37% of Artificial Intelligence Technologies are Adopted by High Tech Industry – Analytics Insight

Hyderabad, November 23, 2020 Analytics Insight conducted a survey The Global Artificial Intelligence Trends 2020 to understand the global adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) amongst enterprises and recognize the business perceptions of AI across sectors.

Analytics Insight reached out to 2,200 professionals online located in different geographic regions across a wide range of industries to explore different views toward AI and its current implications among enterprises. Receiving 256 responses for the survey, Analytics Insight articulated a detailed report, which can be indicative of the market as a whole.

Out of the 256 respondents, 48.5% were working at small-scale companies with the company size of fewer than 100 employees. About 29.8% of the respondents were employed at companies which had total employees ranging from 100-1000, while 21.7% of respondents had a company size of over 1000 employees.

On the basis of geographical distribution, 42.1% of the respondents were located in Asia. This was followed by North America at 35.6%, Europe at 17.9%, and the Middle East and Africa contributed at 4.4%.

According to the survey, the High Tech industry is leading the adoption of AI with a 37% share, followed by Professional Services at 18.2% and Financial Services accounting for 16.6%. The survey further finds that the Retail Industry uses AI across multiple areas of business, contributing to the adoption rate of 9.1%. Next up after Retail is Healthcare and Pharma contributing 8%, about 4.8% from Consumer-Packaged Goods, 2.8% from Telecom, 2.3% from Automotive and Assembly, 0.8% from Infrastructure and 0.4% from Travel, Transport, and Logistics.

The majority of AI technologies with 34.3% of total usage are leveraged in the Research and Development initiatives, followed by Finance at 18.2% and IT Management at 12%. The study further unravels that Customer Service is facilitating 9.5% of AI technologies. This is followed closely by HR, 8.9%; Sales and Marketing, at 8.3%, and Manufacturing and Operations accounting to 5.8%.

Analytics Insight observed earlier that artificial intelligence is being readily adopted by organizations across all sectors and industries. To further understand the type of technology that organizations are aiming to deploy, Analytics Insight asked respondents about the primary interest of organizations for AI adoption.

Almost 34.1% of survey respondents indicated Predictive Analytics to be the priority, whereas 24.5% of respondents prioritized General AI Implementation in their organization. Almost 18.3% of respondents feel Process Automation will be the primary step in digital transformation, whereas Hyper-personalization is the priority amongst 7.8% of survey respondents.

While organizations across all sectors and industries embraced AI to ease the human workforce and make the services more efficient, it still has some significant constraints to be deployed. To understand the challenges of adopting this technology, Analytics Insight engaged respondents in the primary challenges of organizations for AI adoption.

Around 31.1% of respondents indicate that the biggest challenge a company faces regarding AI adoption is Limited AI Skills. In comparison, nearly 27.7% of respondents feel that Data Quantity or Quality is a major concern. Almost 22.7% of companies hesitate to adopt AI because it is a High-Cost Technology. Wherein 8.3% of vendors have felt Confused AI Ecosystem, 2.6% of respondents feel Non-AI Approaches are Sufficient. The survey also reveals that 1.7% of companies are far from digitization due to Regulatory or Security Issues, and 5.9% do not have an Incomplete Understanding of AI.

The objective of the survey was to understand which businesses are embracing AI technologies, how willing and comfortable organizations are with AI technologies, making in-roads into their workplaces, and the challenges they face in implementing AI among their organizations.

The survey speaks out and loud about the issues faced by enterprises in adopting artificial intelligence within their businesses. What makes it more interesting is that even large organizations are struggling to adopt AI fully into their enterprise, says Ashish Sukhadeve, Founder and CEO, Analytics Insight.

Read the detailed report here: https://bit.ly/35TVpIT

Analytics Insight is the worlds first publication focused on Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Analytics. Analytics Insight uses extensive market research to pinpoint emerging trends and future growth opportunities and help organizations determine where to compete. It helps decision-makers innovate technology processes, predict sales with the ability to sense, react and adapt to changing market conditions. For more information, visit: https://www.analyticsinsight.net/

Share This ArticleDo the sharing thingy

About AuthorMore info about author

Analytics Insight is an influential platform dedicated to insights, trends, and opinions from the world of data-driven technologies. It monitors developments, recognition, and achievements made by Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Analytics companies across the globe.

See the original post here:
37% of Artificial Intelligence Technologies are Adopted by High Tech Industry - Analytics Insight

Julian Assange’s partner appeals to Trump to pardon him – ABC News

ByThe Associated Press

November 26, 2020, 5:37 PM

2 min read

LONDON -- Julian Assanges partner, Stella Moris, has tweeted President Donald Trump on Thanksgiving, appealing to him to pardon the WikiLeaks founder.

Moris posted a photo of their two young children on Twitter Thursday and wrote: These are Julians sons Max and Gabriel. They need their father. Our family needs to be whole again.

I beg you, please bring him home for Christmas, she added.

Assange, 49, remains in a high-security British prison cell as he awaits a judge's decision about whether he can be sent to the U.S. to face espionage charges.

Moris said he has been confined exclusively to his cell for over a week because of a coronavirus outbreak on his prison block.

Assange attended four weeks of an extradition hearing at Londons Central Criminal Court in September and October. The judge overseeing the case said she would deliver her decision on Jan.4.

U.S. prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks publication of secret American military documents a decade ago. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison.

Assanges defense team argues that he is a journalist and entitled to First Amendment protections for publishing leaked documents that exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also say the conditions he would face in a U.S. prison would breach his human rights.

Assange jumped bail in 2012 and sought asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which ended up becoming his home for seven years before he was evicted and subsequently arrested. He has been in a London prison since April 2019.

Read the original here:
Julian Assange's partner appeals to Trump to pardon him - ABC News

University of Iowa Health Care reduces hospitalizations through ‘virtual hospital’ model – kwwl.com

IOWA CITY, Iowa University of Iowa Health Care has been able to reduce hospitalizations and maintain bed capacity through a virtual hospital model. It is a tool used by its Home Treatment Team.

The hospital said if a patient walks into the hospital with mild COVID-19 symptoms, the staff will give the patient an oximeter, take their information and then send them home.From there, the hospital will monitor a patients symptoms by calling the patient every day.

There is a group of patients who have gotten sicker at home, saidDr. Bradley Manning, a University of Iowa hospitalist physician. We were able to identify that, bring them into the hospital and deliver hospital care for them early so that they didnt get sicker.

Recently, the state has experienced a slight decrease in hospitalizations over the last few days, but Dr. Manning is not attributing the slight decrease to virtual care.

I think part of the reason the hospitalizations are declining is just because the infection rate is declining, and people are doing what they need to do to stay safe, said Dr. Manning.But it doesnt hurt that some of the health care systems have adopted this model to keep more patients at home.

So far, the hospital has treated 1,000 patients virtually. According to Dr. Manning, a few smaller hospitals in the state are using the virtual hospital method to treat COVID-19 patients.

Link:
University of Iowa Health Care reduces hospitalizations through 'virtual hospital' model - kwwl.com

Forgotten lessons on the evil of intervention – newagebd.net

With her brother on her back a war-weary Korean girl passes a stalled M-26 tank in Haengju, Korea on June 9, 1951. Consortium News/US army/Major RV Spencer

The secrecy and deceit surrounding US war crimes has had catastrophic consequences in this century, writes James Bovard

THIS year is the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War, a conflict from which Washington policymakers learned nothing. Almost 40,000 American soldiers died in that conflict, which should have permanently vaccinated the nation against the folly and evil of foreign intervention. Instead, the war was retroactively redefined. As president Barack Obama declared in 2013, That war was no tie. Korea was a victory.

When politicians or generals appear itching to pull the United States into another foreign war, remember that truth is routinely the first casualty.

The war began with what president Harry Truman claimed was a surprise invasion on June 25, 1950, by the North Korean army across the dividing line with South Korea that was devised after World War II. But the US government had ample warnings of the pending invasion. According to the late Justin Raimondo, founder of antiwar.com, the conflict actually started with a series of attacks by South Korean forces, aided by the US military:

From 19451948, American forces aided [South Korean president Syngman] Rhee in a killing spree that claimed tens of thousands of victims: the counterinsurgency campaign took a high toll in Kwangju, and on the island of Cheju-do where as many as 60,000 people were murdered by Rhees US-backed forces.

The North Korean army quickly routed both South Korean and US forces. A complete debacle was averted after general Douglas MacArthur masterminded a landing of US troops at Inchon. After he routed the North Korean forces, MacArthur was determined to continue pushing northward regardless of the danger of provoking a much broader war.

By the time the US forces drove the North Korean army back across the border between the two Koreas, roughly 5,000 American troops had been killed. The Pentagon had plenty of warning that the Chinese would intervene if the US army pushed too close to the Chinese border. But the euphoria that erupted after Inchon blew away all common sense and drowned out the military voices who warned of a catastrophe. One US army colonel responded to a briefing on the Korea situation in Tokyo in 1950 by storming out and declaring, Theyre living in a goddamn dream land.

The Chinese military attack resulted in the longest retreat in the history of the USs armed forces a debacle that was valourised by allusion in the 1986 Clint Eastwood movie, Heartbreak Ridge. By 1951, the Korean War had become intensely unpopular in the United States more unpopular than the Vietnam War ever was. At least the war, which president Harry Truman insisted on mislabelling as a police action, destroyed the presidency of the man who launched it. By the time a ceasefire was signed in mid-1953, almost 40,000 Americans had been killed in a conflict that ended with borders similar to those at the start of the war.

Disasters

PERHAPS the biggest disaster of the Korean War was that intellectuals and foreign-policy experts succeeded in redefining the Korean conflict as an American victory. As Georgetown University professor Derek Leebaert noted in his book Magic and Mayhem, What had been regarded as a bloody stalemate transformed itself in Washingtons eyes; ten years later it had become an example of a successful limited war. Already by the mid-1950s, elite opinion began to surmise that it had been a victory. Leebaert explained, Images of victory in Korea shaped the decision to escalate in 19641965 helping to explain why America pursued a war of attrition.

Even worse, the notion that America has never lost a war remained part of the national myth, and the notion of having prevailed in Korea became a justification for going big in Vietnam. But as Leebaert noted, in Vietnam, [the US army] had forgotten everything it had learned about counterinsurgency in Korea as well.

When the American media noted the 70th anniversary of the start of the war this past June, they paid little or no attention to the wars dark side. The media ignored perhaps the wars most important lesson: the US government has almost unlimited sway to hide its own war crimes.

During the Korean War, Americans were deluged with official pronouncements that the US military was taking all possible steps to protect innocent civilians. Because the evils of communism were self-evident, few questions arose about how the United States was thwarting Red aggression. When a US Senate subcommittee appointed in 1953 by senator Joseph McCarthy investigated Korean War atrocities, the committee explicitly declared that war crimes were defined as those acts committed by enemy nations.

In 1999, 46 years after the cease fire in Korea, the Associated Press exposed a 1950 massacre of Korean refugees at No Gun Ri. US troops drove Koreans out of their village and forced them to remain on a railroad embankment. Beginning on July 25, 1950, the refugees were strafed by US planes and machine guns over the following three days. Hundreds of people, mostly women and children, were killed. The 1999 AP story was widely denounced by American politicians and some media outlets as a slander on American troops.

The Pentagon promised an exhaustive investigation. In January 2001, the Pentagon released a 300-page report purporting to prove that the No Gun Ri killings were merely an unfortunate tragedy caused by trigger-happy soldiers frightened by approaching refugees.

President Bill Clinton announced his regret that Korean civilians lost their lives at No Gun Ri. In an interview, he was asked why he used regret instead of apology. He declared, I believe that the people who looked into it could not conclude that there was a deliberate act, decided at a high-enough level in the military hierarchy, to acknowledge that, in effect, the government had participated in something that was terrible. Clinton specified that there was no evidence of wrongdoing high-enough in the chain of command in the army to say that, in effect, the government was responsible.

But the atrocities against civilians had been common knowledge among US troops 50 years earlier. As Charles Hanley, Sang-Hun Choe and Martha Mendoza noted in their 2001 book, The Bridge at No Gun Ri, the Pentagon in 1952 withdrew official endorsement from RKOs One Minute to Zero, a Korean War movie in which an army colonel played by actor Robert Mitchum orders artillery fire on a column of refugees. The Pentagon fretted that this sequence could be utilised for anti-American propaganda and banned the film from being shown on US military bases.

In 2005, Sahr Conway-Lanz, a Harvard University doctoral student, discovered a letter in the National Archives from the US ambassador to Korea, John Muccio, sent to assistant secretary of state Dean Rusk on the day the No Gun Ri massacre commenced. Muccio summarised a new policy from a meeting between US military and South Korean officials: If refugees do appear from north of US lines they will receive warning shots, and if they then persist in advancing they will be shot. The new policy was radioed to army units around Korea on the morning the No Gun Ri massacre began. The US military feared that North Korean troops might be hiding amidst the refugees. The Pentagon initially claimed that its investigators never saw Muccios letter but it was in the specific research file used for its report.

Slaughtering civilians

CONWAY-LANZS 2006 book Collateral Damage: Americans, Noncombatant Immunity, and Atrocity after World War II quoted an official US navy history of the first six months of the Korean War stating that the policy of strafing civilians was wholly defensible. An official army history noted, Eventually, it was decided to shoot anyone who moved at night. A report for the aircraft carrier USS Valley Forge justified attacking civilians because the army insisted that groups of more than eight to ten people were to be considered troops, and were to be attacked.

In 2007, the army recited its original denial: No policy purporting to authorise soldiers to shoot refugees was ever promulgated to soldiers in the field. But the Associated Press exposed more dirt from the US archives: More than a dozen documents in which high-ranking US officers tell troops that refugees are fair game, for example, and order them to shoot all refugees coming across river were found by the AP in the investigators own archived files after the 2001 inquiry. None of those documents was disclosed in the armys 300-page public report. A former air force pilot told investigators that his plane and three others strafed refugees at the same time of the No Gun Ri massacre; the official report claimed that all pilots interviewed knew nothing about such orders. Evidence also surfaced of massacres like No Gun Ri. On September 1, 1950, the destroyer USS DeHaven, at the armys insistence, fired on a seaside refugee encampment at Pohang, South Korea. Survivors say 100 to 200 people were killed.

Slaughtering civilians en masse became routine procedure after the Chinese army intervened in the Korean War in late 1950. MacArthur spoke of turning North Korean-held territory into a desert. The US military eventually expanded its definition of a military target to any structure that could shelter enemy troops or supplies. General Curtis LeMay summarised the achievements: We burned down every town in North Korea and some in South Korea, too. A million civilians may have been killed during the war. A South Korean government Truth and Reconciliation Commission uncovered many previously unreported atrocities and concluded that American troops killed groups of South Korean civilians on 138 separate occasions during the Korean War, The New York Times reported.

Truth delayed is truth defused. The Pentagon strategy on Korean War atrocities succeeded because it left facts to the historians, not the policymakers. The truth about No Gun Ri finally slipped out 10 presidencies later. Even more damaging, the rules of engagement for killing Korean civilians were covered up for four more US wars. If US policy for slaying Korean refugees had been exposed during that war, it might have curtailed similar killings in Vietnam (many of which were not revealed until decades after the war).

Former congressman and decorated Korean War veteran Pete McCloskey (R-California) warned, The government will always lie about embarrassing matters.

The same shenanigans permeate other US wars. The secrecy and deceit surrounding US warring has had catastrophic consequences in this century. The Bush administration exploited the 9/11 attacks to justify attacking Iraq in 2003, and it was not until 2016 that the US government revealed documents exposing the Saudi governments role in financing the 9/11 hijackers (15 of 19 were Saudi citizens). The Pentagon covered up the vast majority of US killings of Iraqi civilians until Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks exposed them in 2010. There are very likely reams of evidence of duplicity and intentional slaughter of civilians in US government files on its endlessly confused and contradictory Syrian intervention.

When politicians or generals appear to be itching to pull the United States into another foreign war, remember that truth is routinely the first casualty. It is naive to expect a government that recklessly slays masses of civilians to honestly investigate itself and announce its guilt to the world. Self-government is a mirage if Americans do not receive enough information to judge killings committed in their name.

Consortiumnews.com, November 20. James Bovard, a USA Today columnist, is a policy adviser to the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Here is the original post:
Forgotten lessons on the evil of intervention - newagebd.net

Don’t allow First Amendment rights to be seen as ‘wrongs’ – The Record

When it comes to exercising your rights of free speech, assembly and petition in Tennessee, be careful. Setting up a tent for an overnight stay during a protest could land you in prison for up to six years.

A new law signed quietly into effect Nov. 5 by Gov. Bill Lee changes the crime of overnight camping on state property without a permit aimed at deterring protesters who have done that from a misdemeanor to the much more serious felony. It also provides for stricter penalties and minimum jail terms for such clear threats to the republic as drawing in chalk on state property or interrupting legislators or local officials who are in a meeting.

In recent years, police have resorted to sweeps during demonstrations that operate on the theory of arrest all and sort them out later, sometimes taking into custody non-protesters simply walking to lunch or shopping. The Volunteer States new anti-protest law advocates call it criminal justice reform requires a magistrates intervention to gain early release for anyone sooner than a mandatory 12-hour minimum stay behind bars.

A move in states to si-lence public protest began about a decade ago, around the time of the Occupy movement. The latest Tennessee statute was sparked by demonstrators who set up camp in Nashvilles War Memorial Plaza for nearly two months this year while seeking removal of a bust of Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, first leader the Ku Klux Klan, from the state Capitol building.

By some reports, as many as 40 states have considered or adopted direct or backdoor attempts modeled on a draft law prepared by a conservative alliance of legislators and corporations to restrain public protest. Some proposals include providing legal immunity for motorists who essentially absent a declaration of intent to injure or kill strike demonstrators standing in a public thoroughfare.

Some proposed laws have been deemed outright to be unconstitutional for targeting certain groups or simply for being too broad or too vague. But government officials can enact lawful restrictions on time, place and manner in how we protest. If upheld by the courts, such laws reasonably can limit the hours and locations of public demonstrations or individual protests, the size of signs or the number of people who can gather in public spaces or on sidewalks.

Such laws nonetheless can chill free speech in ways seemingly distant from the 45 words of the First Amendment. Being convicted of a felony also may mean forfeiting the rights to vote, carry a gun or obtain a professional license and negatively can affect your ability to get a job or obtain a mortgage.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis recently proposed not only felony charges on protestors, but also penalties on cities and towns deemed not to be taking appropriate law and order measures in response to demonstrations. If enacted and if the provisions survive court challenge Florida would have the harshest anti-protest laws in the nation.

DeSantis proposal, to be considered when the legislature meets in March, includes felony charges for obstructing traffic during an unauthorized protest or for toppling a monument; an initial no bail provision for those arrested during a demonstration, and a mandatory six-month jail term for anyone who strikes a law enforcement officer during a protest. Anyone who organizes or simply donates money to protesters would risk penalties under the states racketeering laws.

Tennessees chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said the new law in that state law requiring 12-hour holds upon arrest, putting in place mandatory minimums and enhancing petty crimes to felony-level offenses will send a message loud and clear that Tennessee is no place to exercise your constitutional rights if state or local government entities disagree with you.

U.S. Supreme Court decisions stretching back more than 140 years have upheld our rights to assemble and petition. In 1937, the US. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in De Jonge v. Oregon that the right to peaceably assemble for lawful discussion, however unpopular the sponsorship, cannot be made a crime. And in 1939 the court held in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization that streets and parks ... have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens and discussing public questions.

Ten years later, Justice William O. Douglas, in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, wrote free speech is intended to ... invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger ...

It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.

More recent court rulings echo Douglas in acknowledgement that protest is inherently disruptive, may well be offensive or cause anguish to some, but is protected because of a need for robust public discussion around public policy and practices.

Yes, democracy is messy and public demonstrations at times may well inconvenience, insult or infuriate you and me. But legislative acts designed to restrain, remove or chill our rights to protest are not just unconstitutional, but also unpatriotic.

As James Madison, author of the First Amendment, once observed about the new nation: The censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people.

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute and its First Amendment Center. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org or 202-292-6290.

Read and share your thoughts on this story

See more here:

Don't allow First Amendment rights to be seen as 'wrongs' - The Record

We’re in for a wild First Amendment ride – Sunbury Daily Item

Buckle up, America. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito may well have pulled the start switch on the First Amendments legal equivalent of a popular carnival attraction, the Tilt-a-Whirl a wild, spinning legislative ride propelled by a revolving wheel of judicial review.

In a speech Nov. 12 to the conservative Federalist Society, Alito offered a list of grievances about the state of individual rights in America, with a special focus on the freedoms of religion and speech.

Alito was very critical of a 5-4 Supreme Court decision this summer that rejected a churchs objection to Nevadas COVID-19-based restrictions on attendance at religious services. He pointed out that casinos in that state were limited to 50 percent capacity, while houses of worship were subject to a smaller, flat 50-person limit.

Rejecting this disparate treatment should not have been a very tough call, he said. Take a quick look at the Constitution. You will see the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which protects religious liberty. You will not find a craps clause, or a blackjack clause, or a slot machine clause.

Noting that comedian George Carlin once identified seven dirty words not allowed to be spoken on television, Alito said that today you can see shows on your TV screen in which the dialogue appears at times to consist almost entirely of those words But it would be easy to put together a new list called Things You Cant Say If You Are a Student or a Professor at a College or University or an Employee of Many Big Corporations. And there wouldnt be just seven items on that list. Seventy times seven would be closer.

Following the courts legalization of same-sex marriage, which he opposed, Alito predicted vilification of those opposing the decision. In his speech, Alito claimed that You cant say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Until very recently, thats what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now its considered bigotry.

A second justice, Clarence Thomas, has twice this year called for the court to revisit and perhaps reverse a landmark 1964 free speech and free press case, New York Times v. Sullivan, which generally rules out successful defamation lawsuits by political or public persons without evidence of actual malice.

A new, 6-3 conservative balance on the court may provide additional support for both Alito and Thomas and for the construction of new legal shields based on religious views against anti-discrimination laws. The court will rule next spring in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, involving that citys attempt to withhold public funds from a Catholic social workgroup that refuses to consider same-sex couples when placing children for adoption.

Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress seem intent on reviewing First Amendment rights and special legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, now enjoyed by Silicon Valley tech companies. The changes would target social media giants such as Twitter and Facebook and perhaps even attempt to reduce Googles dominant position among search engines.

Advocates say changes and limits are needed to ensure diverse viewpoints. Removing some or all of those protections, the companies argue, would force them to adopt draconian restrictions on what we freely say online in these 21st-century equivalents of the colonial public square.

Congress also is expected to quickly take up other complicated, First Amendment-ish aspects around free speech on the web that is, balancing the need to fight misinformation and distortion of facts online with unfettered access by individuals to this new, electronic version of the public square.

A new conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court seems likely to heed Alitos call to revisit both new and long-standing First Amendment rulings, particularly on religion and speech. State legislatures in more than 40 states seem bent on rewriting laws across a dizzying array of rulings, all aimed at restricting protest and assembly.

Freedom of the press will continue to be beset by both critics who would diminish its First Amendment protections and those advocates who would save independent American journalism by inserting government into the unprecedented role of at least a partial funder.

And within the First Amendment scholarly community itself, there is growing sentiment that the original 45 words, adopted in 1791, need to be reworked and revised to meet the challenges of a modern, 24/7 globally connected planetary society.

Even the relatively new doctrine of government speech is gaining ground that government itself has free speech rights, as in what slogans are banned from state-issued license plates, or which religious symbols are allowed in public spaces. As it happens, Justice Alito has played both a major role in court decisions advancing the doctrine but also cautioning against its overuse.

For nearly 100 years, First Amendment law has been largely focused on protecting the free expression of individual viewpoints, particularly those considered fringe or extreme. Now in vogue: Claims to a right not to hear someones views.

Many of these new voices and approaches in the marketplace of ideas echo Alitos basic pitch: Its time for conservative views and limits to take over from what they see as overly broad, liberal expansions across the five freedoms.

Keep both hands and feet firmly inside the whirling legal constructs, dear fellow citizens. And pay close attention to what people are saying in the upcoming debates over balancing our core freedoms with other values.

Hang on through the ride and listen to the debates as if the very meaning and application of the First Amendment for the next generation depends on it because it will.

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.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read the original post:

We're in for a wild First Amendment ride - Sunbury Daily Item

Chief diversity officer: ‘First Amendment excuse is out’ regarding offensive speech – The College Fix

In a recent interview with the student paper, the chief diversity officer at Georgia Southern University said that the First Amendment excuse is out when it comes to dealing with insensitive and racist speech.

The George-AnnesAndy Cole prompted TaJuan Wilson by discussing a blackface incident from June: The university did not rescind the admission of a student who had donned black makeup, scrawled the N-word on his forehead and posted a pic on social media.

You know, a lot of students take issue with the words Georgia Southern usesthe First Amendment excuse, Cole told Wilson. A lot of students feel that all Georgia Southern says is, Well, we respect the right to the First Amendment.

Cole argued that, despite the futility of going to court over an obvious free speech matter, the university could show its commitment to anti-racism by doing just that: Hey, we hate this so much that were willing to go to court for it.

Wilson (at left) responded: I agree with you 100-percent the I agree with you 100-percent the First Amendment excuse is out. Right? First Amendment excuse is out. Right? Folks are sick of that.

The diversity officer did cede that the First Amendment is important and that it protect[s] folks on both sides of an issue. He also concurred that public colleges absolutely would lose in court if they expelled students for merely saying something stupid.

Wilson also told Cole his job isnt to punish students who have done or said offensive things. Nevertheless, he reiterated the excuse of free speech doesnt wash: Whats most important, he said, is showing up for students in the moment.

Despite the nebulousness, Dr. Wilson might be saying that spewing hateful racial epithets merely because one can is a poor excuse. And hed be correct. But if the facts of the June blackface incident are as reported, it seems to be merely an instance of a teenager acting stupid and therein lies the import of the First Amendment.

The College Fix reached out to Dr. Wilson for clarification of his remarks, but he did not respond.

Last year, Wilson suddenly resigned from the University of Iowa as associate vice president for diversity, equity and inclusion claiming it wasnt the right fit for him. His salary was close to a quarter of a million dollars annually, and despite not staying in his position for a full year, he wasnt required to repay $25k in moving expenses.

Read the article.

MORE: Activists demand end to academic freedom b/c prof quoted n-word

MORE: University rejects opposing view at diversity event

IMAGES: Kraken Images.com / Shutterstock/com; Georgia Southern Inclusive Excellence screencap

Read More

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Read the original:

Chief diversity officer: 'First Amendment excuse is out' regarding offensive speech - The College Fix

First Amendment Generally Protects Speech in the U.S. by Non-U.S.-Citizens/Residents – Reason

From Khan v. Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., decided in 2018 but just posted on Westlaw (Judge Anthony C. Epstein, D.C. Super. Ct.) (affirmed as to other matters in a 2020 D.C. Ct. App. decision):

This case involves what has become known as the "Steele Dossier." The relatively small portion of the Steele Dossier at issue in this case discusses the relationship between plaintiffs German Khan, Mikhal Fridman, and Petr Aven and the Russian government, but it does not discuss specific information linking them to any Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election or to any specific American candidate.

The Court concludes that the Anti-SLAPP Act requires dismissal of this case because Defendants have made a prima facie case that the Act applies to their provision of this portion of the Steele Dossier to the media, and Plaintiffs have not submitted evidence that Defendants knew any of this information was false or acted with reckless disregard of its falsity.

On April 16, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants for defamation. Plaintiffs make the following allegations in their complaint. Plaintiffs are international businessmen who are the beneficial owners of Alfa-Bank (a.k.a. Alfa Group), which is based in Russia; Mr. Fridman and Mr. Khan are each citizens of both Russia and Israel, and Mr. Aven is a citizen of Russia. Mr. Steele is a U.K. citizen and a principal of Orbis, a U.K.-based company. Defendants were hired in June 2016 by Fusion GPS ("Fusion"), a Washington, D.C.-based firm that conducts political opposition research, to compile information about then-candidate Donald J. Trump's ties to Russia and Vladimir Putin. Fusion was originally hired during the primary phase of the 2016 election cycle by Republicans. After the Republican convention, Fusion was hired by the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

The Court assumes without deciding that the Anti-SLAPP Act applies only to conduct that is protected by the First Amendment. [But] Plaintiffs have not cited, and the Court is not aware of, any case holding that the defenses that a defendant in a defamation case may assert under D.C. law or the First Amendment depend on whether the defendant is a U.S. citizen or entity.

{It is ironic that Plaintiffs, who are non-resident aliens with Russian and/or Israeli citizenship, argue that non-resident aliens do not have rights that the First Amendment requires a U.S. court to respectwhile petitioning a U.S. court for a redress of their grievances and invoking a constitutional right to conduct discovery. Plaintiffs do not explain why non-resident aliens have the same rights as U.S. citizens to bring defamation actions, but non-resident aliens do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens to defend themselves.}

[A]dvocacy on issues of public interest has the capacity to inform public debate, and thereby furthers the purposes of the First Amendment, regardless of the citizenship or residency of the speaker. [T]he First Amendment "guarantees are not for the benefit of the press so much as for the benefit of all of us." "It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." As a result, the interest of U.S. citizens in receiving information that the First Amendment protects does not depend on whether the speaker is a U.S. citizen or resident.

It is in this context that the Court evaluates Plaintiffs' argument that the First Amendment does not apply to Defendants' speech. It is well established that non-citizens "enjoy certain constitutional rights." United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) indicates that a non-citizen must have "substantial connections with the country" before he can "receive constitutional protections." See Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950) ("The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society.").

[T]he Court need not undertake to determine, as a general matter, how "substantial" a non-resident alien's connections with this country must be to merit the protections of the First Amendment for speech in the United States. The Court need not define the precise line because Mr. Steele and Orbis and their speech have ample connections with the United States that are clearly substantial enough to merit First Amendment protection.

According to Plaintiffs' own complaint, U.S. clients hired Mr. Steele and Orbis, and a U.S. presidential candidate was the subject of the investigation that they were hired to conduct. Furthermore, Mr. Steele was in the United States when he briefed U.S.-based media organizations about the results of his investigation, and Plaintiffs do not dispute that Mr. Steele was lawfully present in the United States when he provided his briefings. These U.S.-based media organizations reported on allegations in the Steele Dossier in the United States.

Plaintiffs themselves allege that the Court has jurisdiction because "Orbis and Steele transacted business in the District of Columbia." Plaintiffs' summary of their jurisdictional allegations is apt: "In sum, Steele, acting for himself and Orbis, has engaged in a persistent course of conduct, often with Fusion and Simpson, intended to have and which did have effects in the District, by meeting with District based media and government employees to bring his reports on 'Russia matters' to their attention."

{The Court does not suggest that aliens who are not legally present in the United States automatically lack First Amendment rights. This case does not present that issue.}

Moreover, Plaintiffs recognize that Mr. Steele had substantial ongoing connections with the United States even before U.S. clients hired him to gather information relating to the 2016 presidential election:

"Steele, on behalf of himself and Orbis, has engaged in other ongoing business relationships with entities located in the District. Steele and Orbis have been retained repeatedly by the District-based F.B.I. to assist in various investigations between 2009 and 2016, and, as alleged above, Steele and Orbis have had an ongoing professional relationship with Fusion for years. And as also noted above, according to Winer, during his 2013-2016 employment at the State Department in the District, Steele/Orbis provided over 100 intelligence reports, many of which Winer shared with other State Department officials."

Plaintiffs argue that "Defendants must show that they have, in some form, assumed the obligations of the people," and Defendants assumed at least one important "obligation" of "the people"by accepting the Court's jurisdiction, Defendants assumed the obligation to pay any judgment that might ultimately be entered against them in a U.S. court. By assuming this obligation, Defendants also assumed the concomitant right to raise the same defenses available to U.S. citizens and resident aliens who are sued for defamation.

Plaintiffs rely on Hoffman v. Bailey (E.D. La. 2014), which held that a British national could not invoke the Louisiana Anti-SLAPP Act because he did not have First Amendment protection. However, in Hoffman, the defendant's only contact with the United States was that he sent the email that formed the basis of the defamation claim to a Louisiana resident. Here, Defendants and their speech have far more substantial contacts with the United States.

Because Defendants have substantial and ongoing connections with the United States and their speech in the United States concerns matters of public concern in the United States, Defendants' speech is protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, even if the Anti-SLAPP Act protects only speech also protected by the First Amendment their speech is covered by the Act.

My view (short version), which is consistent with the result of this case but which would likely go a bit further: Speech by people who aren't U.S. citizens (or perhaps permanent residents) outside the U.S. is often unprotected by the First Amendment against various kinds of American government retaliation. "[I]t is long settled as a matter of American constitutional law that foreign citizens outside U.S. territory do not possess rights under the U.S. Constitution." But it seems to me that, when U.S. courts are asked in the U.S. to impose liability based on speech, they should be constrained by the First Amendment, whether the speakers are foreigners or Americans.

More here:

First Amendment Generally Protects Speech in the U.S. by Non-U.S.-Citizens/Residents - Reason

The First Amendment excuse is out The George-Anne Media Group – The George-Anne

Q&A from our interview with TaJuan Wilson following release of Georgia Southerns Inclusive Excellence action plan

Following the release of Chief Diversity Officer TaJuan Wilsons Inclusive Excellence action plan, The George-Anne spoke with Wilson about the plan and other Inclusive Excellence-related topics.

This is a partial transcript from part of that conversation.

Andy Cole, Editor-in-Chief of The George-Anne: You said words matter. You know, a lot of students take issue with the words Georgia Southern usesthe First Amendment excuse. Weve got a kid, you know, two people over the summer that are in blackface. A lot of students feel that all Georgia Southern says is, Well, we respect the right to the First Amendment. And now you have this opportunity to say, really, this is whats up. Personally, when you see Logan Sierra, for exampleyou know, there was a similar incident like [Sierras] at The University of Florida. This person was a freshman, and they didnt expel him but they rescinded his application. And I told my friends, in just talking about the incident, You know, theyll lose in court. Theres no question about it, they will lose that court case. But, the message that it sends to the campus community is, Hey, we hate this so much that were willing to go to court for it.

So why not, if youre really about it and youre saying words matter, why not say, Lets commit to anti-racism. I think students will find it hard to believe that Georgia Southern is about it, but we dont really want to commit to anti-racism.

I agree with you 100-percentthe First Amendment excuse is out. Right?

TaJuan Wilson, chief diversity officer and associate vice president for inclusive excellence

TaJuan Wilson, Chief Diversity Officer and Associate Vice President of Inclusive Excellence: Yeah, I would say that were absolutely going to commit to anti racism. So I dont want people to get lost in the language as much as the work that theyre going to see coming out of the office. And I think that thats important. And I thinkI agree with you 100-percentthe I agree with you 100-percentthe First Amendment excuse is out. Right? First Amendment excuse is out. Right? Folks are sick of that. And thats fair, and its understandable. And I think what matters to me is not so much the First Amendment protections, because First Amendment protections are important and they protect folks on both sides of an issue and I know you get that, but its how we show up for our students in the moment and how we support them that Im most concerned about. That is what matters to me the most. And I will tell you in the case of Logan Sierra, Logan is not a student at Georgia Southern University. Right?

Cole: But thats not due to the universitys actions. He chose not to come here.

Wilson: He chose not to come here. He chose not to come after a series of meetings and interactions with leadership at the university where we had the opportunity to reach out to the family to connect, to talk about our institutional values, to talk about the impact to our students, to talk about the impact to his potential experience at the university. And it was ultimately decided100-percent by his familythat Georgia Southern University was not going to be the place that he attended. And we respect that decision wholeheartedly. And I agree, we see lots of other institutions and other states and other systems that take a different approach than what we take here in the great state of Georgia. And I wish that I had a better response for you. I will tell you that there are more examples of institutions not expelling students in these situations than examples of institutions who do expel students in these situations. And to your earlier point, they will lose in court, they will absolutely lose in court. And so I also think about what we hope is the transformative experience of higher education, as well.

I personally, you know, grew up in South Arkansas in a really small town, I wasnt a perfect person when I arrived at my undergraduate campus, and neither were any of my peers, as well. And I do think that there are things that we absolutely have to stand up for and call out in the moment. And I think that thats very real. But I also think of what a better person I was three and a half years later, when I graduated from undergrad, because of the experience. If Im a student, and Ive never been exposed to a person of color, if Ive lived in a town in Georgia, or anywhere in the country, or anywhere in the world, where Ive had the opportunity to never experience a different person, and then develop all of these, you know, preconceived notions, these thoughts, these perceptions of what that life must be like, or what that person must be like and then I show up in this space, or I made a mistake just before getting to this space and I never had the opportunity to actually enjoy this environment or get to know people who are different than me or get that level of exposure. Right? And I think thats a huge disservice. Right?

We are committed to anti racism it just didnt show up in the plan

TaJuan Wilson, chief diversity officer and associate vice president for inclusive excellence

Threats, harassment, discrimination, those are the three things that we can act on and act on all day, every single day. The rest of the situations get really complicated. As you know, as we witness time and time again, at the institution we will do more, and were committed to doing more, I want to be very clear about that. And so were going to stand up, were going to support our students, were going to stand in that moment with them. Were going to bridge that gap. That is our obligation as an institution. Im not an attorney. And I dont pretend to be an attorney. And so there are some things that, you know, I dont want students to conflate what my role is, with this notion that my job is to kick students out of school and to punish people.

Thats not what a chief diversity officer is. My job is to come in and build a comprehensive strategy that moves this institution forward. And sometimes that takes time, significant time, and work and effort. But thats what Im committed to. And I agree, First Amendment [excuse] is out. We have to do more, we have to stand in the gap we need to be in the moment with our students. We are committed to anti racism, I want to say that equivocally, we are, absolutely, as an institution. It just did not show up in the plan. But it does not mean that thats not the work that were engaged in at the institution. But our words matter. Calling people in, not calling people out, is absolutely critical.

Continued here:

The First Amendment excuse is out The George-Anne Media Group - The George-Anne

Screw public health, the First Amendment demands the state allow large spooky walking tours through Salem, tour operators say – Universal Hub

Two companies that run walking tours of Salem are suing the state over Covid-19 orders that effectively limit the size of their gatherings to just a dozen people, saying that's an impermissible violation of their free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

Why, Salem Ghosts and Zaal Ventures say, they've had to turn people away when they reached that limit, in an age when the state does nothing to stop far larger Black Lives Matter demonstrations and church services and are asking a judge in US District Court in Boston to issue an injunction to let them resume walking tours with up to 50 people at a time.

Even in the face of the Pandemic, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cannot set unreasonably restrict and arbitrarily ignore the First Amendment rights of its citizens. ...

Walking tours inherently involve speech protected under the Free Speech Clauseof the First Amendmentas applied to the states and their political subdivision under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Also:

Other guided tours that use buses or some form of a motorized vehicle on public streets are permitted to operate at a 50% capacity. Therefore, a guided tour such as a Duck Tour which regularly hold 32 people at a time, is permitted to provide a guided tour to more than 10 to 12 people. ...

Although the governmental restrictions reduced Plaintiffs right to have 50 people participate in an outdoor guided walking tour on public streets and public sidewalks to only 10 to 12 people, an outdoor gathering on the same public streets and public sidewalks for political expression is not subject to any limitation while other outdoor gatherings on public streets and sidewalks allow more than 10 to 12 people at a time.

The Commonwealth's restrictions issued by Governor Baker and Secretary Keneally burden a substantial category of protected speech based on the content of the speechwalking tours.

The latest state Covid-19 statistics show Salem now has a test positivity rate of 4.1%, with an average count of new daily cases per 100,000 people of 41.6 - higher than Boston. Last month, the city ran an ad campaign urging people to stay away from Witch City for Halloween because of Covid-19.

View original post here:

Screw public health, the First Amendment demands the state allow large spooky walking tours through Salem, tour operators say - Universal Hub