On Thursday, the Technology and Press Freedom Projects Linda Moon will join Digital Strategist Tim Schwartz, author of A Public Service: Whistleblowing, Disclosure, and Anonymity, for a webinar dedicated to unpacking the rights of journalists and content producers during times of pandemic and protest. The webinar, hosted by Alley, a digital consulting firm, will explore strategies to help journalists safely document protests and police brutality and work with sources securely and remotely. Register for the webinarhere.

Also, the First Amendment Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law is hiring alegal fellowfor the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 academic years. The fellow will work with Reporters Committee attorneys Gabe Rottman and Jennifer Nelson, who administer the Clinic.

Heres what the staff of the Technology and Press Freedom Project at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is tracking this week.

A journalist has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming police violated his federal and state constitutional rights, including the right to record police activity in public, after he was tackled and arrested while covering aJune 1 Black Lives Matter protestin Asbury Park, New Jersey.

According to a filingin the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Gustavo Martnez Contreras, a reporter for the Asbury Park Press, waslive-streaming the protestwhen he noticed police officers violently arrest two teenagers. The reporter was backing away from the scene, per instructions by the officers, but continued to record.

As documented in footage from the reporter and police body-worn cameras, officers then swore at Martnez Contreras, slapped his phone out of his hand, tackled him, and arrested him. The filing alleges that an officer later asked about the badge the journalist was wearing around his neck, which showed his press credentials, and that Martnez Contreras identified himself as a reporter on four other occasions.

The complaint, filed on July 13, notes that reporters rights must be as ingrained in policing as Miranda rights, and asks the court to order police not to interfere with First Amendment activities in the future. It also asks that the court require law enforcement to change their policies to prevent such interference, and for unspecified damages.

A press badge should not be a bullseye, the filing reads. Reporters should not be in danger of violence or arrest at the hands of the police seeking to silence their reports on public protests especially where those reports cover police violence against civilians protesting peacefully against police misconduct.

The same day the suit was filed, the Reporters Committeesent a letterto New Jersey officials protesting a local prosecutors reliance on Reporters Committee resources to clear the officers who arrested Martnez Contreras of wrongdoing.

Ininvestigative findingsreleased on June 8, the Monmouth County prosecutors office, which covers Asbury Park, claimed that the officers reasonably believed Martnez Contreras was a protester disobeying a lawful order. The report further claimed that the officers did not know Martnez Contreras was a reporter because he was allegedly not wearing bright clothing. The prosecutors office cited the Reporters Committeesguideandtip sheetfor journalists covering protests, which only provide practical safety advice, including that journalists should try not to wear clothing that matches what protesters are wearing.

The relevant legal standard, however, is whether officers reasonably should have known that Martnez Contreras was a reporter. The letter thus argues that the Reporters Committees resources do not support the prosecutors arguments, and asks that the findings be updated accordingly.

Abe Kenmore

NPR recentlyreportedthat foreign nationals working for Voice of America and other U.S. international broadcasters may not have their visas extended upon expiration, raisingfurther concernsover theeditorial independenceof VOA and its sister services. A decision not to renew these visas could impact dozens of employees, some of whom could face retaliation for their reporting if forced to return to their home countries.

The video app TikTok said it received500 demands for user datafrom governments in the first half of the year, up 67 percent from the second half of 2019. Most demands came from India which has since banned the app. The company reported that none of the demands were from China, the home of TikToks parent company. Reporters at theWashington Postrecently analyzed the data TikTok collects from users.

Verizon recentlylauncheda feature called Number Lock to provide added security to its customers. Number Lock allows users to prevent scammers from SIM swapping, or transferring a users number to another carrier in order to take control of bank, email, and social media accounts.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper has announcedan investigationwithin the Pentagon to weed out leakers, while White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadowsreportedly told some staffersthat he has fed information to suspected leakers to determine whether they then pass the information to the media. The inquiry comes in the wake of disclosures that led to reports of Russia offering bounties to Afghan militants for killing American troops.

On Thursday, Twitterreportedthat it was the target of a coordinated social engineering attack, which resulted in the accounts of hundreds of popular users posting spam-like messages about crypto currency. The company said the breach was conducted by unspecified individuals who targeted company employees with access to sensitive internal administrative systems.

Smart reads

Adeep diveby Voxs Recode explores the development and future of smartphone trackers, which can extract and aggregate data from a wide variety of apps.

Thisanalysisfrom the Columbia Journalism Review details the lengths media organizations have gone to in order to obtain and disseminate accurate data about COVID-19. Many news outlets have sued local officials for access to data, while others have created their own statistical tools to provide a complete picture of the pandemic in the absence of similar government resources.

Gif of the Week:Many quick hits this week remind us that cell phones can raise paw-sonal privacy issues.

Like what youve read?Sign up to get This Week in Technology + Press Freedom delivered straight to your inbox!

The Technology and Press Freedom Project at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press uses integrated advocacy combining the law, policy analysis, and public education to defend and promote press rights on issues at the intersection of technology and press freedom, such as reporter-source confidentiality protections, electronic surveillance law and policy, and content regulation online and in other media. TPFP is directed by Reporters Committee Attorney Gabe Rottman. He works with Stanton Foundation National Security/Free Press Fellow Linda Moon, Legal Fellows Jordan Murov-Goodman and Lyndsey Wajert, Policy Interns Abe Kenmore and Joey Oteng, and Legal Intern Sasha Peters.

Originally posted here:

This Week in Technology + Press Freedom: July 19, 2020 - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute.

Theres a bit of an intellectual fistfight going on these days about free expression and we all have a stake in the outcome.

The early rounds have been going on for years: in essence, a theory that pops up periodically in history that some ideas simply are too dangerous to allow them to be voiced in public. The opponent to that theory: The longtime belief in the marketplace of ideas, where any person may advance any idea however repugnant, vile or even evil and be subject to the review, and perhaps revile, of all others.

Critics of the marketplace approach have several arguments. American critics note the amendment was adopted in 1791, carrying forward ideas about free expression that even then were centuries old, and thus see it as out of place in a modern world.

Another objection is that the internet, with its instant and global reach, makes ineffective the expected marketplace interplay of speaker and responder, through which the hope is bad ideas fail, good ideas improve and best ideas thrive.

Yet another criticism of the marketplace concept is that money, technology and power have created an elite group (or groups) in control of most meaningful communication (and perhaps content) across the web, rendering criticism, counterviews, unpopular or unconventional ideas and certainly revolutionary ones unable to reach a mass audience.

Critical race theorists believe that American jurisprudence essentially has elevated the liberty interests of the First Amendment over the equality interests of the 14th Amendment.

And finally, there is the claim that some ideas simply are too dangerous or misleading or manipulative to be allowed into the marketplace at all from race, ethnic and religious hatred to sexual exploitation and abuse to commercial messaging and political misinformation now aided and abetted by hidden algorithms and those in charge of a handful of private tech companies more intent on profits than seeking truth.

Whew. Thats a pretty strong set of arguments that some things need fixing when it comes to free expression in the early years of the 21st century. Most of us likely would agree with many, if not all of them on first glance.

Interestingly, the sides in this dispute dont automatically align along our current political fractures. Some liberals and conservatives see the web as too wide open, allowing dangerous ideas and speakers access to audiences that can be influenced; while others view the web as a tightly controlled funnel of filtered information combined with manipulation that blocks voices (either too conservative or too liberal take your pick) with a goal of shaping public opinion.

The current battle is not just over the criticisms, but over the solutions as well. Twitter and other sites gain praise and scorn for blocking some users for alleged violations of those sites terms of service, ranging from foul language to misleading health claims to personal attacks and what the sites deem deliberate misinformation. Tech firms can block, tag and take down posted content, in a bit of irony to some, because they have their own First Amendment rights as private companies.

So, some on either side of this dispute would bring government into the ring, where First Amendment freedoms would apply one side seeking exceptions to free speech protections for things such as violent content, or racist views, or demeaning portrayals of women, or LGBTQ persons; and the other combatants asking government to oversee and override those private companies decisions, in the name of protecting conservative voices they see as all-too-often excluded from public discourse.

Who are the combatants of late? In one corner, signatories to an open letter titled, A Letter on Justice and Open Debate, published July 7 in Harpers Magazine, include a number of the worlds best-known creative minds, such as J.K. Rowling, Wynton Marsalis, Gloria Steinem, Salman Rushdie and about 150 other authors, journalists, publishers and artists.

In the other corner of this particular bout are those who signed this week onto another letter published on the online commentary site The Objective which self-identifies as a place with information and views by and for historically ignored communities another group of literary, media and artists. This missive entered the fray acknowledging the fight even reaches into its signatures area, noting some could be identified only generally, usually by professional occupation and place of work, because of fears of workplace retaliation by the established communication masters for whom some work.

Their view of the Harpers letter, in a piece titled, A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate explains, Nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia and publishing and the letter does not deal with the problem of power: Who has it and who does not.

To be sure, many of latest blows in this intellectual boxing match have been struck via high-concept review of the theories of human communication and in well-founded critiques of who had and has access to tools of speaking out in public news media, book publishers, broadcasters and now social media companies.

But in the early rounds, the heavyweights punched the outmoded model of the marketplace of ideas for two reasons: One, that it never worked as intended because many minority groups, however defined, were denied access to speak and be heard a stark truth that cannot be denied; and two, there is such a thing as truth, and to knowingly permit non-truth is counter-productive to society and should not be permitted.

Boil it all down and it comes to a very simple First Amendment question: Is the response to speech you consider untruthful, disgusting or misleading more speech or less speech? If the former, what do you do as, with lightning speed and wide public acceptance by the unknowing, the web is flooded with true threats to public health, hate speech from white supremacists or deliberately misleading political ads and fraudulent electioneering from world adversaries?

If the latter, who gets to be the national nanny, defining truth, excluding some voices while inviting in others and monitoring the billions of social media posts each day all while remaining nonpartisan and apolitical in todays hyper-divided nation?

Wiser minds including, with hope, most of us will need to parse those questions and more as the First Amendments five freedoms (religion, speech, press, assembly and petition) are tested in court, on the street and occasionally on the pages of online magazines.

As for me, I theorize the nations founders would chuckle at the idea that all of this is new. The mechanisms of communications were different, but the goals in 1791 were the same: The exchange of ideas for a better life for us all, many at the time deemed too dangerous for society to hear ideas like all men are created equal and that democracy was favorable over monarchy.

While this fistfight is mainly staged in the mind, there are real-world examples of the cost of the fight. New York Times op-ed editor Bari Weiss resigned the other day, saying in a letter she self-published that she was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of the Times as their home.

In leaving the paper after about three years, she said, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isnt a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Weiss concludes her resignation by noting founder Adolph Ochs 1896 statement to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.

Ochss idea is one of the best Ive encountered, Weiss continues. And Ive always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.

More of us need to make our voices heard in this latest fight over the meaning of the First Amendments 45 words, lest we see them reshaped or lost without having ever set foot in the ring.

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at [emailprotected], or follow him on Twitter at@genefac.

Go here to see the original:

FIRST FIVE: Fighting over the meaning of First Amendment freedoms - hays Post

BTNBy The Numbers, a look at whats in the news . . . by the numbers. These are just numbers, not suggestions that they mean more or less than what they are. We do not suggest that one number is connected to another. These are simply facts with no extraneous details, bias or slanted reporting. To borrow (and perhaps mangle a bit) a quote from legendary fictional detective Joe Friday, its just the numbers, maam!

25The amount of calories generally speaking in a cup of raw vegetables. Thats what Monica Nagele, County Extension Director and educator of health and human science for the Montgomery County Purdue Extension, told us in the Extension offices weekly article last week.

3 millionThe World Health Organization estimates that more than 3 million lives are saved each year, thanks to vaccinations. The Montgomery County Health Department reminds us that COVID-19 might not be the only thing children will have to worry about this fall. Make sure your child is up to date on their vaccines to increase their chances of staying healthy this year.

4.5The stage the state is in right now for reopening. And well stay there at least through the end of July. The Back on Track plan being upgraded will depend on several things, including whether reported cases have decreased for 14 days or not.

5The number of home games Purdue football will have this fall assuming theres football. That change came about after the Big Ten announced it was playing in-conference completely a move that columnist Ken Thompson tells us could benefit the Boilers.

12%The average increase in the price of a home in Montgomery County compared to a year ago. Last year through June, a home selling here went for about $125,000. This year, its up to about $140,000 great news for sellers . . . not so much for buyers.

139thPlans are complete for the annual 3/139FA Gunners Reunion for former members and friends of the 3d Battalion, 139th Field Artillery, Indiana Army National Guard, that was headquartered in the Crawfordsville armory prior to being phased out. This years reunion will be held on Aug. 29 at the Darlington (Armory) Community Center at 11 a.m. For more info or to register contact S David Long at (765) 362-4395 or dlong1172@gmail.com. Reservation deadline is Aug. 24.

1stThe First Amendment 45 words, five freedoms. And country and western superstar Brad Paisley and others are sharing their thoughts through ads you can see right here in The Paper why a free press is important to them.

306Number of COVID-19 cases found so far in Montgomery County, according to the Health Department.

20How many people in Montgomery County who have lost their lives to the pandemic.

56,571According to the Indiana State Department of Health on Friday, thats how many Hoosiers have been diagnosed with the virus.

2,629How many Hoosiers have died because of this pandemic.

3,698,161According to the CDC, how many Americans have been diagnosed with the virus.

139,659The number of people in the U.S. who have lost their lives to the pandemic, according to the CDC.

Read the original here:

By The Numbers - thepaper24-7.com

The rule of law matters most in times of crisis.

Today, America is in crisis along multiple fronts and instead, we may be sliding into unauthorized and unaccountable federal policing and domestic security activity.

This is the story of what has happened.

On May 25, George Floyd was killed by police officers in Minneapolis. In the weeks that followed there were public protests across the nation, as well some concurrent acts of violence.

During the period, federal law enforcement personnel were deployed robustlypurportedly to protect federal property and restore public safetyin the nations capital and elsewhere. Over 15 different federal government agencies or components, including multiple agencies across the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were reported as taking part in the federal law enforcement response in the District of Columbia in May.

This past week, DHS personnel, including officers of the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), were deployed by the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct domestic law enforcement activities in Portland.

But policing protest activity, in particular, requires a special sensitivity to and protection of constitutional rights. And the reports out of Portland indicate that DHS has provided an uncontrolled and over-militarized response.

Moreover, these assignments of federal officers to control domestic unrest may be part of a broader slide toward a federal domestic security expansion that has neither been announced, nor vetted either by the citizenry, the Congress, or the courts.

The unfolding situation in Portland as it relates to DHS, in particular, has been brewing for some time due to a combination of inherent insufficiencies within DHSs internal controls and inappropriate political pressure.

First, lets look at the politicization. During the campaign of 2016, candidate Trump ingratiated himself to the Border Patrol union, previewing a potential politicization of that workforce. In a spring 2019 visit with border agents at Calexico, California, Trump indicated a willingness to use his pardon authority for if CBP refused to allow migrants U.S. entry pursuant to existing asylum laws.

Meanwhile, the president has marginalized the FBI while pivoting to DHS to carry out his law and order agenda. Trump has fired, removed or pressured to resign nearly every Senate-confirmed leadership official in DHS, leaving the department with inadequate leadership relative to the size, budget, and broad scope of responsibilities. Last year, Garrett Graff and I warned that DHSs trouble stemming from internal public corruption, inadequate training and lack of transparency makes it more susceptible to inappropriate political pressure.

In May, as a result of a years worth of research and consultation with former DHS senior officials, former legislative staff and outside experts, I put forth a report arguing that DHS requires immediate congressional attention to improve its internal oversight and accountability mechanisms. In particular, the report called attention to the need for modernized and department-wide guidelines for conducting law enforcement activity, as well as updating the departments mission, which has become wildly out of sync with its day to day activities.

In short: The extent to which DHS is becoming almost a rogue arm of federal law enforcement should not surprise anyone who has followed the department for the last four years.

But the expanding federal domestic security presence may not be limited to DHS.

In connection with the May protests in the District of Columbia an associate deputy attorney general approved a request from the acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the temporary authority to enforce any federal crime committed as a result of protests over the death of George Floyd.

This memo, first reported and published by Buzzfeed, could be subject to ongoing reauthorization. The policy authorizes DEA to enforce other criminal laws outside of its usual remit of drug enforcement by supplementing law enforcement efforts of other organizations for the purposes of public safety. This expansion alone, under the circumstances, would be unobjectionable. But the memo went further. It also authorizes DEA to conduct covert surveillance and share intelligence as part of its supplemental activities.

Those provisions open the door to DEA agents conducting physical surveillance without identifying themselves, using technical surveillance techniques over crowds of individuals without suspicion of wrongdoing, and otherwise collecting intelligencecovertlyon individuals purposefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

And this sort of clandestine activity clearly crosses the line into domestic security activities.

Most law enforcement activities do not require covert activity. And when undercover activities are needed, they are performed according to strict rules and procedures and approvals. These approvals are given on a case by case basis.

In the normal course of events, law enforcement activity is conducted openly: agents identify themselves when they conduct interviews, execute searches, or make arrests.

Why should law enforcement need to use covert means to protect public safety in the context of public protests?

Indeed, it is hard to imagine a scenario where covert surveillance would be necessary in such a context. The United States of America is not Colombia and the people protesting the death of George Floyd are not sicarios who track down government agents for retribution.

The DEA memo is also missing an important qualifier: That surveillance or investigative activity would not be permitted solely on the basis of First Amendment activity.

That simple proviso is the key between allowing police or federal authorities to use investigative techniques inside the United States for legitimate reasons versus allowing the creation of an unfettered domestic security apparatus. Its the key to requiring that there be some other reasonsuch as an indication of criminal activity or foreign intelligence threatto apply the weighty powers of the federal government against an individual in contradiction of his or her constitutional rights.

Existing attorney general-approved guidelines include this very proviso, prohibiting conducting investigations solely for the purpose of monitoring First Amendment activity. Congress added a similar requirement to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, ensuring that surveillance and searches conducted for foreign intelligence purposes could not be based solely on First Amendment activity.

If we were going to take the most generous possible interpretation here, we might suggest the following:

Given Attorney General Bill Barrs public statements regarding purported violent Antifa activity concurrent with legitimate protest activityand the presidents public statements about domestic terrorismthat DOJ is increasing its domestic terrorism investigative activity against that or other networks of affiliated individuals who are causing real damage and committing acts of violence.

But even if you took that extremely friendly view, doing so would not require a special order to the DEA. Such activity would appropriately be conducted under the attorney generals standing guidelines governing FBI domestic operations and would take place in accordance with internal FBI policies and procedures.

It is important to understand that these changes are new. America has never had a purely domestic security service.

After September 11 there was a robust debate in this country over whether or not one should be created. The 9/11 Commission specifically rejected the notion that creating a domestic intelligence agency was a good idea.

Why? The reason here is vitally important: The Report argued that the creation of such an organization could lead to abuses of civil liberties [that] could create a backlash that would impair the collection of needed intelligence to combat actual national security threats.

Read that again: Standing up a domestic security service would lead to abuses of civil liberties [that] could create a backlash that would impair the collection of needed intelligence to combat actual national security threats.

Instead, Congress provided additional resources to the FBI, and Robert Mueller directed an organizational transformation to strengthen the Bureaus national security division, especially its counterterrorism activities. The FBI went from prioritizing mobsters to prioritizing terrorists.

The post-9/11 government structure provided for:

The United States should not feel compelled to stick with the post-9/11 structure without sufficient attention to modernizing the governments ability to address a changing threat environment. But the changing threat environment does not call for a federalized police force or internal security service.

Yet among the agencies that have been deployed to conduct physical security and law enforcement over the past two months are various components of DHS. Perhaps an unintended consequence, DHS is now the organization with the largest number of federal law enforcement officers of any government department.

It should be obvious, but in case it needs saying out loud:

The reason to not have a domestic security service is rooted in aversion to creating anything that might have the potential to morph into a Stasi-like organization.

Because a domestic security service is incongruous with the exercise of constitutional rights.

But its not enough just to avoid the active creation of a dedicated domestic security service. We must also guard against the unintentional authorization of federal domestic security activities due to neglect, or bureaucratic chaos, or the political ambitions of appointees trying to curry favor with a proto-authoritarian president.

Original post:

How the Portland Secret Police Happened - The Bulwark

Good morning.

As Donald Trump continues to downplay or denigrate the advice of his own administrations scientists, more than 1,200 members of the US National Academy of Sciences have now signed an open letter urging the president to restore science-based policy in government. The letter began in 2016 as a response to Trumps refusal to act on their warnings over the climate crisis, but it has rapidly accumulated fresh signatures amid the Covid-19 pandemic.

The White Houses most recent affront to science is its bid to prevent billions of dollars being spent on crucial coronavirus track-and-trace efforts. On Sunday, with US deaths surpassing 140,000 and confirmed case numbers moving inexorably towards 4 million, Trump described the nations top infectious disease expert, Dr Anthony Fauci, as a little bit of an alarmist.

It was one of the most troubling moments in an interview that was by turns shocking and unintentionally hilarious: speaking to Chris Wallace of Fox News on Sunday, Trump refused to commit to accepting the election result if his rival, Joe Biden, wins the presidency in November. I have to see, Trump said. Im not going to just say yes.

Kanye West launched his presidential campaign with a chaotic rally in South Carolina on Sunday, and a rambling speech that took in abortion, Harriet Tubman and the terms of the rappers promotional deal with Adidas.

The former red state of Arizona is now an electoral battleground, which could decide the result in 2020, as Lauren Gambino and Maanvi Singh report.

After more than 50 nights of anti-racist protest in Portland, Oregon, sparked by the death of George Floyd, the city is now patrolled by federal agents, parachuted in by the Trump administration, wearing camouflage gear and driving unmarked vehicles. The citys mayor has demanded they be removed, saying their presence is actually leading to more violence and vandalism, while Oregons attorney general has vowed to seek a restraining order against them.

These shock troops are there to exert power, bully dissenters and intimidate Americans into giving up their first amendment protections, argues Francine Prose:

Government-funded thugs, assaulting citizens, still conjure up repellent images of Hitlers brown shirts stomping their fellow Germans, and the street kidnapping of civilians has been the hallmark of authoritarian dictatorships.

The British government is expected to suspend its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in response to Chinas security crackdown on the supposedly autonomous territory, as the UK is drawn further into the dispute over Beijings dire human rights record.

Over the weekend, the Chinese ambassador to the UK was confronted on a TV news show with drone footage of hundreds of blindfolded, shackled prisoners being herded on to trains in Xinjiang, amid widespread reports of large-scale persecution of the regions Muslim Uighur minority. Uighur people enjoy peaceful, harmonious coexistence with other ethnic groups, Liu Xiaoming insisted.

The UAE has launched the Arab worlds first mission to Mars. The unmanned probe called Al-Amal, or Hope took off from Japan early on Monday, joining the US and China in the race to the red planet.

John Lewis should be honoured with a new voting rights bill, the House majority whip James Clyburn has argued. Clyburn also suggested the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, be renamed in honour of the late congressman who famously led civil rights marchers across it in 1965.

Roger Stone used a racial slur during a radio interview with host Morris OKelly, who is black. The veteran political dirty trickster was being grilled on Trumps controversial commutation of his prison sentence, when he could be heard to mutter that he was arguing with this negro.

Haley Joel Osment: Acting was like going to camp

Haley Joel Osment was 10 years old when he made The Sixth Sense. Now a successful character actor in his 30s, he tells Elle Hunt why Hollywood child stardom doesnt always lead to a blowout: I think the percentage of people having a positive experience working as children is much higher than most people imagine.

How coronavirus is reshaping Europes tourist hotspots

Europes major tourist cities have been near-deserted amid the lockdown. But now that they can begin to welcome visitors back, the likes of Venice and Prague also have an opportunity to rethink their model for deleterious mass tourism. Stephen Burgen and Angela Giuffrida report from Barcelona and Rome respectively.

The black creatives holding K-pop to account

A striking number of K-pop hits are written and produced by black Americans and a significant percentage of Americas K-pop fans are black. But many of them are still waiting for Koreas music industry to develop a more sensitive and global understanding of race, as Elizabeth de Luna writes.

Joe Biden has done what Democratic presidential candidates almost never do after winning the primary: tack to the left. His climate plans are the most ambitious ever proposed by a nominee, says Julian Brave NoiseCat. Its the Green New Deal in all but name.

Biden views the workers, unions and communities of color most impacted by the fossil fuel economy and the potential shift away from it as deserving special attention. In his view, climate action cannot be separated from economic, environmental and social justice.

Many people became gardeners during lockdown. A few of those gardeners also became archaeologists. The British Museum says the period has seen a spate of historical discoveries by people in the UK, who have unearthed coins, arrowheads and other ancient artefacts, all while digging up their own flowerbeds.

First Thing is delivered to thousands of inboxes every weekday. If youre not already signed up, subscribe now.

Read the rest here:

First Thing: American scientists wade into politics with a Trump rebuke - The Guardian

At least six more athletic conferences across various National Collegiate Athletic Association divisions announced on Friday that they were canceling fall conference play or postponing until the spring.

The Colonial Athletic Association on Friday canceled its schedule of conference football play for the fall due to the coronavirus pandemic, but member universities are permitted to pursue an independent football schedule. The CAA teams play in the NCAA's DivisionI Football Championship Subdivision.

The conference said it would explore the possibility of organizing a football season next spring.

A number of colleges that play football in the conference announced they were suspending fall sports, including football, or postponing the season until the winter or spring. Colleges that made such announcements included the College of William & Mary, in Virginia; the State University of New York at Albany; Towson University, in Maryland; and the Universities of Delaware, Maine and New Hampshire.

Several other conference members indicated they still plan or hope to play fall sports despite the cancellation of conference play. James Madison University, in Virginia, the reigning conference championship and runner-up in the FCS national championship game last season, said it remains committed to an open exploration of various options for its competitive seasons for all sports in keeping with evolving guidance on health and public safety.

The America East and Atlantic 10 conferences, both DivisionI conferences that do not sponsor conference play in football, announced they were postponing all fall sports until the spring. The Atlantic10 said, however, that its members had agreed to what they described as a look-in window in mid-September, allowing for a potentially truncated competitive schedule amongst conference opponents if the COVID-19 risk has substantially been reduced.

The East Coast Conference, which is affiliated with the NCAAs DivisionII, and two DivisionIII conferences -- the Commonwealth Coast Conference and the North Eastern Athletic Conference -- also announced cancellations of intercollegiate competition for the fall semester.

Several other conferences, including the Ivy League, the New England Small College Athletic Conference and the Patriot League, previously announced cancellation of fall sports. Two football powerhouse conferences, the Pacific-12 and the BigTen, have said they will only schedule conference games.

In nonathletic news, Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian college in Michigan famous for its refusal to accept government funding, held an in-person graduation ceremony on Saturday in defiance of state Attorney General Dana Nessel, whose office called the event illegal, The Detroit News reported. Outdoor gatherings of more than 100 people are prohibited under executive order in Michigan, where COVID-19 cases are rising.

The ceremony came at the end of three days of festivities including dinners, cocktails, music recitals and a party, according to The Detroit News. The college required attendees to wear masks and took their temperatures. At some events, attendees were seated six feet apart and instructed not to walk around.

Hillsdale defended the legality of its outdoor commencement, saying in a press release issued in advance of the ceremony it was "consistent with the governors executive orders providing that you can have these outdoor First Amendment expressive events subject to [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidelines."

This is not an act of defiance -- this is totally legal, Robert Norton, Hillsdale's vice president and general counsel, said in a statement. Because this is a core First Amendment expressive activity, the governors own guidance and the FAQs tell us that it is appropriate for us to be able to hold such an event as this if we follow leading medical guidelines. Were not only following those guidelines -- were exceeding them.

Ithaca College, a private college in the Finger Lakes region of New York, will not allow students from states on a travel advisory list maintained by New York State to travel to campus until their states are removed from the list, the Ithaca Journal reported. Students who hail from states on the list -- which as of Friday included 22 states -- will have to start classes online.

Under an executive order from Governor Andrew Cuomo, individuals from the 22 affected states must quarantine for 14 days upon arrival in New York. Ithaca administrators said they do not have the resources or infrastructure to quarantine the large number of students who would be affected by the quarantine order.

"As a result, we have made the difficult decision that students who have not remained in New York during the summer and whose permanent address is in a state on New Yorks mandatory quarantine list will need to take their classes remotely until the state of their permanent address is removed from the New York mandatory quarantine list," Ithaca said in a letter to students and families. "No exceptions will be granted."

Read the rest here:

More conferences cancel fall sports and other COVID-19 news - Inside Higher Ed

Protesters and police gather in the Logan Square neighborhood on Saturday, July 18, 2020. (@soit_goes / Twitter)

Hundreds of protesters gathered near Mayor Lori Lightfoots Logan Square home late Saturday, continuing calls to defund the Chicago Police Department, end police presence in Chicago Public Schools and demand the district reverse stated plans to reopen schools in the fall amid the COVID-19 pandemic and instead implement fully remote learning.

Alycia Kamil, an activist with the organization GoodKids MadCity, said with CPS current plan to reopen schools, Lightfoot is putting childrens health at risk, and not taking into consideration the lack of access most Black and Brown students have when it comes to tools at home such as laptops or even internet access.

Police in riot gear barricaded the mayors block and a CPD armored vehicle was present as activists marched, chanted, sang and danced in the blocks surrounding the mayors home.

They come with war ready tactics for some unarmed teenagers, Kamil said. Its ridiculous. Ive become desensitized to war and scare tactics which is so worrisome to me because I know it can only really get worse.

In what has become a signature tactic at recent protests, activists looked up badge numbers of officers present at the scene and read aloud from an online database allegations of abuse and misconduct against those officers.

Saturday nights demonstration marked a comparatively peaceful follow-up to the events of Friday night, when an attempt by protesters to tear down the Christopher Columbus statue in Grant Park took a violent turn. Activists say police used tear gas on the crowd and beat some participants; according to a statement from CPD, some protesters threw frozen water bottles, cans and rocks at police officers, who were clad in riot gear.

The Civilian Office of Police Accountability announced Saturday afternoon it had opened investigations into the most egregious complaints alleging police misconduct during Fridays protests.

Residents of this City have a right to exercise their First Amendment rights, COPA Chief Administrator Sydney Roberts said in a statement. As the civilian led oversight body of the Chicago Police Department we take every complaint seriously, conduct our investigations with the utmost integrity and remain accountable to the residents of this City.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot addressed Friday nights protests in a statement, saying her administration had been in the process of developing a plan for public monuments as well as condemning violence on the part of both activists and police officers.

It is my sincere hope that we can strike the right balance to ensure people can rightfully express themselves and their First Amendment rights, but to do so in a way that does not put anyones physical safety at risk, Lightfoot said.

Among those making allegations of police brutality is 18-year-old Miracle Boyd, who was captured on cellphone video getting hit in the face by a CPD officer, which knocked out and broke Boyds front teeth.

Boyd and other members of GoodKids MadCity announced they will hold a press conference on Monday to discuss the clash with police in Grant Park.

Read this article:

Protesters Gather Near Mayor's Home Following Clash With Police in Grant Park - WTTW News

A breakdown of the lawsuit against federal agencies over their protest response

by: Sheridan Kowta, KOIN 6 News Staff

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed a lawsuit Friday against federal law enforcement agencies over the tactics they have used at protests while deployed in Portland, which includes allegedly seizing and detaining protesters without probable cause. On Sunday, she spoke with KOIN 6 News about the demands of the lawsuit and how she believes federal officers are escalating the violence.

I think every American needs to be concerned about whats happening here in Portland. These federal agencies are operating with no transparency and against the will of just about every leader in our state, Rosenblum said. We took a look at this because things seemed, by Friday morning, not to be improving.

Part of the lawsuit includes a request for declarations that the tactics used by federal agents are in violation of both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.

We are asking that there be a declaration that their conduct, that their tactics are in violation of the First Amendment: peoples rights to protest, peoples rights to be on the streets, to be declaring their opposition to police brutality, to racial injustices, said Rosenblum. And so, that is what is known as a prior restraint on a persons right to conduct themselves publicly in this manner under the First Amendment.

Rosenblum referenced unreasonable seizures in instances where people were allegedly grabbed off the street and put in unmarked rental carsa story first published by Oregon Public Broadcasting.

These are not people who are being found to be engaging in illegal conduct at the time that they are grabbed. In fact, one young man was just simply walking home after the protestMr. Pettibone, whose affidavit is included in our complaint that we filed, said Rosenblum.

She said the lawsuit specifically asks for a ruling from the court that permanently restrains federal officers from engaging in these tactics and requires them to do three things:

Not to arrest individuals without probable cause or a warrant; identifying themselves and their agency before detaining or arresting anyone; explaining to any person detained or arrested that the person is being detained or arrested and the basis for the action, Rosenblum said.

This is a very straight-forward lawsuit, she said.

It was filed Friday night, and her office also plans to file a motion for a temporary restraining order in the coming days.

We believe strongly that the deployment of federal law enforcement in Portland has nothing to do with public safety and in fact, is actually escalating the dangerous situation here in our town and we wanted to do something to try to help, said Rosenblum.

Follow KOIN 6 for the latest news and weather

Follow this link:

AG Rosenblum: Feds operating with no transparency - KOIN.com

This spring-now-summer of protest shows no signs of fading away, as demonstrators make their voices heard on issues as disparate as health regulations, gun violence, Confederate statues and institutionalized racism.

Through it all, the First Amendment both fuels those voices and protects those rights at times in collaboration with other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Still, few of us are steeped in constitutional law and statutory regulations. Primers can provide any citizen with the basics on rights, responsibilities and potential entanglements with a patchwork quilt of federal, state and local laws.

Heres a First Amendment-friendly guide with links to those primers, classes and advisories about protest how the rights of free speech, assembly and petition work when you step outside or go online to be heard.

From the Freedom Forum:

Freedom of Assembly protects the right to peacefully gather with others, without regard to views and opinions when we take the streets in protest or in support of a causes.

Everything you need to know whether youre a student, parent, teacher, school administrator or lawyer about classroom walk-outs and school protests.

Social media platforms are private companies and since the First Amendment only applies to government, they can accept or reject what people post. But given their growing role in public discourse, what are their censorship policies? How do they compare to each other and to the First Amendments protections?

Im just speaking my mind, at work or in a public place how protected is what I say?

Pushing the limits of protected speech: When is disruptive too disruptive?

How it was done: (Video) Shirlene Mercer remembering the modern civil rights-era protests around lunch counter sit-ins in Greensboro, N.C.

From other sources:

The experts at New York Universitys online First Amendment Watch have produced a detailed guide for citizens when recording police activity. Learn about federal and state laws, how your rights apply in different situations and the legal roots for this still-new tool in holding police accountable.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a quick, to-the-point general guide to know your rights at a protest.

The online legal services site FindLaw has a guide to legal issues ranging from basic rights to a section titled somewhat ominously wartime policies. The same site also provides a guide to each states unique laws about protesting in public.

To all of that information, lets add a few additional items:

When protesting, there is no immunity under the First Amendment that allows you to disregard, without potential arrest and penalty, a direct order even one you believe is illegal from a police officer.

The First Amendment rights of petition and assembly do not give you permission to cross or occupy private property; thats still called trespassing. And as to occupying public property: Since the occupy movement a few years ago, many jurisdictions updated their policies regarding public squares, parks and such, with many outlawing overnight stays or blocking the space so that other, non-involved persons are unable to pass through it.

Blocking traffic on a public street, whether an individual effort or a mass protest, likely is illegal. Again, there is no First Amendment shield against arrest, though police action may well depend on balancing the taking of protesters into custody versus clearing the thoroughfare.

The rights of assembly and petition on National Park Service property have certain limitations, with permits required if a group of 25 or more, or pay attention to this the protest is likely to attract a combined audience of participants and those watching of more than 25. A court decision some years ago cleared the way for individuals to protest with no permit conditions, as long as the person was not blocking others from using the park.

Granted, a recitation of the rules, regulations and legal circumstances around exercising your free speech when assembling peaceably to petition for change may lack the passion of the real thing.

But its those freedoms that give legal protection for the passions that have changed the nations laws, policies and even attitudes, about womens rights, racial injustice, juvenile protection laws, labor regulations and rights and much more.

And thats a lot from a little: the simple but majestic 45 words of the First Amendment.

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.

More here:

Gene Policinski: Our rights to speak, assembly and seek change have limits - The Mercury

President Donald Trump said in an interview aired Sunday that he wants to have a "big rally" in Michigan but his campaign isn't allowed to during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The president made the comment during an interview with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." Trump argued that Democrats are purposely keeping their schools and states closed. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has said changing the trajectory of new coronavirus cases in the state is key to schools reopening for in-person instruction in seven weeks.

"I called Michigan. I want to have a big rally in Michigan. Do you know were not allowed to have a rally in Michigan?" Trump said. "Do you know were not allowed to have a rally in Minnesota. Do you know were not allowed to have a rally in Nevada? Were not allowed to have rallies in these Democrat-run states."

President Donald Trump speaks during a law enforcement briefing in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, July 15, 2020, in Washington.(Photo: Patrick Semansky, AP)

Trump didn't identify the person or official he called about having an event in Michigan.

But Wallace responded, noting some would say the events are a "health risk." Trump then argued that officials would keep the events from taking place even if precautions were taken.

Michigan had reported 6,117 deaths linked to COVID-19 as of Saturday and new cases of the virus have been rising in the state for weeks.

On Saturday night during a "tele-rally" over Facebook with supporters in Michigan, Trump also spoke of having an in-person event in the state, according to a recording provided by his campaign.

I want to get out there and do the rally as soon as we can and we will be doing that," the president said. "Between COVID and your governors restrictions, it really makes it very difficult but well be out there eventually."

In June, Whitmer, a Democrat, said she would think very seriously about trying to stop Trump from holding a rally in Michigan during the pandemic, according to an Associated Press report.

The state currently has limits on public gatherings in place to stem the spread of the virus but there are exceptions for protests and other events protected by the First Amendment.

In an interview on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Dr. Joneigh Khaldun, the state's chief medical executive, said she remains concerned about people gathering in large groups and making "simple things," like mask wearing, political.

"I'm very concerned," Khaldun said. "But I'm also confident that Michiganders can do the right thing. Because we did it before. We saw over 150 deaths a day in Michigan back in March and April. We brought that curve down. So I am confident we can do that again."

Earlier this month, the president's son, Donald Trump Jr., told reporters that he wouldn't be shocked if Whitmer tried to prevent his father from holding events in the state ahead of the November election "under the guise" of COVID-19.

"There would be little shock to me whatsoever that she would do whatever they can under the guise of corona, of course," Trump Jr. said.

"Because again, you could do it safely. You could do it with masks. You could socially distance. You could still have those events realistically."

In response to Trump Jr.'s comments, Whitmer's spokesman Zack Pohl said the governor "is focused on saving the lives of Michigandersand remains unbothered by partisan games and political attacks."

"If the Trump administration was as concerned about protecting the publics health as it is about hosting dangerous rallies that can be breeding grounds for spreading COVID-19, perhaps there would be a national pandemic response plan or federal mask-up campaign to combat this virus that has already killed tens of thousands of Americans across the United States," Pohl said.

Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes in 2016 when he became the first Republican presidential nominee since 1988 to carry the state but polls this summer have shown himtrailing presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Trump held a rally in Tulsa in June. According to the Associated Press, Tulsa City-County Health Department Director Dr. Bruce Dart said the event "likely contributed" to a surge in new cases of COVID-19.

cmauger@detroitnews.com

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/07/19/trump-wants-have-big-rally-michigan-says-he-isnt-allowed/5467709002/

The rest is here:

Trump wants to have a 'big rally' in Michigan, says he isn't allowed - The Detroit News