Monthly Archives: January 2021

Meta Vaux Warrick Fuller's sculpture at Harriet Tubman Square in Boston (Photo by Erin Clark/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Black History Month will commence on Feb. 1 with National Freedom Day, a day of observance that commemorates the end of slavery in the United States.

The day marks the signing of a resolution between former President Abraham Lincoln and Congress that became the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery. Lincoln signed the measure on Feb. 1, 1865, although it wasnt ratified by states until much later.

According to the Library of Congress, Richard Robert Wright, Sr., who was once enslaved, fought to have a day that celebrates freedom for all Americans. After gaining his own freedom, Wright became a businessman and activist in Philadelphia and urged people to celebrate that freedom on Feb. 1, in honor of when the the 13th Amendment was signed.

RELATED: Black History Month: The little-known backstory

President Harry Truman made National Freedom Day an official observance when he signed the bill in 1948 "to promote good feelings, harmony, and equal opportunity among all citizens and to remember that the United States is a nation dedicated to the ideal of freedom," according to the Library of Congress.

Before signing the 13th Amendment, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free." Rebellious states were those that succeeded from the U.S. during the Civil War.

Slavery did not immediately end when the Emancipation Proclamation was signed. It wasnt until June 19, 1865 when Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger and his Union troops arrived at Galveston, Texas that the last group of enslaved people in the country heard the war had ended and they were now free.

Granger delivered General Order No. 3, which said: "The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor."

RELATED: Juneteenth now a permanent state holiday in Virginia

The next year, the now-freed slaves celebrated on the anniversary in Galveston. The celebration has since continued on the same day - known as Juneteenth - around the nation and the world.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia recognize Juneteenth as a state holiday or day of recognition, like Flag Day. Countries like South Korea, Ghana, Israel, Taiwan, France, and the U.S. territory of Guam have held or now hold Juneteenth celebrations.

A resolution recognizing Juneteenth as a national holiday passed the Senate last year, but the accompanying resolution has not been approved in the House.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. This story was reported from Los Angeles.

Read this article:

Feb. 1 marks National Freedom Day, observing the end of slavery - FOX 2 Detroit

Getty Images

Tom Brady isnt the only former Patriot who is thriving in Tampa Bay. Rob Gronkowski is, too, and Gronk rubbed a little salt in the New England wound on Friday.

Via JoeBucsFan.com, Gronk said while appearing on SiriusXM NFL Radio that Patriots coach Bill Belichick and Buccaneers coach Bruce Arians have totally different approaches to the media, and to player behavior.

Coming here, its is a complete 180, for sure, totally different, Gronk said. I mean, I feel like the biggest difference is just having the freedom of being yourself in this organization.

To be fair, Gronk always seemed to have the freedom to be himself in New England unlike most players. If anything, Gronk has seemed more restrained and less visible this year, possibly because he doesnt have quite the same level of skills that he once possessed.

Regardless, its no surprise that things are different between New England and Tampa Bay. And, other than this year, New Englands approach has proven to be far more successful.

Read more here:

Rob Gronkowski likes the freedom of being yourself in Tampa - NBC Sports

Rising hit maker Jimmie Allen teams with Brad Paisley for his latest single, rolling the windows down for an open road, coming-of-age anthem titled Freedom Was a Highway.

Filled with teenage dreams and wind-in-your-face optimism, Allen co-wrote the track with fellow tunesmiths Ash Bowers and Matt Rogers. It features a cruising, modern country-rock sound and hard-driving rhythm plus a full-throttle guitar solo from Paisley and the all-star partners say they still remember feeling the tracks emotional heartbeat. When all they wanted to do was chase the horizon, and paradise was just a tank of gas away.

When I was writing this song with my co-writers, I imagined myself driving down my favorite roads in Delaware. This song takes me back to simpler moments such as an innocent, childhood crush on the next-door neighbor or feeling freedom in the wind as you drive with the windows down. Ive loved this song from the creation,says Jimmie Allenin an official statement. Im a huge admirer of Brad Paisley. I love what he brings to music and I had to have him bring that same magic to this song. Im humbled to have him join me on this song he brought the Freedom to the Highway.Im a fan of Jimmie, not only as a musician but also as a person, and I was honored when he asked me to join him on the song, Paisley adds. Its a magical combination it doesnt sound like a typical record for me at all and when I come in, I try my best not to ruin Jimmies song. I use my guitar to make a record sort of sound like Im on it, even before you hear me sing, and I love this guitar solo. Im really proud to be a part of Freedom Was a Highway and Im excited for people to hear it.

When the town was the whole world / And love was the girl next door / Soundtrack was a song in the dark / I miss those days when our dreams were there for chasin / But time was better wasted / We were summer young and livin for a Friday / And freedom was a highway, goes the chorus.

Freedom Was a Highway first appeared on Allens 2020 EP, Bettie James, and it will now be shipped to country radio for airplay starting February 1. Bettie James also included Allens This Is Us duet with Noah Cyrus, and the Delaware native broke out with back-to-back Number Ones, Best Shot and Make Me Want To.

Excerpt from:

Jimmie Allen and Brad Paisley Cruise on Freedom Was a Highway - Sounds Like Nashville

by Marcus K. Dowling 1/29/2021

Make music you love for the people that love you.

Country crooner Jimmie Allen counts this as the best piece of advice he received from his friend and dearly-departed country icon Charley Pride. One listen to Freedom Was A Highway Allens new superstar duet with Brad Paisley shows that this advice was well heard.

When the town was the whole world / And love was the girl next door / Soundtrack was a song in the dark / I miss those days when our dreams / Were there for chasin / But time was better wasted / We were summer young and livin for a Friday / And freedom was a highway / Freedom was a highway, Allen sings in a tone yearning for less complicated American days.

Allens big breakthrough could be one hit away.

To-date 2018s Best Shot, was a platinum-selling debut single. His 2019 hit Make Me Want To was a solid, gold-selling follow-up. As well, hes received nominations from CMT, the CMA Awards, and the Academy of Country Music Awards rewarding his work. Though 2020 was a relatively quiet year for Allen, both Freedom Was A Highway, as well as his recent social media tease of No Limits a track with rap-country hybrid artist and CMT Listen Up singer Blanco Brown shows that 2021 will be a busy year with great potential for continued career growth.

After a year wherein Allen performed alongside Pride at the CMA Awards in the legends last performance before his mournful passing, it appears hes ready to assume the torch passed to him and dive long and deep into universal pop-country appeal.

Read more from the original source:

Jimmie Allen Yearns For Better Days With Brad Paisley Duet "Freedom Was a Highway" - CMT.com

LONDON - Britain's government vowed Friday to stand by the people of its former colony, Hong Kong, against a Chinese crackdown as it prepared to launch a new visa scheme potentially benefiting millions.

Starting Sunday, holders of British National (Overseas) status a legacy of British rule over Hong Kong up to 1997 will be able to apply to live and work in Britain for up to five years, and eventually seek citizenship.

Before the change, BN(O) passport holders have had only limited rights to visit Britain for up to six months and not to work or settle.

Britain says it is acting in response to the National Security Law imposed by China last year, which has devastated Hong Kong's democracy movement and shredded freedoms meant to last 50 years under the 1997 handover accord.

"I am immensely proud that we have brought in this new route for Hong Kong BN(O)s to live, work and make their home in our country," Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in a statement.

"In doing so, we have honored our profound ties of history and friendship with the people of Hong Kong, and we have stood up for freedom and autonomy values both the U.K. and Hong Kong hold dear."

Any Hong Kong resident born before 1997 is eligible for BN(O) status. The new visa path opens up entry to the United Kingdom to an estimated 2.9 million adults in Hong Kong and another 2.3 million of their dependents.

In practice, London projects that up to 322,400 of Hong Kong's 7.5 million population will take up the visa over five years, benefiting the British economy by up to $4 billion.

The new pathway will not be cheap.

A five-year visa will cost a relatively moderate $343 per person. But a mandatory surcharge to access Britain's state-run health service will run to $4,280 per adult, and $3,224 for those under 18.

Shorter, cheaper visas for 30 months will also be available.

Security law

"We have been clear we won't look the other way when it comes to Hong Kong. We will live up to our historic responsibility to its people," Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said.

"China's imposition of the National Security Law in Hong Kong constitutes a clear and serious breach of the [pre-handover]Sino-British Joint Declaration contrary to international law," he added.

The security law was imposed on Hong Kong last June in response to 2019 protests, targeting acts Beijing deems to be secession, subversion, terrorism or collusion with foreign forces.

Mass arrests of pro-democracy figures have followed. Some have fled Hong Kong for the West, including to Britain.

Between July and this month, about 7,000 people with BN(O) status and their dependents have already been given exceptional leave to live in Britain.

China, furious at Britain's new visa pathway, has in turn accused London of flouting the handover agreement and demanded Western countries stay out of Hong Kong's affairs.

Continued here:

Britain Upholding 'Freedom and Autonomy' With New HK Visas - VOA Asia

Lisa Mantini

Stillwater

To the editor:

What an unusual combo on page A4 (Thursday), a letter by a writer who gets his facts wrong and who seems quite angry about it, combined with an essay by Rich Lowry seemingly arguing that we should support free speech under all cases, facts notwithstanding.

I find the conflict between the need for accuracy in reporting and for freedom of speech to be a very difficult one. We all accept that you cant shout Fire in a crowded theater when youre lying, because people will get hurt in the crush to reach the exits. But former President Trump weaponized lying to an extent not seen before in American history. And we see what we got from his lies about the security of the 2020 presidential election: a murderous, angry mob attacking our very democracy, and many folks continuing to believe that the election, our most secure in recent history according to Trumps own government, was rigged.

What to do?

For me, I check the reliability of my news sources at places like adfontesmedia.com. Notice that the AP, UPI, and Reuters are at the very top of their chart, rated as unbiased and as containing original fact reporting. I also watch NBC News, rated as skews left and highly accurate with Fact Reporting. But I avoid both MSNBC, rated as hyperpartisan left and high variation in reliability and Fox TV, rated as hyper-partisan right and Selective or incomplete story, unfair persuasion, propaganda.

I would urge all consumers of media to peruse their chart, in order to be aware of the quality of what you choose to read and watch.

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.

Visit link:

LETTERS: Freedom of the Press | Opinion | stwnewspress.com - Stillwater News Press

On Jan. 8, Twitter permanently suspended former U.S. President Donald Trumps account, "@realDonaldTrump," on the grounds that Trump might use it to further incite violence, violating the company's Glorification of Violence Policy.

Some appreciated the ban as a necessary move against hate speech whereas others, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, thought it went too far as a violation of freedom of expression.

The suspension, controversial all on its own, is a display of a wider scope and more complex issue: social media platforms and their implications for the protection of freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is recognized and protected by several states and international instruments, and it can only be restricted under certain conditions. Accordingly, countries have negative and positive obligations for the protection of freedom of expression.

However, with the development of technology, states are no longer the only interferer and duty bearer for protection, and it is no longer possible to evaluate freedom of expression from a dual perspective within the framework of the state-individual relationship.

Therefore, social media platforms and their implications for protecting freedom of expression should be assessed while taking into account states, individuals and social media platforms.

The nature and classification, whether public or private, of social media is important for determining the rights and obligations of states, social media platforms and individuals with regard to freedom of speech.

If social media platforms are regarded as solely belonging to the private sphere, where the relationship is governed by the terms and conditions of platforms, the social media company might remove content, suspend accounts and refuse to provide services as per their terms and conditions, whether the action has a legal basis or not.

In his explanation regarding the suspension of Trumps account, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey mentioned that people can go to other services if they are not happy with Twitters terms and conditions.

This is a clear example of how the relationship between social media platforms and individuals is seen as purely contractual, i.e. private, and therefore the relationship can be governed only as per the terms and conditions.

However, since social media platforms are mostly monopolies, removal or suspension disables access to a particular social media channel, and even though not legally binding, companies are expected to comply with human rights obligations. It is clear that social media platforms cannot have absolute say over removal and suspension based on their terms and conditions.

In addition, even though social media platforms operate as per private law, they increasingly constitute a "modern public square" for speech, therefore, they are not purely private.

For this reason, social media platforms policies should comply with human rights law. Therefore, human rights due diligence and remedy mechanisms should be made available by them.

Different states' viewpoints on these issues, their expectations from social media companies and the responsibilities they put on the platforms for content-monitoring may differ.

In some states, where the relationship between social media platforms and individuals are accepted mostly within the private sphere, there is not a special regulation that obliges social media platforms to monitor content.

Under these circumstances, social media platforms may voluntarily prefer to monitor and remove the content and accounts that are illegal, such as those consisting of hate speech, child abuse, threats to national security or violations of their policies, whether the policies have a legal basis or not.

However, voluntary removal may lead to an arbitrary practice by social media platforms since most of the time, their terms of conditions are not clear and they lack adequate governance on the conditions for removal, restriction or termination of access to a service.

On the contrary, some states hold social media companies liable when they refuse a request to remove content or suspend an account. Moreover, they require social media platforms to regulate content and remove or suspend content when necessary.

For example, in Germany, under the Network Enforcement Act, social media platforms are obliged to remove illegal content or be subjected to fines up to 50 million euros ($60.53 million).

Even though this may seem like a more legal and secure approach, the biggest problem is that then the platform will operate out of fear of fines. This problem becomes more tricky and complicated with the employment of automatic filters.

YouTube, for example, automatically deleted a U.K. human rights watchdogs videos showing Syrian atrocities even though there was an obvious condemnation of violence. In other words, the videos were not illegal.

In addition, people in charge of watching over content may not necessarily have the required information about relevant laws and the principles for restriction. Combined with the lack of warning, open-case policy and not providing the right to defense, over-removal and a lack of legal infrastructure of which the states are partly responsible may lead to more severe human rights breaches.

In that case, governments may be held liable for the human rights breaches arising from social media platforms removal and suspension since states were the ones incentivizing self-regulation.

Although constantly changing technology and the use of social media platforms by users residing in different jurisdictions makes it difficult to adopt a single promising approach states should enact an appropriate and balanced regulatory framework for content-monitoring, and social media platforms should have an open policy, due diligence on human rights and remedy mechanisms regarding removals and suspensions.

Visit link:

Social media platforms and freedom of expression | Daily Sabah - Daily Sabah