By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Jan 25, 2022

Massive convoys of trucks are converging on the nations capital. About 50,000 truckers are involved. In one place the convoy stretches more than 40 milesand thats before the separate convoys, coming from different corners of the nation, meet for their final approach. Tens of thousands of people are lining the highways to show their support; women are bringing hot meals out to the truckers when they stop to rest.

Doesnt that sound like a news story to you? Its happening right now in Canada. But you probably havent read it in your local newspaper; you certainly havent seen it covered on the major-network reports.

If the truckers were protesting gender discrimination, or even the rising cost of diesel fuel, this protestwhich produces some very dramatic visual imageswould lead the nightly TV newscasts. But the Freedom Convoy is protesting Covid-lockdown restrictions, and the major media have very obviously resolved to spike stories about any such protests. And so Silence.

Oh, I was able, with a bit of extra digging, to find a reasonably accurate Reuters story about the convoy. And CBC allowed that hundreds of truckers were protesting. But if you want any details at all, you need to look to non-traditional news providers, such as our friends at LifeSite News.

The mainstream media are not providing the news here; quite on the contrary they are deliberately suppressing the spread of public information. This is not a new phenomenon, of course; I have frequently commented on the curious blindness that afflicts reporters in Washington, DC every January, so that they do not notice the March for Life. But that willful blindness is now spreading, so that journalists ignore any developments of which their editors do not approve. Moreover, the self-appointed censors of social-media platforms do their best to shield readers from any facts that leak through the ever-tighter net.

And the major media are not alone in their campaign to restrict the flow of information. The same problem is very much in evidence in the field of educationespecially higher education. (See Jordan Petersons explanation of why he finds it morally untenable to remain on the faculty of a major university.

We can complainwe often have complainedabout liberal bias, in the media and in academe. But those complaints, too, are filtered out of mainstream conversations; they reach only those who are already inclined to agree, those who are open to alternate views. The fundamental problem, as Peterson explains, is that alternate views are actively suppressed, with increasing vigor and without apology.

Critics of the mainstream media outlets sometimes refer to them as the legacy media. The term is apt, I think. Like the fortunate offspring of wealthy families, these outlets have inherited powerful positions, built on the work of prior generations. Those prior generations amassed their influence by providing the public with information. The current leaders of the legacy media have abandoned that effort. Rather than giving people accurate information, and trusting responsible adults to form their own opinions, the mainstream media are now determined to shape opinions directly, telling people what they must think, suppressing contrary evidence and dissenting opinion. Today the most interesting news coverage is provided by upstart services, struggling to find an audience.

Complaints about media bias have very little impact. They, too, are filtered out of mainstream conversations, so that they reach only those people who already agree.

First, refuse to support the institutions that suppress the free flow of information. Insofar as possible, do not give them subscriptions, or tuition, or even attention.

Next, explore the alternatives. Not all of the new online sources of information are reliable; some discernment is necessary. Compare different accounts, and notice which outlets provide coverage that holds up to scrutiny. But do not be frightened away from new outlets simply because they are scorned by the legacy media.

Third and most important, inform your friends. And not only your Facebook friends, who may or may not actually be your real-life acquaintances. Share the news directly. Face-to-face conversations are always best, but email works well, too. Keep in mind that the internet was designed precisely to allow remote communications among people with shared interests. If the social-media giants thwart your efforts to share information, find other routes.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and his heroic allies showed how underground communicationssamizdatcould build a movement powerful enough to topple a political monolith. As the Soviet empire collapsed, the bid to control the spread of information will collapse, too. Facts, as John Adams said, are stubborn things. The truth will out.

Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Continue reading here:

Censorship and samizdat on the internet - Catholic Culture

Internet access brings a lot of advantages such as enabling people to gain access to information with just a few taps of their finger. Many people are starting to call access to the internet a basic human right because of the fact that this is the sort of thing that could potentially end up allowing people to earn money as well as educate themselves in a manner that just hadnt been all that possible previously in human history due to technological barriers and limitations.

With all of that having been said and now out of the way, it is important to note that a lot of world governments dont really seem to care about that and are trying to block social media access. This can be a really big problem for the world, and a really unfortunate trend that has been noticed is that the level of social media censorship that the world is seeing is on the rise and there is a strong likelihood that it would get a lot worse before it gets any better.

This information comes from SurfShark which has been taking note of social media censorship over the last seven years. This research involved an analysis on the state of internet access and social media in all of the 193 countries that are recognized by the UN, and one thing to note is that this often involves preventing certain information from being spread on social media apart from restricting user access to said social media sites in the first place so this is quite a diverse issue.

The worst offenders when it comes to social media censorship are generally countries that are in Asia and Africa. These countries are somewhat more likely to have authoritarian rulers and dictatorial governmental regimes. Such forms of government give the state leeway to do whatever it would like to do in order to provide or take away internet access as they see fit. Hence, since there are no legal blocks that can prevent governments from censoring social media and blocking access to sites, they often move forward with it without any obstacles.

Another really concerning thing that this data reveals is that there is at least some kind of social media blocking that is occurring in around a third of the countries that exist at present. These blockages often center around things like elections and any type of political upheaval, and there are 71 countries that are either currently blocking some form of social media access or alternatively have done so at some point in the past. Most of these countries are in Asia and Africa, with South America also having a large number of them.

If we were to take a closer look at how these things work, it can be discovered that the vast majority of African countries do not allow unrestricted social media access to their citizens. Sometimes this can be relatively innocuous such as in the case such as Algeria blocking social media access during exam season so that students can focus on their studies. In other cases it can be more serious such as Nigeria completing banning Twitter when the new government came into power.

Asia is also a pretty bad offender in this regard. Perhaps the worst country in the world for social media use is actually China due to the reason that this country has blocked access to virtually all foreign social media platforms. Another example of terrible internet rights violations occurred in India, where the government completely blocked all forms of internet access in the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir after passing a controversial new law that suspended this territorys disputed status which caused widespread protests among the residents of that locale.

The fact that so many governments are adamant about banning social media is a strong indication of how powerful a tool it can be. It allows for the rapid dissemination of all kinds of information, and most governments that rely on the iron fist to maintain power would obviously not be all that happy about that and would want to restrict it whenever they can.

Excerpt from:

Social Media Censorship is Getting Worse According to This Study - Digital Information World

In early December 2021, Palestinians and Arabs representing a diversity of creative, activist and academic practice approached the board of Sydney festival after it was revealed the board had accepted $20,000 funding from the Israeli embassy for the presentation of Sydney Dance Companys realisation of Decadance, a work created by Israeli choreographer Ohad Naharin of the Batsheva Dance Company of Tel Aviv. The amount gave the embassy star partnership status with Sydney Festival.

We made three requests: divest from the star partnership, end all relations with the State of Israel, and remove any Israeli government emblem from Sydney festivals promotional material.

In arguing our case for divestment, we said Arab and Palestinian communities would not participate in a festival that does business with a state that stands credibly accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, according to crimes defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In 2021, Human Rights Watch found Israel is committing crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.

We made it clear artists and arts organisations fundamental partners in any arts festival felt betrayed by Sydney festival. Finally, we pointed out this partnership denied artists an environment of cultural safety, leaving artists, creatives and companies with no choice but to withdraw.

Our arguments were rejected by the board on the grounds Sydney festival is a non-political organisation. In response, Palestinians and a cross-section of artists, arts organisations and communities publicly called for a boycott of the Sydney festival, inspired and guided by the global Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, founded and led by Palestinian civil society.

The effusive response to the boycott call has been unprecedented, in fact historic. It is being cited as the most effective, creative and impactful campaign targeting complicit Israeli sponsorship of an international arts event in Australia, and indeed one of the most successful in the world.

The backlash to this artist-led cultural boycott has been predictable, indeed recycling arguments used in the 1980s against the boycott of apartheid South Africa.

One criticism in particular exposes how liberalisms conceits of free speech, marketplace of ideas, open debate and dialogue is weaponised against Palestinians to shut down their right to resist and to deny them permission to narrate as renowned Palestinian-American professor Edward Said famously argued in 1984.

According to New South Wales arts minister Ben Franklin, it is the boycott not the actions of Sydney festival which shut down specific creative voices simply on account of their nationality, acting as a kind of censorship.

In an opinion piece published in the Australian, federal arts minister Paul Fletcher described those involved in the boycott as Stalinist censors and Hamas useful idiots. Such contrived hysteria over the boycott stultif[ying] and suppress[ing] artistic and creative excellence, and laughable comparisons with Stalinist Russia, are amusingly desperate claims and demonstrate just how rattled Israels defenders are in the face of incontrovertible daily evidence of that states brutality.

The arguments are embarrassing and spurious. Organisers have repeatedly stated the cultural boycott aims at institutions not individuals, targeting complicity, not identity. There was never any attempt to shut down the actual production of Decadance. The target of the boycott call was Sydney festival as a cultural institution for its refusal to divest from its sponsorship and therefore its complicity with the State of Israel.

That Palestinians and their supporters are being forced to explain and restate the basis and terms of the boycott call, only to be ignored and misrepresented is a form of censorship itself. Whose voices are privileged: those who defend oppression or those resisting it?

Those arguing against the boycott claim boycotts burn rather than build bridges. At the first meeting with the board, artists made the crucial point bridges must be built on ethical and just foundations. A star partnership with the State of Israeli is one way to destroy these foundations and for this reason artists cannot, in good conscience, cross that bridge.

The boards refusal to listen to artists is a form of silencing.

The weaponising of censorship against the boycott is hollow because the ministers conveniently ignore questions of power and privilege. The power dynamics between artists and the board of Sydney festival, between marginalised communities and the monocultural establishment, between individuals and institutions are key critical points of reflection here.

What makes these censorship allegations even more disingenuous is the fact that in the same breath as Palestinians and their allies are accused of being censorious, opposition arts spokesperson, Labors Walt Secord called for legislation to cut off funding to arts organisations that participate in a boycott of Israel. Freedom of expression it seems is only afforded to those in power and with power.

Those who attack cultural boycotts in the name of free speech are invariably missing in action when Palestinians are routinely censored, bullied and cancelled for daring to speak their truth. Certainly they remain silent and indifferent to the violent suppression of Palestinian arts and culture, on the raids, lawfare and intimidation of Palestinian artists and artistic and cultural institutions.

This is precisely why the boycott of Sydney festival has been called and indeed, why it has been so impactful and effective.

Go here to read the rest:

Calling the Sydney festival boycott censorship is a disingenuous attempt by those in power to silence Palestinians - The Guardian

click to enlarge

Photo via NSF

Senate Education Chairman Joe Gruters is sponsoring a bill that would increase scrutiny of school library books and instructional materials.

The proposal (SB 1300), sponsored by Senate Education Chairman Joe Gruters, R-Sarasota, was approved by the Republican-controlled Education Committee in a 6-3 vote along party lines. The bill would change the review process for books and other learning materials, adding requirements and making it more open to the public.

For instance, school boards would be required to publish on the website of each school the procedures for developing media-center collections.

Elementary schools would be required to publish on their websites in a searchable format all books and materials that are kept in the schools media centers or that are part of class reading lists.

I think thats where most of the complaints were receiving are from, Gruters said of the part of the bill specific to elementary schools.

The legislation aims to give the public increased input on how library and classroom books are chosen by spelling out that all instructional materials, with the exception of teacher editions, are subject to public inspection including the right to copy or photograph materials.

Committees that advise school boards on the ranking, eliminating or selecting of books and other materials would be required to include parents and community members

School boards also would have to adopt procedures that provide for the regular removal or discontinuance of library books based on criteria including alignment to state academic standards and out-of-date content.

The purpose of the bill is to create transparency in the process. Its not to censor anything. Its about giving people the opportunity to understand exactly what is being offered to their students, in terms of instructional materials, Gruters said.

But Sen. Lori Berman, D-Delray Beach, cautioned against opening the door to what she described as censorship.

This is the slippery slope of censorship. We are starting down the path of censorship. Its an authoritarian action, Berman said.

Several people who testified in favor of the bill advocated for the removal of books that they said contained sexually explicit content or material that was not age-appropriate.

But Sen. Tina Polsky, D-Boca Raton, said public schools should be places where children learn about the world around them.

If you want them insulated so much that they shouldnt learn about the outside world, then you should home-school them. Or you can send them to a religious private school with voucher money, Polsky said, directing her comment at people who spoke in favor of the measure.

School boards and parental involvement in education have become hot-button political issues for Republicans in Florida and other states. The issue, for example, played a key role in Republican Glenn Youngkins recent election as governor of Virginia.

The Senate bill resembles a House measure (HB 1467) that needs to clear one more committee before it could be considered by the full House.

The House bill, however, would nix salaries for school board members. The Senate bill would make school board members pay equal to the salaries of state lawmakers.

Lawmakers make $29,697 per year. School board salaries range this year from $26,965 in Liberty County to $47,189 in Broward, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, Orange, and Palm Beach counties, according to a House staff analysis.

Theres 18 counties (that) have salaries below where we are today, Gruters said of lawmakers pay, adding that others pay school board members more than legislators.

The House has zero (pay for school board members) as their starting point. I believe that people should be compensated and that well continue on this discussion. And I think that certainly what we get paid is probably fair enough for what school board members should be paid, Gruters said.

Berman criticized the provision of the bill, saying its politically motivated against school board members. Polsky, who pointed out that board members in her home county of Palm Beach would take a pay cut under the plan, pressed Gruters on why the bill would get in the way of local decisions.

While I appreciate that its better than zero, I dont understand the reasoning for that either, Polsky said. So, again, why are we getting involved in a school districts decision on what to pay their school board?

I will say that the formula is in fact in statute. So we do have the authority to do it, Gruters responded.

Originally posted here:

'Slippery slope of censorship': Despite critics, Florida GOP moves forward with school books proposal - Creative Loafing Tampa

Florida GOP lawmakers are working to expand provisions in the states Civil Rights Act to protect individuals from being subjected to certain instructional materials regarding race or sex in Floridas classrooms and workplaces, potentially leading to civil actions or administrative proceedings.

At issue is an ongoing effort from the DeSantis administration to dictate how race and other topics are discussed in schools, as well as an increasing effort to limit the freedom of private businesses to make decisions for their companies.

Rep. Bryan Avila, a Republican who represents part of Miami-Dade County and the sponsor of HB 7, says that the legislation is an affirmation that people will not be judged by characteristics such as race or sex.

This bill makes it clear, that in Florida, people will be judged as individuals by their words, their characters, and their actions, Avila said at a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee meeting. The bill passed 14 to 7 (with one vote missing), and with Democrats in opposition.

This bill cripples the ability for teachers to teach effectively, said Rep. Dianne Hart, who represents part of Hillsborough County, said at the Wednesday meeting.

Every teacher Ive ever encountered, does their job from not only an academic standpoint, but from a personal one, Hart said. It is their personal experiences that they use to make the curriculum come alive for their students. Even more so for the Black and Brown students on the topic of race and discrimination.

HB 7 expands the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, according to the bill analysis, which secures for all individuals within the state freedom from discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

The bill affects areas of education and employment, saying that individuals should not be subjected to training or materials that espouse principles such as:

/Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.

/A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

/A persons moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.

/A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.

/A person should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.

These principles would also apply to students and school employees under the Florida Educational Equity Act, should the bill become law. There is aSenate version of the billalso moving through the 2022 legislative session.

Those are principles that I think each and everyone of us whether youre a Democrat, whether youre a Republican, whether youre an Independent I think everyone would agree that when you look at those principles, no one would disagree with any one of those principles, Avila said at the Wednesday committee meeting.

Ben Diamond, a Democrat who represents part of Pinellas County, is opposed to the bill.

What were prepared to do is to say that if a business is engaged in the perfectly lawful exercise of diversity training, and someone in the business feels a sense of guilt or sense of anguish or has some emotional reaction to that, they can sue. How is this helping our businesses in our state? Diamond said.

Much of the debate and public testimony centered around the bills effect on schools and whether it would curtail frank discussions about United States history and race.

Aliva said that the bill does not ban the teaching of historical facts about slavery, about sexism, about racial oppression, racial segregation, or racial discrimination.

But many of the Democratic lawmakers disagreed.

At issue is an ongoing effort to dictate how race and other topics are discussed in classrooms.

In June, the Florida State Board of Education approved anew rule that prohibits critical race theoryin classrooms, claiming that the theory distorts historical events and is inconsistent with the state boards approved standards. The new rule also banned materials from The New York Times 1619 project, which focuses the establishment of the United States from perspective of Black people.

Rep. Hart brought up this attack on Critical Race Theory in debate on HB 7 Wednesday.

Critical Race Theory is not even taught in K-12 schools. Its, of course, used in law schools to increase understanding of the implication of laws. So the question becomes: What is this really about?

Ida Eskamani, representing the group Florida Rising and Florida Immigrant Coalition, said during public testimony:

This legislation is a part of a dangerous and shameful nationwide agenda to censor discussions of race and gender equality in the classrooms and the workplace.

These bills dont just set back progress this nation has made in addressing racism and sexism, they also rob young people of a fact-based education and blatantly suppresses speech about race, gender, and our collective history, she continued.

She is the sister of Democrat Rep. Anna Eskamani of Orlando. She noted that a school district in Central Florida recently canceled a professors lecture on civil rights because these policies are creating a climate of fear among historians.

According to the Orlando Sentinel from earlier this week: A Flagler College history professor planned to spend an hour Saturday teaching Osceola County teachers about the civil rights movement, his area of expertise.

But days before the workshop, the school district canceled the event because administrators wanted to vet the materials to make sure they did not run afoul ofFloridas new rule banning critical race theory, or CRT, in schools.

But supporters of these initiatives to limit how race is discussed in classrooms and in the workplace claim that certain teaching and materials espouse that a persons race or sex determine a persons character.

House Speaker Chris Sprowls, a Republican who represents part of Pinellas County, said in a written statement Wednesday:

These movements have tried to hijack the important conversation about race and use it as a pretext to attack institutions ranging from capitalism to the very idea of objective truth in the hard sciences.

Sprowls continued: They want to use the sins of the past to shut down dissent in the present. HB 7 ensures Floridas workplaces and schools are places where we can have healthy dialogues about race or diversity without losing sight that we are all, first and foremost, unique individuals.

Danielle J. Brown, Florida Phoenix

Go here to read the rest:

Are Lawmakers Seeking to Censor Discussions of Race and Gender in Classrooms and the Workplace? - FlaglerLive.com

At the weekend, a court ordered the imprisonment of reporter Sedef Kabas, guilty of using a proverb "offensive" towards the president. In one year 79 journalists lost their jobs for their critical opinions. Another 56 were victims of violence and targeted attacks, dozens of programmes were suspended.

Istanbul (AsiaNews) - A Turkish court thisweekend ordered the remand in custody pending trial of the journalist Sedef Kabas, accused of insulting President Recep Tayyip Erdogan using a famous proverb.

On 22 January, at two o'clock in the morning, officers detained the famous reporter, locking her up in a cell at police headquarters in Istanbul. The next day she appeared before the judges, who ordered her arrest using an article of law that has put tens of thousands of people in prison before her in recent years.

During a TV broadcast on a station close to the oppositions (and in a subsequent tweet), the journalist used a Circassian proverb that reads: "The ox does not become a king because it enters the palace, ratherthe palace becomes a stable", making a comparison with President Erdogan's years in power. According to the court, Sedef Kabas expressed a 'vulgar insult' against the president and the institutional office he holds.

The case is just the latest in a long line of arrests, repressions, prison sentences and fines against critical voices in Turkey, further confirming Turkey's 153rd place out of a total of 180 countries in the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index. In addition, the Independent Communication Network (Bia) released its 2021 annual report yesterday, according to which 35 journalists were sentenced by judges last year to a total of 92 years, six months and 24 days in jail.

In the last 12 months, at least 41 Turkish journalists have been imprisoned, bringing the total figure for the last five years to 270. Not only jail, but there is also the threat of dismissal for those who do not align themselves with official propaganda: in 2021 79 journalists lost their jobs, for a total of 807 in the period 2017-2021. There is also the axe of censorship, with at least 975 articles blocked in the last year and 5,975 in the last five years.

In addition to imprisonment, there are personal attacks and targeted violence against the press: in 2021, 56 journalists were victims of violence (141 in five years). One example is the death of Hazm zsu, who worked in a radio station in Bursa, who was killed in front of his home by a person who "did not appreciate" his judgments and comments.

Finally, there are the fines imposed on broadcasters and press organisations "not aligned" with government policy and official proclamations. The Supreme Council for Radio and TV (Rtuk) imposed 158 administrative fines and suspended 48 programmes, with total fines of 31,630,000 Turkish liras (more than two million euro).

The Turkish judiciary, at the instigation of the government, represses with particular force any voice critical or "defamatory" of Erdogan. Since 2014, the year of his ascension to the presidency, at least 70 journalists have been tried and sentenced to prison and fines for "insulting the president" under Article 299 of the Penal Code. The European Council has repeatedly asked - in vain - Ankara to cancel or at least amend the rule, which continues to be applied with extreme rigour and continuity.

Go here to see the original:

TURKEY Arrests, fines, censorship: freedom of the press in Erdogan's Turkey - AsiaNews

It is worth looking beyond a headline event from last week: Christian websites reported the US Baptist pastor John MacArthur had a sermon thrown off YouTube.

There is no such thing as transgender, Macarthur said in his Sunday sermon. You are either XX or XY, thats it. God made man male and female. That is determined genetically, that is physiology, that is science, that is reality, he said.

On the one hand, the reality of that lie and deception is so damaging, so destructive, so isolating, so corrupting that it needs to be confronted, but on the other hand, that confrontation cant exaggerate what already exists, which is a sense of feeling isolated in relationships.

The US-based conservative journalist Todd Starnes reported YouTubes response after he had uploaded a clip of the MacArthur sermon.Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our hate speech policy, YouTube wrote to me. Weve removed the following content from YouTube: There is no such thing as transgender. You are either XX or XY. Thats it. Pastor John MacArthur.

But a check of YouTube reveals that last Sundays sermon Such Were Some of You is on YouTube and linked to MacArthurs churchs Grace To You (GTY) site.

It is possible some words have been removed, the transcript is not yet available, but there is no hint it was censored on the GTY site.

It may be that only the Starnes clip has been removed. But the sermon itself is a very strong affirmation of a conservative Bible exegesis on homosexuality.

The concern is that Canadas Bill C-4 is broadly worded and could, in effect, ban biblical teachings on sexual ethics. Christian Broadcasting Network

But outside of the YouTube controversy, MacArthur was making news. Some 5,000 pastors preached alongside him on human sexuality on January 16.Their motivation? Protesting against the passing of C-4 Canadas new law banning sexual orientation gender conversion efforts. The concern is that Canadas Bill C-4 is broadly worded and could, in effect, ban biblical teachings on sexual ethics, and might even limit personal communications on the subject, the Christian broadcasting network reported.

Australian readers will see strong parallels with Victorias Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 that is due to come into effect next month.

The Canadian Bill passed after two failed attempts with the unanimous consent of the Canadian House of Commons. Bill C-4 defines conversion therapy as a practice, treatment or service designed to change a persons sexual orientation or gender identity for example, repressing or reducing non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or repressing a persons non-cisgender gender identity.

But the Gospel Coalition Canada did not go along with MacArthurs approach. Gospel Coalition Canadas Paul Carter responded to the MacArthur mass preaching initiative: I have tremendous respect for Pastor John and rejoice in the fact that there are a number of initiatives intending to peacefully protest the potential abuse and misapplication of Bill C-4. However, while many pastors will no doubt participate in this particular initiative, others will have concerns due to the fact that the statement associated with this initiative concedes illegality.

Instead, Carter took part in reading a statement in church written for the Canadian Religious freedom summit, which included this key passage. The laws stated purpose is to outlaw conversion therapy. We strongly oppose the coercive and unscientific therapeutic practices the Bill was introduced to address. We appreciate and affirm the desire of parliamentarians to protect the vulnerable.

However, we are deeply concerned that the effective reach of the legislation could be extended far beyond its stated purpose. Because its definition of conversion therapy is vague, many are concerned that it could capture parents, pastors and counsellors who teach a biblical understanding of sexuality in a variety of situations. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees our freedoms of religion, conscience, thought, belief, expression and association. It is our prayer that the law will be applied and clarified as needed in such a way as to honour these Charter protections.

C-4 will be tested against Canadas Charter of Rights and Freedoms Charter, which declares freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression and freedom of media communication as fundamental freedoms.

All initial assurances are that it does not intend to criminalize religious expression. Paul Carter

Carters prediction is that it will be difficult to see how a charge against a pastor for preaching on Genesis 1:27 or Galatians 5:22-23 could withstand a Charter challenge.

He adds: It is not clear that preaching on biblical passages espousing a biblical ethic of sexuality is now illegal. That matter has yet to be adjudicated in the courts. Bill C-4 nowhere uses that language and all initial assurances are that it does not intend to criminalize religious expression in any of the contexts suggested in the letter [from MacArthur and his allies].

The statement suggested by the Canadian Religious Freedom Summit specifically makes use of language drawn from the Charter and also makes it clear that there is no desire whatsoever, on behalf of the participants and signatories, to endorse or engage in coercive or abusive practices. The MacArthur statement expresses no such sentiment.

Carter declares that he and other pastors are hopeful that the church will not be drawn into an adversarial posture toward the LGBTIQA community while I am praying for the wise application or emendation of Bill C-4 such that abusive or coercive practices are forbidden while speaking the truth in love continues to be permitted.

He recognises it is possible that the day will come when preaching what the Bible says about human sexuality is banned and adds: If it comes when it comes I will count it an honour to suffer on behalf of Christ.

The militancy of the mass preachers protest was noted by Good Book Company author and Baptist pastor Andrew Roycroft:

The Canadian bill came into effect in early January. Its final effect may be decided by the courts, which will have the task of balancing religious expression versus the LGBTIQ2S (the Canadian initials which include the Two Spirit group) communitys desire to avoid efforts to change them.

Why not send this to a friend?

Share

See more here:

John MacArthur, YouTube censorship and 'conversion therapy' ban - Eternity News

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming our world. Remarkable surges in AI capabilities have led to a wide range of innovations including autonomous vehicles and connected Internet of Things devices in our homes. AI is even contributing to the development of a brain-controlled robotic arm that can help a paralyzed person feel again through complex direct human-brain interfaces. These new AI-enabled systems are revolutionizing and benefitting nearly all aspects of our society and economy everything from commerce and healthcare to transportation and cybersecurity. But the development and use of the new technologies it brings are not without technical challenges and risks.

NIST contributes to the research, standards and data required to realize the full promise of artificial intelligence (AI) as a tool that will enable American innovation, enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. Much of our work focuses on cultivating trust in the design, development, use and governance of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and systems. We are doing this by:

NISTs AI efforts fall in several categories:

NISTs AI portfolio includes fundamental research into and development of AI technologies including software, hardware, architectures and human interaction and teaming vital for AI computational trust.

AI approaches are increasingly an essential component in new research. NIST scientists and engineers use various machine learning and AI tools to gain a deeper understanding of and insight into their research. At the same time, NIST laboratory experiences with AI are leading to a better understanding of AIs capabilities and limitations.

With a long history of devising and revising metrics, measurement tools, standards and test beds, NIST increasingly is focusing on the evaluation of technical characteristics of trustworthy AI.

NIST leads and participates in the development of technical standards, including international standards, that promote innovation and public trust in systems that use AI. A broad spectrum of standards for AI data, performance and governance are and increasingly will be a priority for the use and creation of trustworthy and responsible AI.

AI and Machine Learning (ML) is changing the way in which society addresses economic and national security challenges and opportunities. It is being used in genomics, image and video processing, materials, natural language processing, robotics, wireless spectrum monitoring and more. These technologies must be developed and used in a trustworthy and responsible manner.

While answers to the question of what makes an AI technology trustworthy may differ depending on whom you ask, there are certain key characteristics which support trustworthiness, including accuracy, explainability and interpretability, privacy, reliability, robustness, safety, and security (resilience) and mitigation of harmful bias. Principles such as transparency, fairness and accountability should be considered, especially during deployment and use. Trustworthy data, standards and evaluation, validation, and verification are critical for the successful deployment of AI technologies.

Delivering the needed measurements, standards and other tools is a primary focus for NISTs portfolio of AI efforts. It is an area in which NIST has special responsibilities and expertise. NIST relies heavily on stakeholder input, including via workshops, and issues most publications in draft for comment.

Go here to see the original:
Artificial intelligence | NIST

A global technology revolution is now underway. The worlds leading powers are racing to develop and deploy new technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing that could shape everything about our lives from whereweget energy, to how we do our jobs, to how wars are fought. We want America to maintain our scientific and technological edge, because its critical to us thriving in the 21st century economy.

Investments in AI have led to transformative advances now impacting our everyday lives, including mapping technologies, voice-assisted smart phones, handwriting recognition for mail delivery, financial trading, smart logistics, spam filtering, language translation, and more. AI advances are also providing great benefits to our social wellbeing in areas such as precision medicine, environmental sustainability, education, and public welfare.

The term artificial intelligence means a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments.

The Department of State focuses on AI because it is at the center of the global technological revolution; advances in AI technology present both great opportunities and challenges. The United States, along with our partners and allies, can both further our scientific and technological capabilities and promote democracy and human rights by working together to identify and seize the opportunities while meeting the challenges by promoting shared norms and agreements on the responsible use of AI.

Together with our allies and partners, the Department of State promotes an international policy environment and works to build partnerships that further our capabilities in AI technologies, protect our national and economic security, and promote our values. Accordingly, the Department engages in various bilateral and multilateral discussions to support responsible development, deployment, use, and governance of trustworthy AI technologies.

The Department provides policy guidance to implement trustworthy AI through theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)AI Policy Observatory, a platform established in February 2020 to facilitate dialogue between stakeholders and provide evidence-based policy analysis in the areas where AI has the most impact.The State Department provides leadership and support to the OECD Network of Experts on AI (ONE AI), which informs this analysis.The United States has 47 AI initiatives associated with the Observatory that help contribute to COVID-19 response, invest in workforce training, promote safety guidance for automated transportation technologies, andmore.

The OECDs Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence is the backbone of the activities at the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) and the OECD AI Policy Observatory. In May 2019, the United States joined together with likeminded democracies of the world in adopting the OECD Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence, the first set of intergovernmental principles for trustworthy AI. The principles promote inclusive growth, human-centered values, transparency, safety and security, and accountability. The Recommendation also encourages national policies and international cooperation to invest in research and development and support the broader digital ecosystem for AI. The Department of State champions the principles as the benchmark for trustworthy AI, which helps governments design national legislation.

GPAI is a voluntary, multi-stakeholder initiative launched in June 2020 for the advancement of AI in a manner consistent with democratic values and human rights. GPAIs mandate is focused on project-oriented collaboration, which it supports through working groups looking at responsible AI, data governance, the future of work, and commercialization and innovation. As a founding member, the United States has played a critical role in guiding GPAI and ensuring it complements the work of the OECD.

In the context of military operations in armed conflict, the United States believes that international humanitarian law (IHL) provides a robust and appropriate framework for the regulation of all weapons, including those using autonomous functions provided by technologies such as AI. Building a better common understanding of the potential risks and benefits that are presented by weapons with autonomous functions, in particular their potential to strengthen compliance with IHL and mitigate risk of harm to civilians, should be the focus of international discussion. The United States supports the progress in this area made by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (GGE on LAWS), which adopted by consensus 11 Guiding Principles on responsible development and use of LAWS in 2019. The State Department will continue to work with our colleagues at the Department of Defense to engage the international community within the LAWS GGE.

Learnmore about what specific bureaus and offices are doing to support this policy issue:

TheGlobal Engagement Centerhas developed a dedicated effort for the U.S. Government to identify, assess, test and implement technologies against the problems of foreign propaganda and disinformation, in cooperation with foreign partners, private industry and academia.

The Office of the Under Secretary for Managementuses AI technologies within the Department of State to advance traditional diplomatic activities,applying machine learning to internal information technology and management consultant functions.

TheOffice of the Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environmentengages internationally to support the U.S. science and technology (S&T) enterprise through global AI research and development (R&D) partnerships, setting fair rules of the road for economic competition, advocating for U.S. companies, and enabling foreign policy and regulatory environments that benefit U.S. capabilities in AI.

TheOffice of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Securityfocuses on the security implications of AI, including potential applications in weapon systems, its impact on U.S. military interoperability with its allies and partners,its impact on stability,and export controls related to AI.

TheOffice of the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rightsand its component bureaus and offices focus on issues related to AI and governance, human rights, including religious freedom, and law enforcement and crime, among others.

TheOffice of the Legal Adviserleads on issues relating to AI in weapon systems (LAWS), in particular at the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems convened under the auspices of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

For more information on federalprograms and policyon artificial intelligence, visitai.gov.

Read more:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) - United States Department of State

Artificial intelligence leverages computers and machines to mimic the problem-solving and decision-making capabilities of the human mind.

While a number of definitions of artificial intelligence (AI) have surfaced over the last few decades, John McCarthy offers the following definition in this 2004 paper(PDF, 106 KB) (link resides outside IBM), " It is the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs. It is related to the similar task of using computers to understand human intelligence, but AI does not have to confine itself to methods that are biologically observable."

However, decades before this definition, the birth of the artificial intelligence conversation was denoted by Alan Turing's seminal work, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" (PDF, 89.8 KB)(link resides outside of IBM), which was published in 1950. In this paper, Turing, often referred to as the "father of computer science", asks the following question, "Can machines think?" From there, he offers a test, now famously known as the "Turing Test", where a human interrogator would try to distinguish between a computer and human text response. While this test has undergone much scrutiny since its publish, it remains an important part of the history of AI as well as an ongoing concept within philosophy as it utilizes ideas around linguistics.

Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig then proceeded to publish, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach(link resides outside IBM), becoming one of the leading textbooks in the study of AI. In it, they delve into four potential goals or definitions of AI, which differentiates computer systems on the basis of rationality and thinking vs. acting:

Human approach:

Ideal approach:

Alan Turings definition would have fallen under the category of systems that act like humans.

At its simplest form, artificial intelligence is a field, which combines computer science and robust datasets, to enable problem-solving. It also encompasses sub-fields of machine learning and deep learning, which are frequently mentioned in conjunction with artificial intelligence. These disciplines are comprised of AI algorithms which seek to create expert systems which make predictions or classifications based on input data.

Today, a lot of hype still surrounds AI development, which is expected of any new emerging technology in the market. As noted in Gartners hype cycle (link resides outside IBM), product innovations like, self-driving cars and personal assistants, follow a typical progression of innovation, from overenthusiasm through a period of disillusionment to an eventual understanding of the innovations relevance and role in a market or domain. As Lex Fridman notes here (link resides outside IBM) in his MIT lecture in 2019, we are at the peak of inflated expectations, approaching the trough of disillusionment.

As conversations emerge around the ethics of AI, we can begin to see the initial glimpses of the trough of disillusionment. To read more on where IBM stands within the conversation around AI ethics, read more here.

Weak AIalso called Narrow AI or Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI)is AI trained and focused to perform specific tasks. Weak AI drives most of the AI that surrounds us today. Narrow might be a more accurate descriptor for this type of AI as it is anything but weak; it enables some very robust applications, such as Apple's Siri, Amazon's Alexa, IBM Watson, and autonomous vehicles.

Strong AI is made up of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI). Artificial general intelligence (AGI), or general AI, is a theoretical form of AI where a machine would have an intelligence equaled to humans; it would have a self-aware consciousness that has the ability to solve problems, learn, and plan for the future. Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI)also known as superintelligencewould surpass the intelligence and ability of the human brain. While strong AI is still entirely theoretical with no practical examples in use today, that doesn't mean AI researchers aren't also exploring its development. In the meantime, the best examples of ASI might be from science fiction, such as HAL, the superhuman, rogue computer assistant in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Since deep learning and machine learning tend to be used interchangeably, its worth noting the nuances between the two. As mentioned above, both deep learning and machine learning are sub-fields of artificial intelligence, and deep learning is actually a sub-field of machine learning.

Deep learning is actually comprised of neural networks. Deep in deep learning refers to a neural network comprised of more than three layerswhich would be inclusive of the inputs and the outputcan be considered a deep learning algorithm. This is generally represented using the following diagram:

The way in which deep learning and machine learning differ is in how each algorithm learns. Deep learning automates much of the feature extraction piece of the process, eliminating some of the manual human intervention required and enabling the use of larger data sets. You can think of deep learning as "scalable machine learning" as Lex Fridman noted in same MIT lecture from above. Classical, or "non-deep", machine learning is more dependent on human intervention to learn. Human experts determine the hierarchy of features to understand the differences between data inputs, usually requiring more structured data to learn.

"Deep" machine learning can leverage labeled datasets, also known as supervised learning, to inform its algorithm, but it doesnt necessarily require a labeled dataset. It can ingest unstructured data in its raw form (e.g. text, images), and it can automatically determine the hierarchy of features which distinguish different categories of data from one another. Unlike machine learning, it doesn't require human intervention to process data, allowing us to scale machine learning in more interesting ways.

There are numerous, real-world applications of AI systems today. Below are some of the most common examples:

The idea of 'a machine that thinks' dates back to ancient Greece. But since the advent of electronic computing (and relative to some of the topics discussed in this article) important events and milestones in the evolution of artificial intelligence include the following:

IBM has been a leader in advancing AI-driven technologies for enterprises and has pioneered the future of machine learning systems for multiple industries. Based on decades of AI research, years of experience working with organizations of all sizes, and on learnings from over 30,000 IBM Watson engagements, IBM has developed the AI Ladder for successful artificial intelligence deployments:

IBM Watson gives enterprises the AI tools they need to transform their business systems and workflows, while significantly improving automation and efficiency. For more information on how IBM can help you complete your AI journey, explore the IBM portfolio of managed services and solutions

Sign up for an IBMid and create your IBM Cloud account.

Go here to read the rest:
What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)? - India | IBM