of five students: that Fleming had discussed oral sex and transgender surgery in class, lobbed a political epithet at two midshipmen, touched one inappropriately, and, among other things, deliberately mispronounced an Asian students name and told the student to f off (Fleming denied the last accusation). The charge that had garnered the most attention was a photo: a shirtless selfie Fleming had sent to students.

Some of the allegations would set off alarms anywhere, not least at the storied service academy, where future officers are shaped by the Honor Concept and Uniform Code of Military Justice. Fleming, though, barely raised a brow behind his tortoiseshell glasses. Over years of fighting the Navy, hed proven impossible to fire, even as hed acknowledgedproudly, in factmany incidents the brass described.

It was true, for instance, that hed told a student to fix his lisphe said he had been doing the Navy a favor by pointing it out, according to the findings of one Academy investigation. And hed happily admitted discussing anal sex in class. He was fond, too, of lampooning Academy traditions, such as the famous Herndon ritual, in which shirtless plebes climb a greased obelisk. Talk about homoerotic! This is, like, jacked-boy mud wrestling! he exclaimed before outlining to me his theory of Annapoliss culture of sexual repression.

Fleming called this most recent attempt to fire him the most skewed, the most horrible, the most demeaning ordeal of his career. He described Academy officials to me as assholes and shits.

This year, the Naval Academy was ranked highest among public liberal-arts college in Americaan honor owing to its unique arrangement in which military and civilian instructors teach side by side. Fleming, beloved by his defenders as a refreshingly contrarian voice in a chauvinistic military culture, is exhibit A for anyone who sees preserving that arrangement as important. Yet hes also the worst spokesman imaginable for just about any cause.

Which is strange because, after all these years of sparring with the higher-ups, a larger cause is precisely what he has inspired.

Fleming is 65 but looks closer to 45, a feat he owes to a lifetime of physical fitness. Mornings often consist of an hour of jogging in place while classical music pipes from his record player. His pedigree is impressiveHaverford degree at 19, dozens of books on an array of topics. A notoriously harsh grader, he simultaneously inspired a measure of devotion: Students who took to him were sometimes called the Fleming Faithful.

Not even the most faithful, though, would ever confuse him with a naval officer. Fleming spoke frankly and cursed frequently, interspersing his lectures on Tennyson and Shelley with what he called life lessons about things like condom use and gay relationships. He discouraged students from standing for attention on deck when he entered. He dressed in a different Italian suit every day, letting students try on the jackets. A male model well into his thirties, he began his courses with one-armed pushups and called students studs and studettes. In his lingo, the thesis of a paper became the Flex.

His formidable talent, though, was the ability to find arguments that could offend almost anybody. Today, the tally of charges against him is pretty much a never-ending torrent of shock-jock commentary on just about every hot-button social topic. Spend some time with him and hes likely to insult you personally.

The investigations began in 2013, a phenomenally bad time for the Academy. That year, three football players had been accused of sexually assaulting a female midshipman. As the scandal took over national headlines, the Yard felt to many like an emotional tinderbox. This was the ideal moment, Fleming judged, to criticize the schools new sexual-assault training program. During class one day, he says, he called the training strongly anti-male, parodying the dogma: If she says you harassed her, you harassed her. He took particular affront at the new regimes vernacularaccusers should be called alleged victims until the accusations are proven, he said.

Two female midshipmen shared concerns with the school, which pressed the English Department to investigate. Fleming was removed from class. But the other students in the course gave their teacher high marks overall, and he was quickly reinstated. How does Fleming remember the whole episode today? He says the two women, who dropped the course, were simply smug and self-righteous.

In early 2016, Fleming was back in trouble. A freshman plebe had come to office hours. He was Asian, a varsity soccer player. His writing was abysmal, Fleming says. He had SAT scores of high 400s, 500s, which is below even our averagewhich in turn is 100 points below more respectable schools. Anyway, according to Fleming and an Academy report, he pulled up the plebes SAT scores and tried to diagnose him. How did he get into the Naval Academy with scores this low? he asks. The answer is he was an Asian and he was a recruited athletea fact that Fleming says he patiently, but unwisely as it turns out, explained to the plebe.

The student filed a complaint, prompting the school to open a new investigation. Out tumbled a litany of accusations from others. According to an investigative report, students alleged that Professor Fleming discussed the craziest place he had ever had sex with a girl, told a midshipman his English paper sucked big donkey dicks, and explained that sometimes no means yes. (Aside from sexual discussions in class, the Academy substantiated few of the exact claims.)

It also emerged that Fleming sent the class bare-chested photos. He had e-mailed a triptych of male underwear models: actor Mark Wahlberg, tennis champion Rafael Nadal, and, lo and behold, the professor himself. The picture had been snapped during his modeling days, his pecs bejeweled with water, a dramatic gaze on his face.

Talk about homoerotic! This is, like, jacked-boy mud wrestling!

Fleming had a perfectly innocent explanation. The photos complemented a discussion of Keatss Ode on a Grecian Urn. Its about how fake perfect beauty is, because its doomed to rot, he says. His modeling days had come up. I didnt see any harm in it. Plus, it was valuable for the class to understand essential details about modelingI had to be greased up, they sprayed me with cooking oil, the light had to be perfect, blah blah blah, Fleming went on. Is it reality? This is Keatss question. Is this perfection reality?(His e-mails also compared his physique to Nadals: He has sharper abs but Im taller with a way better V and lats. Take that rafi!!)

The Academy wasnt buying it. And after months of looking into the matter, the investigative committee concluded in their report that Fleming had likely violated sexual-harassment policies.

Fleming, for his part, maintained that his style made the classroom engaging and exciting. He also had an intriguing counterargument: The Academy was bringing the code of military justice down on the heads of civilian professors, to whom it didnt apply. His lawyer, meanwhile, discovered a trap door. The school had ostensibly based its investigation on a recently instituted disciplinary rule that formally permitted students to bring complaints directly to the military, rather than appeal first to an academic department. The effective date on the published rule, though, had been alteredan act of gamesmanship, in the lawyers view, to grandfather in Flemings case. The Academy denies this, saying the date discrepancies were merely a mistake.

At any rate, Fleming was never recommended for dismissal, the professor of English apparently saved by a typo.

Fleming made no special effort to hide his disgust. According to the schools report, the only regret he voiced was that hed spent way too much time trying to make [the plebe] a better student. Nor had the student thanked him, he pointed out to me, for his efforts to tutor him. No good deed goes unpunished, he sighs.

According to the Navy, the classroom antics had a darker side. When crossed, Fleming harbored grudges and wasnt afraid to act on them. He had, for instance, sent a 5,767-word e-mail to the entire facultyWelcome to Orwells1984, he warnedin which he revealed the name of his Asian soccer-player plebe and his SAT scores, drawing attention to the students identity. Then there was the incident with the two smug and self-righteous women. Though already exonerated, Fleming hadnt let the matter go. He relitigated his case in the press and discussed with students whether he should take action against their female classmates. Then he filed conduct violations against the womenfor disrespect or insubordination and failure to use good judgment. The school ultimately put the matter to rest by issuing him a letter of reprimand.

After both cases, Fleming was convinced his actions were heroic, his persecution total. Its Kafka meets the Keystone Cops, he says.

Just because youre paranoid doesnt mean theyre not out to get me, Fleming went on. And they really are out to get me.

There were, in fact, other reasons the Navy might have wanted Fleming gone. In its first century, Annapolis taught its officers-in-training how to win wars. In its second century, it began a slow metamorphosis into a modern college. Today, the Yard has a foot in two cultures: The same campus that vows to cultivate free thinkers is also one where professors are addressed as superior officers and midshipmen arent permitted to walk on the grass.

Every once in a while, these worlds collide. In 1996, a civilian professor named James Barry wrote a critical op-ed in theWashington Postthat excoriated the Academy for a series of cheating, drug, and sexual-assault problems. Barry was immediately removed from teaching. At a campus-wide meeting, the superintendent reportedly told him to stand and announced, That man there is a liar and a traitor. Eventually, Barry was allowed back. He left instead.

Fleming was appalled but, like most colleagues, kept his opinions to himself. In 2005, he turned. He wrote his own op-ed, which spilled secrets from his short tenure on the admissions board. Only half of Academy admits were competitive, he asserted; the rest were racial minorities, athletes, or other special cases. The superintendent wrote a furious rebuke, and the whole thing ended up on CNNwhose reporter noted that the Navy cant fire a tenured professor just for speaking out.

Fleming kept speaking out: in op-eds, interviews, and TV appearances that didnt let up for 15 years. Annapolis was not what it advertised. The academic standards were bad and getting worse. Students became mindless yes-men. The Yard was a military Disneyland for tourists and a boondoggle for taxpayers that should be radically reformed or abolished.

So what did that make him, a professor at Disneyland? Some saw a foul-mouthed facsimile of Robin Williams inDead Poets Society,an apostle of good cheer set on rescuing students from hidebound adults. Im there to make sure that they dont drink the Kool-Aid, says Fleming. I can certainly see why that annoys the military.

Amid the onslaught, an academic dean named Andrew Phillips fired back. When Fleming was approved for a raise, Phillips overruled it. He later sent Fleming a letter warning him that any more inappropriate public remarks could lead to disciplinary action.

But as the CNN imbroglio should have made clear, Fleming had a flair for brinksmanship. He reported Phillips to the Office of Special Counsel, the federal agency that investigates ethics violations. The paycheck retaliation violated his free speech, he claimed, and Phillipss letter was the smoking gun. The special counsel found that the Academy had acted illegally, and the school chose to settle.

Once again, headlines trumpeted the free-speech professor who had outsmarted the Navy. (Through the Academy, Phillips declined to comment for this story.) Fleming, for his part, had found the ideal nemesis: a power-hungry little shit, he says.

This guy is short, ugly, and hes got a squeaky voice!

For the next six years, the irreverent dandy and the buttoned-up officer traded blows, a spat that attracted the attention of many on the Yard. There were letters of reprimand, there was the typo that saved Fleming from the firing squad. Presiding over every investigation that dogged Fleming was Phillips. Soon enough, the dean would officiate their final showdown.

Just after New Years in 2018, the command received a 14-page complaint from a plebe named Matthew DeSantis. This time, the Academy sprang into routine like an all-hands drill. Fleming was yanked from the classroom. An investigation commenced. Justice was swift: Fleming became only the second teacher fired from the school in recent memory. In his final decision, Phillips cited conduct unbecoming a federal employee. Naturally, Fleming appealed.

It was nine months later that the two found themselves face to face in the fluorescent quarters of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Phillips would have to justify his actions under civilian standards. They were on Flemings turf now.

Midshipman DeSantis, like many peers, hailed from a conservative family, and he had graduated from a Christian school. Hed had second thoughts about coming forwardI didnt really want to be the person on the horse fighting, he testified. But to sit in a classroom where, as he wrote in his complaint, there was not a single class period when Professor Fleming did not bring up a sexual topic, especially anal sex, was, to put it gently, a shock.

The plebe was offended that Fleming called him a right-wing extremist, described the Yard as a waste of space, and compared the Herndon obelisk to a fully erect penis. He was also disturbed by Flemings descriptions of transgender surgery, which he thought seemed designed to mock midshipmen who had transitioned. It was bad for morale, DeSantis said: After Flemings class, you feel worthless and that you are not here to serve our nation.

The Navy took the complaint and bundled it with other student statementsthe profanities, the unwanted touching. But during the hearing, it didnt take long for the skeptical civilian judge to extract a pattern: The Academy appeared to have spun much of the evidence against Fleming.

The school, for instance, said the professor acted inappropriately in calling DeSantis and another plebe right-wing extremists over e-mail, suggesting he discriminated against conservatives. But the text of the message read like a playful admonishment, and besides, Fleming had as many conservative defenders as liberal ones. The school alleged that Flemings sex talk was inappropriate for the classroom. But sexual topics came up often in English texts. Under questioning, it became clear that the young plebes offense stemmed mainly from the fact that the topics were mentioned at alljust how sex should be this open thing.

Then there was the shirtless picture, the capstone of DeSantiss complaint. In the grainy selfie, the professor is nearly fully cropped from the frame. The real star of the shot is his left bicep. Fleming argued that it was a reference to the Flex, his moniker for a thesis statement. Plebes in the class regularly took photos flexing their biceps and often sent e-mails signed with a row of bicep emoji. It was in reply to one such thread that Fleming sent the selfie, to DeSantis and one other student.

My mom was in tears. . . . My dad, whos a lawyer, was very confused and was like, This is not right, DeSantis testified. It didnt feel right the professor was sending me that type of picture.

What circumstances could possibly mitigate such a screaming indecency? For one, the judge observed, DeSantis, too, had sent Fleming a shirtless photonot of himself but of four half-naked men running through town in Santa caps and underwear. In the Navys own campus culture, a jaunty physicality presided as the secular religionworshiped at events like bodybuilding strip-show nights. At the hearing, all Flemings lawyer had to do was produce a photo of the Herndon ritual, the plebes half-naked bodies glistening with pig lard.

Perhaps for this reason, most of the students who testified werent offended by Fleming. Even the one who experienced what the Navy alleged was unwanted touching recounted that he didnt have a problem with him. Fleming had twice moved a hand across the midshipmans back for about 15 secondslong enough to provoke a little bit of discomfort, the student testified, but not enough to sully a fun course. As he put it, I enjoyed his class.

In fact, Fleming was popularso much so that even the Navys lawyer conceded he was an excellent teacher. A thousand student evaluations over 30 years were 90-percent positive. He genuinely cares about his students in a way no other teacher does, reads one. By far the best instructor I have ever had, said many. A student who chastised FlemingToo much gender f*** nonsenserated him Excellent anyway: He loves us; we love him.

One witness who testified was Anne-Marie Drew, a former chair of the English Department. Hes had some lapses in judgment, she told me. He talks about things that he should leave alone. Her greater concern was the Navys overkill treatment of her colleague, which could have other consequences for the Academy. You dont pull somebody out of the classroom andthendo the investigation, Drew said.

Serious people had taken notice. The American Association of University Professors took the significant step of is-suing a rebuke against Annapolisthe kind of censure, perhaps, more familiar to controversies of progressive excess on liberal campuses.

Drew, who taught for 30 years before retiring last semester, observed that midshipmen on the whole had become increasingly sensitivemore willing, she told me, to say, Well, maam, Im offended by this.

But triggering speech wasnt cause to cut loose a teacher with tenure. He was offended by Brucetheres no doubt he was offended by Bruce, she said. But that doesnt mean that what Bruce did was wrong.

Why would the Academy stake so much on a case that leaked like a Soviet dinghy? In one sense, Fleming had become a symbol of insubordination. To reinstate an employee who failed to demonstrate support for the mission, as the schools lawyer put it, was a concession the Navy couldnt abide.

Most saw the conflict for the complex situation it was. I think its too easy to say Bruce is the villain, John Schofield, a retired naval commander who led the schools public-affairs office until 2016, told me. Bruce, I believe, represents everything thats good about injecting civilians into military education. Nevertheless, Annapolis had to investigatethats what you do when students come forward with serious complaints. I never saw them target Bruce unfairly.

He genuinely cares about his students in a way no other teacher does.

A different picture emerges from the internal Navy documents obtained byWashingtonian,detailing the origins of the Asian soccer-player case. The investigative report reveals that the midshipman didnt initiate the case at all. According to the report, a lieutenant heard a student mention inappropriate conduct involving Fleming and a plebe on the soccer team. The lieutenant pressed for the plebes name, called him in, and typed up the meeting. The readout made its way to Dean Phillips. Five days after that, the plebe sent in his typed complaint. I just kind of let it go, the student later told investigators, citing Flemings tenure and other factors, until [the lieutenant] e-mailed me.

There was something else compelling the Navy to act. While the lieutenant was pressing for the plebes identity, a colleague of Flemings filed a distraught memo. If the allegations (below) against Professor Fleming are true, then it is probable that the English Department is harboring a predator who grooms young male midshipmen for future inappropriate relationships, the memo began. It described an anonymous midshipman, who said that Fleming frequently touched the students while showing them how to wear clothes and a tie. A different instructor said hed witnessed the same thing: Fleming led a student into the bathroom, and when the instructor followed them in, he saw Fleming adjusting clothes on the student, who appeared submissive. The instructor said the student came by Flemings office three days a week and spent 40 minutes there behind closed doors. The report shows the encounter had disturbed the instructor.

To Fleming, the predator insinuation smacked of desperation. Am I coming on to the students? No. Am I screwing the students? No. And the amazing thing is that they seem to be going in the direction of saying I was making gayI was coming on to the students in a gay way. That just blows my mind, he says. I mean, theyve got to make up their minds. Im talking about straight sex. Is it that Im a straight pervert, or a gay pervert?

Perhaps its simpler: In the 21st century, any schoolpublic, private, military, civilianis going to see a case like DeSantiss as part of its duty to protect students.

Whats the conceivable counter-action? Schofield asks. If I got a Speedo photo from any of my professors at Villanovait doesnt matter where youre going to school right now, thats fing wrong. So the Naval Academy sits back and just does nothing?Hes a tenured professor! Hes eccentric! He wears a bow tie! Hes that old, quirky, crazy Bruce!Schofield went on. Then what does the Navy look like in the eyes of the public?

In the eyes of the court, though, the Navy was in the wrong. Administrative judge Mark Syska wrote that DeSantis had severe credibility issues. The aggrieved plebe seemed motivated by his gradethe first C of his academic lifeand appeared to have asked/cajoled/encouraged the other complaining midshipmen to file complaints. Syska suggested that Flemings shirtless photo was a dumb decision. But the Academy couldnt point to any rule that specifically prohibited his actions.

Stepping back, Syska described the events as the perfect storm. An eighteen-year-old from a conservative, religious family who had only attended religious schools and only experienced academic success, versus the profane, irreverent, brutally critical (read admitted very tough grader) and highly theatrical [Fleming] had conflict written all over it. (Through the Academy, DeSantis declined to comment.) The judge ordered Annapolis to reinstate its professor.

Flemings coup has made him a military celebrity. Officers inside the Pentagon know his name, Drew says. Once, on a visit to Guantnamo, a Navy captain approached her. You go back and tell your professors, especially that Bruce Fleming, in your pretty little classrooms at the Academy what its really like out here in the Navy, she recalls him saying.

The Academy hasnt backed down. It appealed the decision. And though it returned Fleming to his title and his office, it has refused to let him teach. Fleming described it as a glass box, collecting a paycheck in an academic purgatory.

Late last year, I arranged to meet him there. By then, hed been sending me dozens of e-mails and texts a day. Many were photos of himself with smiling students. Others were more in character. When I asked for the offending shots, a sequence of shirtless Flemings sprang into view on my phone within the span of a minute. He was undeniably fit. Fk yeah !!! he had appended. Mentally morally and physically baby!

At Annapolis, I found Fleming at his computer, the office mostly empty save for a framed cover of theCapital Gazette:naval academy teacher to be reinstated, including a photo of Fleming mugging in a Superman T-shirt.

Plopped in an armchair, the one reserved for one-on-one life lessons, I was unprepared for the volume and intensity of what unspooled. There was the implosion of Flemings first marriage; the lifelong transgender friend hed supported after her transition; the diagnosis of his autistic daughter; the death of Flemings brother, a cellist in the Kennedy Centers orchestra. Damn straight, I told them to use condoms! Fleming said. I had a gay brother who died of AIDS.

The week he was fired, Fleming was on an airplane with his wife and teenage sons when he had chest pains. Doctors diagnosed a heart attack. The likely cause was stress. When the firing came down just afterward, he said, it was a genuine surprise.

But then there was the ruling: especially sweet revenge. The pictures, the touchingAbsolutely I patted this kid on the back twice, he summarized. So. The f. What. What are you alleging here? He answered his own question. I was charged with not being liked by the administration.

Many colleagues quietly agreed. Unnerved by the whole affair, the Faculty Senate proposed fundamental reforms to the way Annapolis pursues misconduct claims. Drew, the English professor, chaired the committee. They proposed an overhaul: clear standards of evidence and curtailing the tendency to pull professors from the classroom. Their report detailed how faculty had come to fear the Academys unpredictable, secretive, nearly unstoppable investigations, based solely on the claims of a student who has taken offense.

For all their concern, though, faculty wouldnt be donating to any Fleming Defense Fund. He is so high-maintenance, and he doesnt realize it, Drew complained. The department had spent more time on Fleming than on all of its other personnel issues combined. He said, What, am I supposed to be grateful that they saved me from the Nazis? And I said, Yeah, you are! Drew said. Hes got no sense of the harms hes done to the English departmentthe hit that chairs have had to take in order to defend him. And after all that, the school had done nothing more than acknowledge receipt of the facultys report and put it on the shelf.

Outside Bancroft Hall on the day I visited, as Fleming led me through the campus, I posed a crazy question: Had he ever considered apologizingto students, say, or to Phillips?

Fleming planted both feet abruptly. When would I have apologized to him?

He was glowering. Not an apology in earnest, I assured himGod forbidbut simply for tactical value.

But I have no idea what that means.

I laid out a scenario:I care deeply about the midshipmen. Clearly, I missed the mark with some. Ill keep this in mind for next time.Such little effort could do so much, I nudged, to neutralize the Navys portrait of an unfeeling, egomaniacal narcissist.

I was already on the gallows with the noose around my neck. And youre saying: Should I have been nicer to the guy who took me there or something? he asked. He immediately moved to trashing my reputation, to sending out e-mails to all my students saying this man is accused of doing very bad things, he sets up a blah blah blah, and then he fing fires me. And Im supposed to say, Oh, gosh, Im really sorry I hurt this kids feelings? No, I dont think so.

Anyway, Im this fly that has to be squashed, he said. You know, the ugly little guy is always going toobviously Im not ugly, and Im not little, and I dont give up. You know, I have to get on their nerves. If I were more squashable andif I were a cripple or something, or not bright or whatever, I wouldnt get on their nerves as much.

The Academys appeal could take years, Flemings lawyer says, which may be just fine with the school. Every supe that Ive known, Drew told me, has wanted to be the one that could bring down Bruce Fleming.

This article appears in the March 2020 issue of Washingtonian.

Read the original:

The Naval Academy's War with a Professor Who Sends Shirtless Pics, Offends Women and Minoritiesand Somehow Came Out On Top - Washingtonian

FCC Rejects Petition that Would Have Dangerously Curtailed Free Speech – Breitbart

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Office of General Counsel and Media Bureau rejected a petition by the progressive Free Press on Monday to weaponize the agency against broadcasters and conservatives to censor political speech.

Free Press recently petitioned the FCC to censor broadcasters from showing President Donald Trumps press conferences on the coronavirus outbreak.

When the president tells dangerous lies about a public health emergency, broadcasters have a choice: dont air them, or put those lies in context with disclaimers noting that they may be untrue and are unverified, Free Presswrote in its petition. And certainly the FCC has a duty to rein in radio broadcasters that seed confusion with lies and disinformation.

The FCC denied the petition in a letter to the Free Press, contending that the proposal misconstrues the Commissions rules and seeks remedies that would dangerously curtail the freedom of the press embodied in the First Amendment.

Pai said:

Under my leadership, the FCC has always stood firmly in defense of Americans First Amendment freedoms, including freedom of the press. And so long as I am Chairman of this agency, we always will. The federal government will notand never shouldinvestigate broadcasters for their editorial judgments simply because a special interest group is angry at the views being expressed on the air as well as those expressing them. In short, we will not censor the news. Instead, consistent with the First Amendment, we leave it to broadcasters to determine for themselves how to cover this national emergency, including live events involving our nations leaders.

In its letter to Free Press, the FCC concluded that:

The FCC letter noted lobbying broadcasters to add disclosures would add significant burdens, which could chill news coverageat a time when information is one of the only weapons the American public has to protect itself from a contagious and deadly virus.

The agency added that free speech serves as the best tool for finding the truth. The FCC noted:

The rapid and comprehensive coverage of the present pandemic, free from burdensome disclaimers, agency investigation, or other government oversight, advances the public interest in maximizing information flow, while facilitating the vetting of statements by public officials via the ordinary journalistic process.

In short, we will not second-guess broadcasters (much less deploy the formal investigative power of the state against them) that are serving a critical function in providing the public comprehensive coverage of the current public health crisis and the governments response.

We leave to the press its time-honored and constitutionally protected role in testing the claims made by our political leadersas well as those made by national advocacy organizations.

The Federal Communications Commission believes that freedom of the press is essential to a free society and a functioning democracy, the FCC concluded in its letter to Free Press.

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.

Original post:

FCC Rejects Petition that Would Have Dangerously Curtailed Free Speech - Breitbart

Reporter Points out Trump Voted by Mail After He Trashes It – Free Speech TV

Donald Trump claims that voting by mail is dangerous and corrupt, and is instantly confronted by the reality that he personally just voted by mail. "I think mail-in voting is horrible. It's corrupt," Trump said before the reporter asked why it's okay for him to vote by mail himself. "Sure I could vote by mail because I'm allowed to," he responded.

So, as David Pakman says, "Trump says the quiet part out loud," and admits it's okay for him, but not others. Pakman discusses Trump's incoherent explanation. Perhaps the most surprising part of it all? Fox News didn't cut away from it.

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

Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump Fox News Press Briefing Reporter Vote-by-mail

Here is the original post:

Reporter Points out Trump Voted by Mail After He Trashes It - Free Speech TV

A Zionist attack on free speech – Redress Information & Analysis

By Lawrence DavidsonBackground: Weaponising anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism has been weaponised. That is, the Zionists, within and without Israel, are using the charge of anti-Semitism as a weapon to silence those who are critical of the Israeli state. In wielding this weapon, Zionist organisations and the media outlets they control or influence have released a flood of slander and libel. The charge of anti-Semitism is levelled at anyone who opposes Israels inherently racist policies and is supportive of Palestinian human rights. And, where the Zionists have sufficient political influence, as is the case in so much of the United States, they are making every effort to encourage laws that make criticism of Israel illegal because, they claim, it is ipso facto anti-Semitic. In this way, the weaponisation of anti-Semitism maliciously defames individuals, corrupts legal systems and also threatens any reasonable notion of free speech.

In cases where individuals and organisations are labelled anti-Semitic as part of a concerted campaign of defamation, one would hope that the libel laws would offer some protection and / or relief. And, as we will see, in some cases such as the United Kingdom and Australia, this has proven possible. However, in the United States this has not happened. To understand why requires a short history lesson on the evolution of free speech, as against the need to protect individuals, particularly public persons such as those running for office, from defamation.

American attitudes towards free speech, which form the foundation for much of the countrys legal thinking when it comes to libel, slander and defamation, can be traced back to the writing of John Stuart Mill (1806-73). Mill was an influential English utilitarian philosopher and liberal thinker who supported the growth of democracy in the 19th century. He also considered what aspects of democracy would need the strongest defence. For instance, he supported a very broad interpretation of freedom of expression. He laid out his position in an 1859 book entitled On Liberty. Here he argued that allowing a broad interpretation of free speech was the best way of establishing what is true and what is not. Even if an opinion is false, the truth can be better understood by [publicly] refuting the error. Mill had faith in the citizenry (or at least the educated middle class of his day) to recognise, through the process of debate, what is true when it came to public pronouncements. If any argument is really wrong or harmful, the public will judge it as wrong or harmful. Thus, for Mill the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, [in this case by suppressing his or her public speech] is to prevent harm to others. However, considering that defamation was subject to rebuttal, the citizenry would ultimately reject such falsehoods without state intervention.

Even though Mills faith in an educated publics ability to know truth from falsehood has proven, at least as far as this author is concerned, quite naive, Mills notion of erring on the side of government inaction when it comes to slanderous or libelous speech has had much influence in the United States.

In 1919, sitting as an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a series of decisions that laid out the future standard for judging prosecutable speech: The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. The example Holmes used for such an extreme case was that ones First Amendment right to free speech would not permit someone yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The libel laws in the US have followed this same path towards setting a high bar for any demonstration that free speech has been abused. Thus, in terms of defamation one now has to prove that the presentation in question is meant to defame (and is not just an opinion) and is put forth with actual malice [New York Times v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964)]. This is particularly the case for public figures bringing suit for defamation. Public figures in the United States seem to be in a special category of people who are expected to attract a certain amount of, apparently legally acceptable, slanderous and libellous abuse.

The fact is that, in the US, libel is so difficult to demonstrate in both federal and most state courts that such suits are only rarely attempted. It is clear that in this case protecting an idealised principle of free speech has taken precedent over protecting the reputations and public standing of individuals.

As it has turned out, this situation has given American Zionists a wide field to use the weaponised charge of anti-Semitism with near impunity. A good example of this has been the smear campaign waged against the Democratic Partys presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, who is himself Jewish. Called an anti-Semite over and again, Sanders has relied on the American progressive community to defend him. There is no indication that either Sanders or his legal advisors have considered suing his defamers for libel.

The misbalance between freedom of speech on the one hand and recourse to legal protection against slander and libel on the other is greatest in the United States, and in this case, public figures appear most at risk. In England and some of the Commonwealth countries such as Australia, a somewhat greater balance exists, opening up the possibility of legally defending oneself against defamation.

Anecdotally, a key historical root in the evolution of this more balanced standard for Britains defamation law is the 17th century decision to outlaw duelling transforming an often deadly engagement into a supervised courtroom debate. As of today, English law allows actions for libel for any published [untrue] statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual(s) [including businesses] in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. There are exceptions to and defences against this standard, but it certainly opens up a more reasonable opportunity for defending oneself against defamation than exists in the United States.

The same can be said for a Commonwealth country such as Australia. Here, the primary purpose of the law against defamation is to protect citizens from false statements about them that may cause harm to their personal or professional reputation.

Lets take a look at a few recent examples of successful challenges to libellous defamation issuing from Zionist sources.

Members of the United Kingdoms Parliament and those running for Parliament who are critical of Israel or otherwise supportive of Palestinian rights have suffered repeated exaggerated and fabricated allegations of anti-Semitism. Finally, in 2019, one such victim, Mrs Audrey White, former Member of Parliament (MP) for Liverpool Riverside, decided to sue the British paper the Jewish Chronicle for libel. She was able to prove that this Zionist paper had, over a series of four articles, published fake allegations that she was an anti-Semite. These pieces turned out to be part of a campaign of false charges waged against many left wing politicians. Ultimately, in early 2020, the paper was forced to admit, in print, that it had lied about Mrs White, and pay damages and court costs. It was also demonstrated that the paper had engaged in unacceptable obstruction of the investigation that led to the libel ruling.

This is not the first time the Jewish Chronicle has been sued for defamation. In August 2019 the paper was forced to pay a cash settlement to InterPal, a British charity providing aid for Palestinians. The Jewish Chronicle had implied that interPal was a terrorist organisation. The paper now faces a financial crisis and is reportedly operating with a $2 million deficit. It is staying afloat due to financial contributions from community-minded individuals. [Editors note: on 8 April 2020 the Jewish Chronicle announced that it has gone bankrupt and will cease publication.]

A similar series of events have taken place in Australia. Again, political figures are targets if they are critical of Israel or otherwise supportive of Palestinian rights. Take the case of former Labour Party MP Melissa Parke, who had the courage to assert that, To say that Israel has become an apartheid state is not anti-Semitic; it is a simple statement of fact and international law. She went on to suggest that Palestinian resistance, including retaliatory missile launches from Gaza, were a consequence of decades of brutal occupation. Finally, she drew attention to, and criticised, Zionist influence on Australian politics. For this she was described as an anti-Semite in a front-page story in the tabloid Herald Sun and similar piece in the paper West Australian. She was also slandered by Colin Rubenstein, executive director of the Australia / Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. He publicly described Parke as a fanatic and someone trafficking in conspiracy theories. She sued them all for defamation. To date both the Herald Sun and the West Australian have been forced to published retractions and offer apologies.

The weaponisation of anti-Semitism by the State of Israel and its Zionist allies worldwide should serve as a clear warning to American legislatures and courts that it would be both fair and wise to bring the countrys libel laws into closer conformity with those of the UK and Australia. Indeed, it can be argued that to simply ignore the defamation that is now being rolled out by the Zionists actually puts free speech in danger. Here is how this is happening.

The profuse and persistent use of slander and libel is an attempt at censorship. If you will, it is an attempt to silence a certain category of speech under the cover of free speech. The United States has a worse-case scenario of this fraudulent approach because American Zionists seek to use slander and defamation as a basis for novel speech-restricting law. Here they weave a particularly tangled web declaring that it should be illegal to stand in opposition of one form of racism (Israels racist policies towards the Palestinians) because to do so supposedly reflects another form of racism (they can assert this only by equating opposition to Israeli policies with anti-Semitism). It is enough to make your head spin!

John Stuart Mills 19th century assertion that If any argument is really wrong or harmful, the public will judge it as wrong or harmful has proved unreliable. Most people are buried in their local affairs and, in the present case, have no objective information or experience to judge the behaviour of a foreign country in this case, Israel. All they can go on is media and government messages which, in the US, are influenced by pro-Israel lobbies. This means that, with the possible exception of college campuses, there is no public debate as Mill would understand it. So, how is the average member of the public to judge Zionist slander and libel to be wrong and harmful?

The situation really demands legal recourse to seek retraction and compensation for purposeful falsehoods, not only for the sake of peoples reputations and public standing, but also for the sake of maintaining a reasonable doctrine of free speech. Weaponised words and concepts are, most of the time, synonymous with falsehood and propaganda. In that environment, free speech is diminished and corrupted.

Read the rest here:

A Zionist attack on free speech - Redress Information & Analysis

Why is government afraid of free speech? – Bulatlat

Under the enhanced community quarantine, whats being suppressed is not just our right to movement but also our right to free speech.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) recently issued 17 subpoenas to social media users for allegedly peddling fake news. The agency cites Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code (Unlawful Use of Means of Publication) in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

The said provision penalizes any person who by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication shall publish or cause to be published as news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State.

The recently passed Republic Act No. 11469 (Bayanihan to Heal as One Act) also contains a provision against the spread of false information even if the latter is not clearly defined.

However, human rights lawyer Jose Manuel Chel Diokno, who has been approached by one of the suspects, said that the agency is going after those who merely voice out their criticisms to the government.

Other recent incidents prove how the exercise of free speech is being criminalized.

Just last week, 21 residents of sitio San Roque in barangay Pag-Asa, Quezon City were arrested and detained for demanding aid from national and local government units. Never mind the string of charges filed against them; their real crime in the eyes of President Rodrigo Duterte and Interior Secretary Eduardo Ano is speaking out. As a result of the widespread support they got in raising the amount needed for posting bail, they were freed five days later.

On April 6, policemen stormed San Roques community kitchens and ordered the placards, which read #TulongHindiKulong, (Aid, not Prison) removed.

National government agencies such as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the National Anti-Poverty Commission issued separate memoranda urging employees to refrain from posting negative comments on governments COVID-19 response.

Even local government units have been emboldened to do the same.

In Nueva Ecija, Joshua B. Molo, editor in chief of UE Dawn, was threatened with cyber libel for being vocal in his criticisms to the governments response to COVID-19 pandemic.

Earlier, Todays Carolinian, student publication of the University of San Carlos, was reprimanded by Cebu Governor Gwendolyn Garcia for publishing an editorial upholding the right to free speech. The editorial points out that Garcias formation of a special unit tasked to trace criticism of the governments initiatives to contain COVID-19 is unconstitutional.

Garcia also forced rapper Brandon Perang to apologize for posting negative comments on social media.

In General Santos City, a teacher and her son were arrested without warrant for a Facebook post decrying the lack of government assistance to the poor.

All these actions aim to create chilling effect, to force us into silence amid the Duterte administrations glaring failure to address the COVID-19 crisis.

President Rodrigo Duterte himself issued a lethal warning against critics. Shoot them dead, he told state security forces, referring to those who cause trouble.

But who is causing us all the trouble? Who has provoked the netizens, and the poor, to air their sentiments? Definitely not the Left but the primary resident in Malacanang whose late-night addresses trigger even the sensibilities of those who used to be apolitical. Dutertes sins of commission and omission have converted some of his former supporters to being his fiercest critics.

Citizens rightfully ask, What is the comprehensive plan? Where is the budget for immediate health measures? Why is mass testing taking so long? Why are our health workers running out of personal protective equipment? Where is the social protection for the most vulnerable?

So why is the administration afraid of #OustDuterte hashtag trending on Twitter? Its because the powers-that-be want to nip in the bud any resistance. They are trying to avoid the peoples anger to spread faster than the COVID-19 virus. They want public anger to be replaced by widespread fear. The powers-that-be forget that what fuels our discontent is our love for country and our passion to help the marginalized and underrepresented that they can never extinguish.

Let us continue to choose righteous anger over fear. Our people deserve better.

The rest is here:

Why is government afraid of free speech? - Bulatlat

China Appointed To UN Human Rights Panel To Help Identify Threats To Free Speech – The Daily Wire

Even as questions persist as to how China handled its own coronavirus pandemic including whether the Chinese government effectively silenced doctors and nurses who spoke out in the early days of the virus spread the United Nations has reportedly appointed China to serve on a UN Human Rights panel designed to help identify threats to the freedom of speech, and governments who are carrying out enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention.

International news reports that Chinas appointment came Wednesday, just as countries like the United States began to probe deeper into how the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, was allowed to spread so quickly inside mainland China, and whether Chinas reported death count just over 2,500 from the virus was, indeed, accurate.

It now seems, according to reports cataloging the return of thousands of cremated remaisn to families in and around Wuhan, China, the coronavirus epicenter, that more than 40,000 likely died from the virus in the Wuhan area alone.

The UN, always on the cutting edge of global matters will allow China to have a say in selecting at least 17 UN human rights mandate-holders over the next year. China will also assist in screening candidates for UN human rights positions.

Its absurd and immoral for the UN to allow Chinas oppressive government a key role in selecting officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations worldwide, the executive director of UN Watch, which first reported Chinas appointment to the panel, told media in a statement. Allowing Chinas oppressive and inhumane regime to choose the world investigators on freedom of speech, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances is like making a pyromaniac into the town fire chief.

The appointment seems particularly egregious in light of Chinas approach to the coronavirus pandemic and reports that the Chinese government, already well known for curbing the freedom of speech of its constituents as well as their access to vital information, silenced doctors who raised the alarm on coronavirus.

The New York Times reported in early February that Chinese officials initial handling of the coronavirus epidemic allowed it to spread.

Back in December, weeks before China admitted the outbreak, Dr. Li Wenliang sent a warning about seven people with a mysterious illness to an online chat group that included medical students, per the NYT. Quarantined in the emergency department, the doctor wrote to the group. Hours later, officials from the health department summoned the doctor and sanctioned him for sharing information. He was then compelled to sign a statement of secrecy and told his warning constituted illegal behavior.'

In those weeks, the authorities silenced doctors and others for raising red flags, the NYT adds. They played down the dangers to the public, leaving the citys 11 million residents unaware they should protect themselves.

As for arbitrary detention, in the weeks and months before China suffered the first coronavirus outbreak, the Chinese government was being investigated for a series of concentration camps, where millions of ethnically-Chinese Muslims, known as Uigurs, were reportedly being kept in cramped, unsafe conditions and forced to work as slaves in Chinese factories.

Go here to see the original:

China Appointed To UN Human Rights Panel To Help Identify Threats To Free Speech - The Daily Wire

The David Pakman Show Trump Asking Thailand for Same Gear He Sent Them Trump Asking Thailand – Free Speech TV

The Trump administration is asking Thailand for the same masks, gloves, and other PPE that they sent them in February to fight the crisis in the United States. "Imagine the embarrassment," says David Pakman. "Our shipment to Thailand is en route while we are asking them to send us the same stuff."

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

Coronavirus COVID-19 David Pakman Donald Trump PPE Thailand The David Pakman Show

Continued here:

The David Pakman Show Trump Asking Thailand for Same Gear He Sent Them Trump Asking Thailand - Free Speech TV

U of I protests of the 1960s – Illinois Times

click to enlarge

Radicals in the Heartland: the 1960s Student Protest Movement at the University of Illinois, by Michael V. Metz. University of Illinois Press, 2019.

Radicals in the Heartland: the 1960s Student Protest Movement at the University of Illinois by Michael V. Metz gives an insightful, well-documented analysis of events that shaped each year of the 1960s at the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana campus. The account is juxtaposed against what was occurring nationwide regarding the Vietnam War, civil rights, freedom of speech and students' feelings that they should be treated as adults. The early 1960s had its share of disagreements, but by the end of the decade, full-fledged violence had erupted.

Metz, who took part in the student movement, identifies the many student groups that organized on campus, provides biographical information about the main leaders and includes a section of first-person reflections by the leaders who went on to successful careers after graduation.

The book is divided into six parts and is well-researched, full of documented newspaper reports, archived materials and quotes by students and faculty.

The preface explains the catalyst of later events. George Stoddard, the president of the University of Illinois, was hired in 1946. A huge supporter of free speech, which some viewed as communistic, he argued for the end to a state law that prohibited political candidates from speaking on a college campus. Champaign State Representative Charles Clabaugh, who viewed the U of I as "the hotbed of communist influence," led the passage of a new law in 1947. Called the Clabaugh Act, it prohibited certain organizations from accessing university resources, and university administrators had the authority to decide. For over 20 years this law created controversy and conflict. Who or what was subversive? Who would decide and how?

In 1953, Stoddard met his end. The newly appointed U of I board trustee former Illini football hero Red Grange made a motion of no confidence in Stoddard. Stoddard resigned on the spot; Grange never attended another board meeting.

David Dodds Henry was named interim president and then hired in 1956. He would face the impact of the Clabaugh Act when controversies arose over such issues as the academic freedom of faculty, the university's role in recognizing campus student groups, even the strict curfews and dorm rules.

In 1960 two major issues created deeply divided opinions over academic freedom. Student Edward Yellin's pending fellowship that included a teaching assistant position was in jeopardy when it was revealed he had been subpoenaed years earlier by the House Un-American Activities Committee and refused to answer questions. Then Leo Koch, an assistant professor, published a letter in the Daily Illini advocating for premarital sex for "mature" students. In both cases, opinions were hotly debated. Yellin kept his fellowship; Koch was fired.

Metz explores the Free Speech Era, 1965-1967, in Part II. The impact of a 1964 large student protest against the prohibition of political activity at the University of California, Berkeley, spilled over onto other campuses. Some tried to hold a protest at the U of I campus, but few showed up. The Daily Illini editor, later famed movie critic Roger Ebert, wrote that 801 students at Berkeley had been arrested, but "we don't have 801 students who would understand why 801 students would want to be arrested for denial of free speech."

Vietnam hadn't yet become the overarching issue; a 1965 protest drew only 12 students. There was more interest in ending strict dorm rules. Students Against the Clabaugh Act (SACA) pushed for an end to the law but without success.

Students wanted to form a W.E.B. Dubois Club, which was considered, incorrectly, to be a communist organization. Trustees, who had first approved the group, reversed their decision. SACA changed its name to Students for Free Speech and invited a professed communist to speak on campus, raising concerns by many, including parents. Although the speaker drew 2,000 on the porch of the Union Hall, not much came of the event.

Women joined student groups that were mainly led by men; the women were often harassed, treated as secretaries and ignored. Women spoke up against strict rules: a 10 p.m. dorm curfew on weeknights, midnight on weekends, required skirt attire for Sunday dinner and in bowling classes. There was a policy that couples could only meet in lounges in the dorms and must have three feet on the floor. The first female student president, Patsy Parker, pushed for changes. A midnight rally against curfew failed as 9 fraternity men showed up and heckled the women.

Communism and curfews had been the focus, until the next stage, Part III: The Antiwar Movement, 1967-1969. Anger against the Vietnam War increased: male students openly burned their draft cards, students held sit-ins. At the University of Wisconsin in Madison, students led a sit-in against the Dow Chemical Company, a producer of chemicals used in the war. U of I students held their own five-hour sit-in, barring all interviews.

Across the country, Vietnam protests gained momentum. Civil rights gained interest; Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy were assassinated in the spring of 1968. In August that year the Democratic National Convention in Chicago led to riots. "A stark choice faced student activists," Metz writes. "Either let go of hopes for wide-scale political change and thus escape establishment retaliation, or continue the struggle by fighting violence with like violence." Most chose the first and few the latter, according to the author.

In Part IV, The Violent Time, 1969-1970, Metz follows the actions that led to the outbreak of violence. Many students had attempted to hold peaceful protests with speeches on the quad and at the student union. On Oct. 15, 1969, the nationwide Day of Moratorium, 9,000 U of I students participated in all-day events and a march. Peace turned to violence in the spring of 1970 after four students were killed at Kent State University. Illinois State Superintendent of Education Ray Page declared, "Four students that should have known better than to have participated in outright revolt against the forces of law and order lie dead." Students were shocked and angered. May 4-8, 1970, in Champaign has been called the week that was the "most violent period in the 100-year history of the university." There were protests, marchers throwing rocks and bottles through windows, sit-ins in the middle of intersections, marches to the president's home and arrests. Many, though, peacefully went about their lives.

On Saturday of that week, activities, speeches and music were planned on the quad. Students enjoying the spring weather congregated, some sharing a picnic, others throwing a frisbee. Then suddenly the Illinois National Guard came from both sides of the quad, surrounded the throng of people, arrested some and took them to Memorial Stadium to be held.

Thus ends the decade; Metz provides a final analysis. He applauds the students for speaking up, changing the course of the war and being influencers of later movements. He believes they were not extremists, but rather engaged individuals with a deep-seated feeling of moral right. He also claims they failed at political revolution. Mayhem ensued, but the silent majority prevailed and does so today. The students did not stop "the strength of the established order," he claims.

Cinda Ackerman Klickna was a student at the U of I, starting in 1969, but acknowledges she was unaware of all that was happening on campus. Her involvement was as a bystander, which may surprise those who know her now.

Here is the original post:

U of I protests of the 1960s - Illinois Times

Taiwan’s Success Against the Coronavirus Could Spur Greater U.S.-Taiwan Cooperation – Heritage.org

Taipei isnt just the name of Taiwans capital. Its the name of an important piece of legislation thatPresident Trump recently signed: the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act.

The bipartisan statute passed unanimously by Congress, is intended to strengthen Taiwans standing around the globe in response to Chinas efforts to restrict international recognition of Taiwan. It is a timely gesture of support for one of Americas most willing and capable allies. More can be done, however.

In recent decades, Taiwan has transformed itself into a beacon of freedom, not only for the Chinese but for people worldwide. For example, it has shown that respect for human rights can be a powerful force for political stability and that free enterprise, free association, and free speech lead to entrepreneurship, prosperity, and security.

The Heritage Foundations twenty-sixth edition of theIndex of Economic Freedomhighlights Taiwans high degree of openness and competitiveness, ranking the dynamic democracy the eleventh-freest economy in the world. And in its latest edition ofFreedom in the World, an annual report that assesses political rights and civil liberties around the globe, Freedom House classifies Taiwan as a free nation.

The TAIPEI Act, although introduced in Congress last year, is especially relevant in the context of the current global health crisis. Taiwan has had remarkable success in dealing with the coronavirus, with fewer than three-hundred confirmed cases and just two deaths as of March 28.

Taiwans record is even more noteworthy given its proximity to China and its exclusion from the World Health Organization (WHO), which has lately been excluding Taiwan to please the communist government in China. When Taiwan wrote to the WHO in late December asking whether there was human-to-human transmission in the virus outbreak in Wuhan, the WHO did not even reply. As a recent Wall Street Journal editorialnoted:

From 2009 to 2016, the World Health Organization allowed Taiwan to attend its annual policy meetings as a nonvoting observer and sometimes let its representatives participate in technical meetings. But at Beijings behest, the WHO has given Taiwan the pariah treatment since Tsai Ing-wen was elected president in 2016.The WHO has held two emergency meetings since the coronavirus outbreak. Taiwan wasnt permitted to attendChinas bullying ought to be intolerable amid the coronavirus outbreak. As the single largest contributor to the WHO, the United States should make that clear to Beijing.

The TAIPEI Act is one way of conveying that message.

Taiwan has compiled an impressive record as a constructive member of the world community, despite efforts by mainland China to isolate it, and provides a positive example of a pathway to development and prosperity based on high degrees of both political and economic freedom.

In January, Taiwans President Tsai Ing-wen overwhelmingly won re-election with almost of eligible voters casting ballots. In his remarks at a recentHeritage Foundation event on Taiwan, Stanley Kao, Taiwans top representative in the United States, reminded us that the presidential election demonstrated that democracy worksand works wellin Taiwan because [the people of Taiwan] dont take it for granted. In that regard, Taiwan is a model for Asia and beyond.

Taiwans free-market economic development is equally important. Steady economic growth in recent years has made the country one of the richest in Asia, and Taiwan is Americas twelfth largest trade partner, with two-way trade totaling almost $100 billion.

In many profound and enduring ways, Taiwan and the United States have become strong allies sharing powerful commitments to the values of democracy, the rule of law, and free markets. The relationship today is a fruitful partnership that is more constructive and forward-looking than ever.

More can be accomplished, however. The TAIPEI Act shows the goodwill that is present, and the Taiwan Relations Act, which celebrated its fortieth-anniversary last year, provides some strategic focus and clarity. Whats still missing is a bilateral U.S.Taiwan trade and investmentagreement, something long advocated by The Heritage Foundation.

That would be a worthy next step.

This piece originally appeared in The National Interest https://nationalinterest.org/feature/taiwan%E2%80%99s-success-against-coronavirus-could-spur-greater-us-taiwan-cooperation-141667

See more here:

Taiwan's Success Against the Coronavirus Could Spur Greater U.S.-Taiwan Cooperation - Heritage.org

Bahrain: Free Imprisoned Rights Defenders and Opposition Activists – Human Rights Watch

(Beirut) Amid the global threat posed by COVID-19, Bahraini authorities should release human rights defenders, opposition activists, journalists, and all others imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association, a coalition of 19 rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, said today.

On March 17, 2020, Bahrain completed the release of 1,486 prisoners, 901 of whom received royal pardons on humanitarian grounds. The remaining 585 were given non-custodial sentences. While this is a positive step, the releases so far have excluded opposition leaders, activists, journalists, and human rights defenders many of whom are older and/or suffer from underlying medical conditions. Such prisoners are at high risk of serious illness if they contract COVID-19, and thus ought to be prioritized for release.

Bahrains significant release of prisoners is certainly a welcome relief as concerns around the spread of COVID-19 continue to rise. Authorities must now speedily release those who never should have been in jail in the first place, namely all prisoners of conscience who remain detained solely for exercising their right to peaceful expression, said Lynn Maalouf, Amnesty Internationals Middle East director of research. We also urge the authorities to step up measures to ensure full respect for the human rights of all those deprived of their liberty.

Opposition leaders imprisoned for their roles in the 2011 protest movement remain behind bars. These include Hassan Mushaima, the head of the unlicensed opposition group Al-Haq; Abdulwahab Hussain, an opposition leader; Abdulhadi Al Khawaja, a prominent human rights defender; and Dr Abdel-Jalil al-Singace, the spokesman for Al-Haq.

Other prominent opposition figures, including Sheikh Ali Salman, secretary general of the dissolved Al-Wefaq National Islamic Society (Al-Wefaq), also remain imprisoned. Sayed Nizar Alwadaei, who was deemed arbitrarily detained by the United Nations in reprisal for the activism of his brother-in-law, the exiled activist Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, and human rights defenders Nabeel Rajab and Naji Fateel have not been released either. Amnesty International considers them to be prisoners of conscience who should be released immediately and unconditionally.

The Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) has documented that a total of 394 detainees of the 1,486 released were imprisoned on political charges. According to Salam for Democracy and Human Rights, another Bahraini nongovernmental group, 57 of the 901 prisoners who received a royal pardon were imprisoned for their political activities, while the rest were given non-custodial sentences. Since the Bahraini government has not made available any information on the charges for which those ordered released had been convicted, the exact figures cannot be verified. However, it is clear that people imprisoned for nonviolent political activity are in the minority of those released.

Scores of prisoners convicted following unfair trials under Bahrains overly broad counterterrorism law have been overlooked and denied early release or alternative penalties, even though other inmates serving considerably longer sentences were freed. This includes Zakiya Al Barboori and Ali Al Hajee, according to the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD).

Conditions in Bahrains overcrowded prisons compound the risk of COVID-19 spreading. The lack of adequate sanitation led to a scabies outbreak in Jau Prison Bahrains largest prison and the Dry Dock Detention Center in December 2019 and January 2020. Almost half of the Dry Dock Detention Centers prison population was infected. In 2016, a governmental Prisoners and Detainees Rights Commission found buildings at Jau Prison to suffer from bad hygiene, insect infestation, and broken toilets.

Furthermore, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN have expressed their concern over the authorities persistent failure to provide adequate medical care in Bahrains prisons. This has endangered the health of some unjustly imprisoned persons with chronic medical conditions, such as Hassan Mushaima and Dr Abdel-Jalil al-Singace, who may now be at heightened risk of contracting COVID-19.

Hassan Mushaima, 72, has diabetes, gout, heart and prostate problems, and is also in remission for cancer. Prison authorities have routinely failed to take him to appointments due to his refusal to submit to wearing humiliating shackles during transfers to his appointments. International human rights mechanisms have said that the use of restraints on elderly or infirm prisoners who do not pose an escape risk can constitute ill-treatment.

Dr Abdel-Jalil al-Singace, 57, has post-polio syndrome and uses a wheelchair. Prison authorities have also refused to transport him to his medical appointments due to his refusal to wear shackles.

As the world faces the unprecedented COVID-19 crisis, it is more important than ever that the international community work together to contain its spread and ensure that the health and rights of the vulnerable are protected, said Husain Abdullah, executive director at Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB). Bahrains allies, in particular the United Kingdom and United States, should explicitly call on Bahrain to secure the release of all those solely imprisoned for their peaceful opposition to the government.

States have an obligation to ensure medical care for all those in their custody at least equivalent to that available to the general population and must not deny or limit detainees equal access to preventive, curative, or palliative health care. Given that conditions in detention centers pose a heightened public health risk to the spread of COVID-19, and the persistent failure to provide an adequate level of care to those in their custody, there are grave concerns about whether prison authorities could effectively control the spread of COVID-19 and care for prisoners if there is an outbreak inside Bahrains prisons.

The Bahraini authorities should seize the opportunity to immediately and unconditionally release everyone imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their rights to free expression, including Hassan Mushaima, Dr Abdel-Jalil al-Singace, Abdulahdi Al-Khawaja, Abdulwahab Hussain, Nabeel Rajab, Naji Fateel, and Sheikh Ali Salman. The convictions of those imprisoned following unfair trials including Sayed Nizar Alwadaei should be quashed, or at the very least they should be released pending fair retrial.

The risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to those in detention should be a strong factor weighing toward the reduction of the prison population through the release of pretrial detainees, particularly given the poor, unsanitary conditions in Bahrains prisons and the inadequate provision of medical care. In addition, prisoners who are especially vulnerable to COVID-19, such as those with underlying medical conditions and the elderly, should be considered for early release, parole, or alternative non-custodial measures as a means to further reduce the prison population and prevent the spread of COVID-19.

In any event, the authorities should ensure that anyone who remains in custody has access to disease prevention and treatment services, including ensuring physical distancing of prisoners at all times, including in housing, eating, and social areas. Prison authorities should screen all guards to prevent the introduction of COVID-19 into prisons, provide appropriate information on hygiene and supplies, and ensure that all areas accessible to prisoners, prison staff, and visitors are disinfected regularly. They should develop plans for housing people exposed to or infected with the virus in quarantine or isolation and ensure that necessary medical care is available.

Bahrains first wave of prison releases was positive, but insufficient, said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. The authorities should further reduce the prison population by releasing those who are imprisoned solely for their political beliefs or for exercising their right to free speech and peaceful assembly. Meanwhile, the authorities should ramp up efforts to ensure that the remaining prison population has access to the medical care, is protected from transmission, and is provided the information that they need to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

Signed by:

Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)Amnesty InternationalARTICLE 19Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR)Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen ParticipationCommittee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)English PENEuropean Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)Global Legal Action Network (GLAN)Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GC4HR)Human Rights First (HRF)Human Rights Watch (HRW)IFEXIndex on CensorshipInternational Service For Human Rights (ISHR)PEN AmericaPEN InternationalREDRESS

Read more here:

Bahrain: Free Imprisoned Rights Defenders and Opposition Activists - Human Rights Watch

The Trump Administration Escalates the War on White Supremacist Terrorism – National Review

Nathan Sales speaks during a news conference at the State Department in Washington, November 14, 2019. (Yara Nardi/Reuters)

The Trump administration on Monday applied an international terrorist designation to an ethno-nationalist group known as the Russian Imperialist Movement, marking the first time the U.S. has applied such a designation to a white supremacist organization.

The State Department relied on expanded counterterrorism authorities released in September in order to designate R.IM. as a foreign terrorist organization and to bring sanctions against three of its leaders.

During a Wednesday phone interview with National Review, Nathan Sales, the State Department envoy on counterterrorism, described the move as a historic step in administrations efforts to keep up with the dynamic nature of extremist violence in the 21st century.

We think this sends a really strong message to the world, as well as to interested parties here in the United States, that were going to use our counterterrorism authorities to the fullest extent possible to confront terrorists of whatever ideological stripe, Sales said.

President Trumps September executive order empowered the State Department to target groups and individuals that have not necessarily committed any violent acts themselves but instead provided training for those who have. Before the executive order, the governments hands were tied when pursuing known terrorist leaders: only those individuals who were known to have directly participated in the planning of an attack could be sanctioned. But under the leadership prong of the new guidance, an individuals status as a leader in a terrorist group, such as RIM, is itself sufficient to designate the person as a foreign terrorist and to sanction them as such.

Sales explained that RIM fell squarely under the State Departments expanded sanctions authorities because, while the group and its leaders are not known to have personally directed any attacks, they operate two training camps outside of St. Petersburg, Russia, where prospective terrorists travel to learn woodland combat and survival skills.

The groups training camps have already proven to be more than a summer camp for disaffected young men playing soldier. In 2017, two men set off bombs in Gothenburg, Sweden months after leaving one of the groups Partisan training camps. No one was injured in the blasts, but the location of the attacks suggests the men were targeting recent Middle Eastern and North African refugees. The paramilitary camp in St. Petersburg was a key step in [the bombers] radicalization and it may be the place where they learned to manufacture the bombs that they used in Gothenburg, the prosecutor on the case told the Daily Beast during trial.

Sales argued that the expanded sanctions authorities dont imperil anyones right to free speech, since propaganda efforts alone are not sufficient for designation; the individuals in question must cross the line into indirectly furthering terrorist plots by providing training.

While its not what landed them on the sanctions list, R.I.M. does maintain an extensive propaganda network which allows them to form relationships with other Eastern European neo-fascist groups and recruits from among their ranks. Like the Islamic State, the group has found success in wooing alienated young men intent on lashing out against a perceived existential threat; in this case, the influx of Arab refugees who began flooding Scandinavia in 2014 and 2015.

The group has also reportedly tried to make inroads with American neo-Nazi groups, which have been known to coordinate with their European counterparts. In 2015, a group of American white supremacists travelled to Russia to the International Conservative Forum in St. Petersburg, where they rubbed shoulders with white supremacist groups from Italy, Greece, and Germany.

European ethnocentrism reemerged as a significant threat to national security in 2015, primarily in response to the influx of refugees Middle Eastern and North African immigrants fleeing to Europe. White supremacist attacks against immigrants spiked that year across Europe, and the U.S. suffered the worst white supremacist attack in its history at the hands of the Charleston church shooter Dylan Roof.

As this nascent international movement gathered steam, the U.S., which had for years focused its counterterrorism efforts on Islamic extremism, was caught flat-footed and suffered attacks at the hands of white supremacists who were radicalized online, often by foreigners.

We know that the transnational white supremacist movement is very much a transnational phenomenon. The shooter at the El Paso Walmart, we know that he was inspired by the Christchurch shooter in New Zealand, so were always on the lookout for foreign groups that might try to reach into the homeland either to recruit Americans or to inspire Americans to commit acts of violence, Sales told National Review.

R.I.M. has recruited heavily from Poland, Sweden, Germany and other Scandinavian countries by drawing on Norse mythology in their propaganda and casting their efforts as part of a pan-European campaign to rid the region of non-whites.

While the level of coordination between R.I.M. and the Kremlin remains unclear, the proximity of its training camps to a major Russian metropolis and their continued operation despite the media attention they received in the wake of the Gothenberg bombings suggest the group operate with at least the tacit approval of Vladimir Putin. Indeed, RIM members have served as little green men in Putins proxy war against Ukraine, helping pro-Russian separatists seize Crimea in 2014. Ukrainian forces, such as the Azov Battalion, have also allied with white supremacist groups but U.S. intelligence has determined that the extremist groups were more active on the pro-Russian side.

While Putin gestured at a crackdown on the group (their website is now censored in Russia) the group operates freely in the country and continues to be tolerated by the authorities, in the words of former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Carpenter. In addition to serving as soldiers in Putins near-abroad campaign, they also serve the useful function of sowing chaos in western democracies, which, in Putins zero-sum view of the world, is an unalloyed good.

Some observers have cast the move as a thinly veiled attempt to rehabilitate the administrations reputation on the issue of white supremacy, which has persisted since Trumps infamous Charlottesville speech. Indeed, the designation gone largely unremarked upon by the political medias opinion makers, and most news articles reporting the development have included wary statements from extremism researchers casting the move as a public relations stunt. But, coupled with the FBIs recent aggressive pursuit of domestic white supremacists and provided the State Department continues to monitor these foreign groups and designate them accordingly under the new expanded guidance Trumps September executive order may prove to be a substantial blow against a white supremacist threat that began to emerge in earnest in Europe during the refugee crisis of 2014 and 2015, and has since metastasized in the U.S.

The sanctions against R.I.M.s three leaders Stanislav Vorobyev, Denis Gariev, and Nikolay Trushchalov will deprive them of access to the U.S. financial system and will freeze their assets in the international banking system. It will also enable the prosecution of any sympathetic American who attempts to aid them. In the administrations view this move is a long overdue modernization of the way the U.S. deals with an extremist phenomenon that doesnt respect borders and uses the internet to form communities that can have a devastating impact on Americans and free people around the world.

View original post here:

The Trump Administration Escalates the War on White Supremacist Terrorism - National Review

ACLJ to File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pro-Life Speech Case Battling the Abortion Distortion – American Center for Law and Justice

The ability to speak ones one mind in an effort to persuade others of the truth of your position is a critical component in the workings of politics, academia, the courtroom . . . almost any area of public or private concern. Few personal liberties are therefore more cherished in this country than the right to free speech.

George Washington said it powerfully: For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.

Though it may have a checkered past on the issue, the Supreme Court has been an important guardian of the First Amendments guarantee of free speech. Recently, and positively, the Court has held that the state cannot compel pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise government-subsidized abortions. It has held that the government cannot treat Church signs advertising places of worship less than it treats non-religious directional signs.

Unfortunately, as with other rights, the right to free speech often falls prey to abortion distortion, where courts contort the meaning of well-established free speech principles to silence pro-life speakers. While the Supreme Court has made important and encouraging strides in the past decade to safeguard free speecheven in the abortion contextJustice Scalia once spoke of the Courts troubling tendency to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.

Sadly, the abortion distortion doctrine continues to rear its ugly head in the lower courts.

For years, the City of Pittsburgh has tried to keep pro-life speakers away from the very place where their message matters most: close to the entrance of abortion clinics. Similar to the City of Englewood ordinance we are challenging in federal court, Pittsburgh adopted a buffer zone prohibiting persons from congregating, patrolling, picketing, or demonstrating within 15-feet of an abortion clinics entrance.

Despite the Supreme Courts 2014 decision in McCullen v. Coakley, which unanimously struck down a buffer zone abortion law in Massachusetts, both the district court and the Third Court of Appeals upheld Pittsburghs ordinance. Contrary to how the City interpreted its own ordinance, the Court of Appeals narrowed its scope by holding that the ordinance doesnt cover sidewalk counseling.

While laudably permitting the speech of pro-life sidewalk counseling, there are two critical problems with the courts ruling: (1) its not the role of federal courts to construe narrowly state and local laws in order to save them from a constitutional challenge, and (2) even if the ordinance does not apply to some pro-life speakers, it still sweeps within its ambit classic forms of free speech activity (including pro-life speech activity), such as demonstrating and picketing.

The Third Circuits decision shouldnt be allowed to stand. And well soon be filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the pro-life speakers in Pittsburgh. Its time for the Supreme Court to put an end to abortion distortion in the realm of free speech once and for allboth in this case and in another pro-life speech case out of Chicago that the Court is still considering whether to accept and decide (we also filed an amicus brief in this case).

The right to free speech is not a luxury or perk. When the government impermissibly seeks to squelch or limit that right, courts should be vigilant in striking down those restrictions. And when lower courts wrongly uphold those restrictions, as did the Third Circuit here, the Supreme Court needs to step in and reverse them.

You can sign on to our Supreme Court brief below.

View post:

ACLJ to File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pro-Life Speech Case Battling the Abortion Distortion - American Center for Law and Justice

Singapore’s law minister says that to counter fake news, more information must be given – CNBC

Governments can tackle fake news during the coronavirus crisis by communicating regularly and promptly correcting misinformation, Singapore's home affairs minister said.

Security experts have warned that disinformation campaigns about COVID-19 are on the rise over the internet, as people's fears and ignorance are being exploited.

Singapore is not immune. The government has been fighting fake news: from misinformation about its leaders contracting the coronavirus, to false reports of virus-related deaths and scammers trying to impersonate health officialsto extract people's personal and financial details.

"We are not the only place where fake informationis circulating, but I would say there is far less here," K. Shanmugam, who is also Singapore's law minister, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday.

"You know the Singapore approach: We put out the clarification, we require the platform to carry what the true facts are and we saw a substantial reduction in the amount of fake news circulating," Shanmugam said, adding that the presence of fake news is part and parcel of modern life. "You just have to accept it."

Singapore passed theProtection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Billin October last year, which dictates websites have to run government "correction notices" alongside content it deems false. Under the law, the government will also be able to issue so-called "take down" orders that require the removal of content posted by social media companies, news organizations or individuals.

The Singapore skyline.

Everett Rosenfeld | CNBC

"Regularcommunication, I think, is one way of fighting this fake news," Shanmugam said. "Second, when there is fake news that you can identify, point it out and make sure that people get to know that this is fake news. Do your best."

For its part, Singapore's health ministry puts out a daily report on its website detailing newly reported cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus,and the status of existing patients over a 24-hour period. That information from the government is also disseminated via WhatsApp for people who've signed up to receive them.

Shanmugam explained that when the fake news bill was being debated, tackling misinformation during a public health crisis was one of the scenarios being considered. He said in current times, fake news has been "industrialized" to sow confusion among the public and undermine society, through using modern means of communication. But the answer to counteringfake news is not censorship, rather it's to give more information, according to the law minister.

Our point is, for those who believe in free speech, well this is more speech. You read the fake stuff, you read the true stuff, or what we say is the true stuff, and you make up your mind.

K. Shanmugam

Singapore's minister for home affairs

Critics of Singapore's fake news law have said the rule could be used to clamp down on the opposition parties a charge that ministers of the city-state have repeatedly denied. For his part, Shanmugam said critics are not acknowledging the fact that misinformation is not taken down by the original poster.

"It's on that platform, but the person who put it out has got to carry a correction to say that this is being considered to be false, and for the true facts go to such and such a place," he said. "Our point is, for those who believe in free speech, well this is more speech. You read the fake stuff, you read the true stuff, or what we say is the true stuff, and you make up your mind."

In February, the government ordered Facebook to block access in Singapore to a blog page on its social networking platform, Reuters reported. Singapore reasoned that the page, called States Times Review, repeatedly conveyed falsehoods and did not comply with directions it was served under the fake news law, according to Reuters.

Facebook had said back then that orders like those were "disproportionate" and contradicted Singapore's claim that the fake news law wouldn't be used as a censorship tool, Reuters said.

Shanmugam said Facebook had been "behind thecurve on fake news and has had to apologize a number of times."

When contacted by CNBC about the minister's remarks, a representative from the social media company declined to comment.

Go here to read the rest:

Singapore's law minister says that to counter fake news, more information must be given - CNBC

Exclusive Commissioner Brendan Carr Torches Dangerous Petition to Weaponize FCC Against Free Speech – Breitbart

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brendan Carr told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview on Friday that Free Press has moved to weaponize the FCC against broadcasters and conservatives to stifle political speech.

Progressive media group Free Press has petitioned the FCC to censor broadcasters from showing President Donald Trumps press conferences on the coronavirus pandemic. In its petition to the federal agency, the group called it a life and death issue.

Free Press urged the FCC to prominently disclose when broadcasters allegedly disclose information that is false or scientifically suspect and air disclosures prominently on television when broadcaster air allegedly false information.

When the president tells dangerous lies about a public health emergency, broadcasters have a choice: dont air them, or put those lies in context with disclaimers noting that they may be untrue and are unverified, Free Press wrote. And certainly the FCC has a duty to rein in radio broadcasters that seed confusion with lies and disinformation.

Carr called this petition a dangerous attempt to weaponize the FCC against free speech. He noted that while this proposal may not pass through the Republican-controlled FCC under Trump, it may gain more traction under a future Democrat administration like how Free Press lobbied former President Barack Obama and the then Democrat-controlled FCC to pass net neutrality.

Its a dangerous and sweeping attempt by the left to weaponize the FCC against broadcasters and conservatives and politicians. The real danger here, among other things, is that this particular group is very influential in Democrat media and telecom policy circles. You can look at this petition and say this isnt going to get traction with this FCC, but remember when it comes to greater government control of the Internet, its called net neutrality, Carr said. That group was at the vanguard of pushing utility-style regulations and heavy-handed regulation of the Internet [net neutrality] at a point in time that people on the right and the mainstream left thought it was a third-rail issue and that the FCC would never do. And what did they do? They campaigned to flip then President Obama, who then flipped the FCC, and we ended up for a long time what was unthinkable heavy-handed government control of the Internet.

Free Press cofounder and board member Robert McChesney has advocated for a socialist revolution in the United States.

In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles, McChesney said at one point.

McChesney also said, We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it.

Carr also noted that Free Press has called for a fully-funded, government-funded media. And so when I think you put that all together, its part and parcel of an effort to control the political narrative and complete intolerance of any views that dont fit with their orthodoxy.

This is part of the broader left to take advantage of the pandemic to press their extreme agenda. Were seeing it here with this petition and asking the FCC to shut down speech and broadcasters that doesnt fit their orthodoxy, and were seeing it with this push for the Green New Deal through the coronavirus packages, he added.

Free Speechs call for censorship in the name of the public interest has been echoed by FCC Democrat Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. Rosenworcel wanted to censor e-cigarette ads in 2019.

Carr said that Americans should fight against censorship irrespective of its political leanings.

Well, if history wont be kind to silence, lets speak up on both sides of the issue. My position on the First Amendment has been consistent. Ive spoken up against efforts to censor conservatives, and Ive spoken up against efforts to censor Democrats. For instance, people tried to censor a tweet from presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg. And Ive spoken up against attempts to censor nonpolitical speech, like when Commissioner Rosenworcel said that the FCC should play a role in shutting down broadcasters for e-cigarettes based on her view of the public interest, Carr said.

My record is clear that Ive spoken about left, right, and nonpolitical. Its interesting that people find their First Amendment footing when it fits their political views. And when it doesnt, its crickets, he added.

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.

Excerpt from:

Exclusive Commissioner Brendan Carr Torches Dangerous Petition to Weaponize FCC Against Free Speech - Breitbart

Former UAlbany student Asha Burwell sees one conviction overturned – Times Union

ALBANY Citing the First Amendment, the regions appellate court Thursday unanimously reversed one of the convictions of a former University at Albany student found guilty of falsely reporting a hate crime aboard a CDTA bus in 2016.

In a 5-0 ruling, appellate justices overturned Asha Burwells conviction for falsely reporting an incident in the third-degree and causing a public alarm through her tweets, the comments she posted on her Twitter account.

However, Burwells conviction for falsely reporting an incident in the third-degree in a 911 call was upheld, according to the decision Thursday by the Appellate Division of state Supreme Courts Third Department. Both are misdemeanors.

In February, Burwells attorney, Frederick Brewington, argued it was a slippery slope to criminalize Burwells tweets given the wide range of people "from the top to the bottom" who use Twitter. He noted President Donald Trumps fondness for Twitter.

"If, indeed, we put this standard in place, someone would have to arrest our president immediately," Brewington told the Times Union after the Feb.19 arguments.

On Thursday, justices found Burwells tweets to be permitted under free speech regardless of their accuracy.

Neither general concern nor the Twitter storm that ensued following defendant posting the false tweets are the type of public alarm or inconvenience that permits defendant's tweets to escape protection under the First Amendment and, therefore, the speech at issue here may not be criminalized, stated the decision authored by Justice Stanley Pritzker.

Presiding Justice Elizabeth Garry and Justices Christine Clark, Eugene Gus Devine and John Colangelo concurred.

To that end, although it was not unlikely that defendant's false tweets about a racial assault at a state university would cause public alarm, what level of public alarm rises to the level of criminal liability? the decision said. By the very nature of social media, falsehoods can quickly and effectively be countered by truth, making the criminalizing of false speech on social media not actually necessary to prevent alarm and inconvenience. This could not be more apparent here, where defendant's false tweets were largely debunked through counter speech; thus, criminalizing her speech was not actually necessary to prevent public alarm and inconvenience.

In response to the decision, Albany County District Attorney David Soares' office released a statement saying: "We respect the decision of the Court to uphold the falsely reporting an incident charge regarding the claims made during the 911 call. 'A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth puts on its boots,' is the old saw. A tweet can make it 1,000 times around. While the Constitution protects your right to lie on Twitter, it certainly doesnt protect your right to lie to the police. And make no mistake, Asha Burwell lied and remains convicted for her behavior."

Assistant District Attorney Vincent Stark had argued that while opinions are always protected under the First Amendment, Burwell falsified facts.

Brewington had argued that even if what his client tweeted was untrue, it was not criminal. Burwell, now 24, graduated with honors from Howard University in Washington D.C. She is studying to become an attorney, Brewington said.

On Jan. 30, 2016, Burwell, along with fellow former UAlbany students Ariel Agudio and Alexis Briggs, all of whom are black, boarded a CDTA bus at Quail Street and Western Avenue in Albany headed to the university's uptown campus. Agudio and Burwell exited the bus and called police to report they had been jumped by a group of white men and women because of their skin color. They said the bus driver did nothing and that passengers watched the attack or recorded it on their phones.

Reports about the incident led to an on-campus rally and national attention. Footage from the bus, which was later released, showed the students appeared to be the attackers.

Agudio and Burwell were both expelled. Briggs was suspended.

Burwell had tweeted: I just got jumped on a bus while people hit us and called us the n word and NO ONE helped us, as well as I cant believe I just experienced what its like to be beaten because of the color of my skin," court papers show.

In 2017, jurors convicted Burwell and co-defendant Agudio of two counts of the false reporting charges, which are misdemeanor offenses. Acting Supreme Court Justice Roger McDonough sentenced both women to three years' probation, 200 hours of community service and a $1,000 fine.

The defendants were acquitted on four other counts, including allegations of assault and harassment.

Read the original here:

Former UAlbany student Asha Burwell sees one conviction overturned - Times Union

Disturbing number of students say ‘offensive jokes’ could be hate speech – Campus Reform

A new survey finds that the overwhelming majority of college students say that offensive jokes could constitute hate speech.

College Pulse recently released results of a survey conducted in February, which found that 60 percent of U.S. college students responded "yes" when asked, "can offensive jokes ever constitute hate speech?" Just 24 percent said that offensive jokes are not hate speech, while 16 percent were "not sure."

"these numbers are absolutely devastating"

The survey further broke down its findings, noting that 76 percent of self-identified Democrats said that offensive jokes could constitute hate speech. Among Republicans, 36 percent said the same. Just over half (54 percent) of independents said that offensive jokes could be considered as hate speech.

[RELATED: POLL: Most young Americans support 'hate speech' exemption in First Amendment]

WATCH and SUBSCRIBE to CAMPUS REFORM on YOUTUBE

Respondents who identified as LGBTQ (72 percent) were much more likely to say offensive jokes could be hate speech. Fifty-five percent of "straight" respondents said the same. Females (67 percent) were also more likely than males (49 percent) to label offensive jokes as hate speech. Of the respondents who identified as "non-binary" gender, 79 percent agreed that offensive jokes could be hate speech.

The results came just six months after another survey found that 59 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 said that they support a "hate speech" exemption in the First Amendment. Yet another survey reported by Campus Reform in May 2019 found that 41 percent of students said that "hate speech" is not free speech.

[RELATED: Disturbing number of students say hate speech is not free speech, report says]

"These numbers are absolutely devastating," Speech First President Nicole Neily told Campus Reform when responding to the October survey.

"They reflect a profound misunderstanding not only of the importance of free speech, but also of the history of free speech and the First Amendment. Free speech is not a partisan issue. It's a right that benefits all Americans, and in particular, the powerless, the unpopular, and minority viewpoints. A government that has the authority to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not can very easily squelch dissent - and that should concern everyone," she added.

Follow the author of this article on Facebook:@JonStreetDCand Twitter:@JonStreet

See original here:

Disturbing number of students say 'offensive jokes' could be hate speech - Campus Reform

We’re making a right mess of our right to free expression – The Guardian

This month, the former home secretary Amber Rudd was invited to give a speech to UN Women Oxford UK, an Oxford University student society, to celebrate International Womens Day. Thirty minutes before the event, Rudd was disinvited and the event cancelled.

Last week, the university deregistered the student society for breaking free-speech regulations. Both decisions show what a mess the debate over the right to expression has become.

The original disinvitation was part of a trend for organisations to cancel invited speakers after objections about their political views. In Rudds case, students objected in particular to her role in the Windrush scandal.

No organisation or student society has an obligation to invite any particular speaker. But having invited someone, it should have the moral strength to resist the censorious calls of those who might object to his or her views. A politician such as Rudd needs her views publicly challenged, not censored.

If the decision to disinvite her was wrong, so is the deregistering of the society. Free speech is not something that can be imposed on people. It expresses, rather, a set of moral, political and cultural attitudes about how to engage with ideas and people, particularly those with whom we disagree.

A student society has little power. A university has considerable power over its students. Those who defend free expression but applaud the universitys decision to punish students, so as to, in the words of the Free Speech Unions Toby Young, send a message to the protesters, seem not to understand the significance of free speech in the first place. Illiberalism rules on both sides of the debate.

Read the original post:

We're making a right mess of our right to free expression - The Guardian