Daily Archives: February 3, 2022

The road to establishing the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, which was the first African American labor union to be recognized by the American Federation of Labor, was in no way easy.

That winding journey, and the men and women who assisted on it, will be explored on Saturday at the Albany Institute of History & Art with the premiere of Conversations on Freedom, a film written by Albany resident Donald Hyman. Hes been researching and workshopping the theatrical production for the last three years, reading as many historical documents and books about the Pullman porters as he could.

The Pullman Company was founded by George Pullman during the boom of railroads in the United States, starting in the mid-to-late 19th century. The company offered luxury traveling experiences, with sleeper cars that were, as Hyman describes them, a hotel on wheels. Some 100,000 people were traveling overnight on Pullman company cars during its peak, according to Hyman.

The porters on those cars were almost exclusively Black.

In the 1920s alone, there were over 20,000 African American men and women who worked as Pullman porters on those trains, Hyman said.

Working conditions were horrendous. Many had to work upwards of 20 hours a day and they werent provided with adequate sleeping accommodations. Employees werent referred to by their own names but were instead called George after the companys founder. Those who tried to unionize in the early 1920s were often fired or punished as the Pullman Company spied on its employees.

Women like Rosina Corrothers Tucker and Helena Wilson, whose husbands were Pullman porters, came to play a key part in bringing the porters together.

In the early years, women were instrumental in these organizing efforts, said Kim Wafter, who plays Tucker in Conversations on Freedom. The Pullman company would monitor employees activities and punish those who supported the union. Tucker was a vital part in making sure that union information was distributed and members were well informed about union business without the Pullman Companys knowledge.

In 1925, with the help of activist A. Philip Randolph, along with Tucker and Wilson, the porters were able to form the first African American labor union recognized by the American Federation of Labor.

In Conversations on Freedom, Hyman plays Randolph and Amelia Paul takes on the role of Wilson. The performance was recorded at the Albany Institute of History & Art late last year by Open Stage Media. The film features period photos and images of historical letters, as well as monologues by each of the three actors.

For Paul, the production feels personal.

Ive had the luxury of having a good job AKA, a job with (unionized) benefits. I also knew that my grand uncle was a Pullman porter, Paul said.

Through this project, I had the opportunity to look further into what actually got me here. I learned how Sister Helena Wilson was influential in the start of collective bargaining and also how her efforts impacted my life, and my work history. She played a huge role in us not only having benefits on a job, but also having civil rights in the workplace through what ended up in the anti-discrimination laws that are in place, widely used, and still needed even today, Paul said.

During her lifetime, Wilson created the Colored Womens Economic Council and was president of the Ladies Auxiliary of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.

Tucker continued to fight for civil rights and eventually became the president of the Womens Economic Councils (now called the International Ladies Auxiliary Order).

It was a great honor to tell this story. It was one that I was not familiar with but learned how it changed the lives for the better for Black employees, Wafer said. Through these efforts, salaries for workers were increased, a grievance policy was instituted and labor conditions improved.

Saturdays showing of the film, which is about 15 minutes, will also include poetry by Penny Meacham and a discussion with the actors.

We rounded it off by talking about our grandparents because most of us are descendants from the south or from the Caribbean and we all had uncles or aunts, or grandparents that worked in service of blue-collar services, either as maids or housekeepers, or cooks, or janitors, Hyman said.

Debora Brown-Johnson, president of the NAACPs Albany branch, will also interview Hyman about the making of the film.

WHEN: 2 p.m. SaturdayWHERE: Albany Institute of History & Arts and live-streamedTICKETS: $10 for nonmuseum members including admission and $10 suggested donation for members. Registration is required.MORE INFO: albanyinstitute.org NOTE: For those interested but unable to attend Saturdays event, OSM will be airing the production throughout the month.

Categories: Entertainment, Life and Arts

See the original post:

Film 'Conversations on Freedom' to premiere at Albany Institute The Daily Gazette - The Daily Gazette

The author and podcaster Roxane Gay has joined the (so far, small) exodus of artists who are choosing to leave Spotify rather than share a platform with Joe Rogan and his COVID misinformation. "It was a difficult decision there are a lot of listeners on the platform," she wrote Thursday in The New York Times, "and I may never recoup that audience elsewhere."

This isn't the first time Gay has taken this kind of stand. In 2017, she pulled a forthcoming book from the publisher Simon & Schuster after that company gave a six-figure book deal to right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. (The contract was later canceled after he got too provocative.) On Thursday, Gay explained her departure from Spotify by looking back at that incident.

Yiannopoulos "had every right to air his political beliefs, but he didn't have a right to a lucrative book contract," she wrote. "Nor did I, for that matter. The right I did have was to decide who I wanted to do business with."

It's not about censorship, in other words. It's about freedom of association.

Much of the commentary about Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, and the other artists leaving Spotify over Rogan's podcast has cast the kerfuffle as another example of "cancel culture." Young and Mitchell "are the latest to join a growing number of journalists, academics, and artists in favor of censorship," wrote law professor Jonathan Turley. But that's not struck me as quite right. For one thing, Rogan's podcast is too big to cancel he has a reported 11 million daily listeners. As a number of observers have pointed out, that number would probably get bigger if he left his exclusive Spotify contract and was able to distribute across multiple platforms.

Young, meanwhile, left Spotify not with a cry for Rogan to be canceled but a demand to be released from the platform. "They can have Rogan or Young," he wrote in a public letter. "Not both." That's a claim rooted in a right to associate or not with the persons and companies of his choosing.

Americans love to fight about freedom of speech, but we don't as often talk about freedom of association, which is also a First Amendment right. That's a shame. "Like free speech, freedom of association has been enshrined in liberal democratic jurisprudence here and across the world; liberal theorists from John Stuart Mill to John Rawls have declared it one of the essential human liberties," Osita Nwanevu wrote in 2020 at The New Republic. "Yet associative freedom is often entirely absent from popular discourse about liberalism and our political debates, perhaps because liberals have come to take it entirely for granted."

Gay is plenty critical of Rogan, and of Spotify for employing him. But she doesn't have the power legal, cultural, or otherwise to cancel him. Instead, she packed her bags and left. That's her right.

Visit link:

The Spotify controversy isn't 'cancel culture' - The Week Magazine

To Ada Petriczko, being born a woman can be a matter of life or death. Hailing from Poland, she reports on sexual violence and gender injustices around the globe. As a human rights journalist, her mission is to amplify the voices of women who have been systematically silenced by their communities and governments. Their stories have to be heard, she argues, in order to reshape our societies. This includes reporting on her home country, where democratic stability and womens rights are increasingly under threat.

Petriczko joined the MIT Center for International Studies (CIS) last fall as its Elizabeth Neuffer Fellow. The fellowship is awarded annually by The International Womens Media Foundation and provides its recipient with research opportunities at MIT and further training at The Boston Globe and The New York Times.

Recently, she sat down to discuss her guiding principles as a journalist, the challenges facing her craft, and the rewarding experiences of this fellowship. She also weighs in on the rise of autocracy in Central and Eastern Europe. On Feb. 3, she will explore this topic and its impact on free media at a CIS Starr Forum event with experts from Poland, Hungary, and Russia.

Q: One of your fields of interest is ethics in journalism. What does it mean to be an ethical journalist to you? And what are some of the challenges that ethical journalism faces today?

A: I dont believe in objectivity, but I do believe in fairness. Ethical journalism is about being fair to the facts and being fair to the people youre writing about. Aidan White, an esteemed journalist who founded the Ethical Journalism Network, told me in an interview that there are about 400 different journalism codes of conduct in the world, but if you examine them closely, they all boil down to the same five core principles: accuracy, independence, impartiality, humanity, and accountability. I try to play by these rules.

I report on sexual violence and other human rights violations within vulnerable communities and have been in situations in which people dont want to share their experiences. I always respect their requests and back out, even if Ive traveled far for the story. This can be a deal breaker in our current news landscape, which is extremely fast-paced and demanding. Ethical journalism takes more time and more thought. But Ive found ways to talk about taboos without violating them. And that is oftentimes even more powerful.

We are facing a transitional moment in the information ecosystem. The rise of social media, and the obsolete financial models for media outlets, have negatively impacted ethical journalism. Time and money are needed to support in-depth reportage, which is becoming increasingly limited.

The global rise of autocracy, of course, is also challenging democratic institutions, including the freedom of press and speech. And the Covid-19 pandemic has provided crumbling democracies the perfect excuse to do just that.

In Poland, for example, we're facing a humanitarian crisis on the Belarussian border where thousands of migrants are seeking refuge from horrific situations. Soon after the Covid-19 outbreak, the Polish government banned reporters from entering the border region to cover the crisis. This is without precedent in the post-war history of Europe.

NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] and multinational organizations around the globe are starting to address these issues as real threats. Maria Ressa, who received the Nobel Peace Prize for journalism, and whom Ive recently interviewedfor The Boston Globe, is championing an international fund for journalists. So this brings me an element of hope.

Q: Youve partnered with journalists from other countries for certain projects, including Witch Hunt. Tell us more about this style of work referred to as cross-border journalism and why it is important.

A: In the cross-border method, journalists work as partners on one story but remain within their respective countries, cultures, and ethnicities. This kind of reportage allows a journalist to bring a unique perspective and expertise to the story without having to travel hundreds or thousands of miles. The Panama Papers is probably the most famous example of this kind of reporting; a global team worked together to expose the corruption of the offshore finance industry.

Cross-border journalism provides a cheaper, more culturally sensitive and ecologically conscious alternative to classic foreign reporting. That said, the traditional model has many benefits. There are stories in which the perspective of an outsider is simply priceless. Ive spent the better part of my career on assignments in India and South America, and as much as I love working on location, Ive realized over the years that this type of reporting is becoming unsustainable. The climate crisis and the other threats I discussed earlier, will make the traditional style of foreign reporting more and more difficult and rare.

On top of that, the cross-border model provides an opportunity to hear from journalists who are not part of the mainstream, usually Anglo Saxon media. We all read The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and The Boston Globe, which are amazing outlets with long traditions and high journalistic standards. But theres also an inherent bias at work there. Even though English is the lingua franca of today, a journalist who is not a native speaker has a very slim chance of getting hired as staff in one of these major outlets.

Q: What have you been working on during your fellowship?

A: Im using the fellowship to dig deeper into the topics that Ive been reporting on over the past three years. For example, Im taking a class on the history of India, which has helped me better understand the impact that colonialism and partition has had on womens rights and violence in that region. This will provide invaluable context to my most important project a nonfiction book on the 45 million women who are missing from the Indian population due to wide-spread sex selection. As part of my research in Boston, I interviewed Amartya Sen (forthcoming in The Boston Globe), a Nobel Prize laureate in economics, who was the first person to calculate that over 100 million women are missing from the world population. In my book, Im trying to understand the implications of this phenomenon. How do communities cope with such a huge absence of women? Why does this scarcity give rise to even more violence against women? How does this impact the future of families in these communities?

At MIT, Ive also been exploring freedom of speech in my part of the world the Central European region where weve seen a rise of autocracy.

At The Boston Globe, I was a member of the editorial board, which was a remarkable experience. And, in addition to interviewing two Nobel Prize laureates, I wrote opinion pieces and editorials on abortion rights in Texasand the humanitarian crisis in Poland.Now Im preparing for my residency at The New York Times.

The biggest value for me is the opportunity to train under the mentorship of the finest editors and the academics in the world. This has boosted my confidence as a reporter and will hopefully make me a valuable voice in the public debate of my country, which has found itself at the crossroads between democracy and autocracy. Being in the U.S., where the democratic institutions are still robust, has helped me remember where my values lie.

See original here:

3 Questions: Women's rights and rising threats to press freedom worldwide - MIT News

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) A new feature film is set to premiere in Las Vegas in two weeks called Vertical Freedom.

It was produced, directed and shot by a Sioux Falls company over the past year and a half.

As youre about to see, this film takes you to places where very few of us will ever get to go or ever want to.

Vertical Freedom is a story of six individuals, and each of them are tower climbers, that is their career and passion, Collin McKenzie Storybuilt Media said.

A passion not many of us could stomach.

But Storybuilt Media of Sioux Falls had a gut feeling this film would be like no other; telling the story of what its like to be a tower climber.

We take you with them we are not just on the ground shooting up, oh theres a little person up there, our director of photography Doug Lee climbed with them, so when they are climbing up, hes already up there, McKenzie said.

Hanging one to two thousand feet in the air, you could say its one of the highest-paying jobs in America.

Every once in awhile you just look down and go holy cow what am I doing up here, Lee said.

Doug Lee, who has some experience with towers, did most of the climbing in order to get these incredibly breathtaking shots.

He says knowing he had a job to do was a helpful distraction.

If I was just hanging out there, I think Id be thinking about the height a lot more, but when you have something to do and something you have to accomplish, you just have to do your thing and not worry about the height, Lee said.

For the climbers, their job is to repair cell phone towers.

You know you see cell towers all over the place but you really dont think about them so we knew we wanted to highlight a career or job you might not even be aware of that was our initial goal, Storybuilt Media photographer Don McLeer said.

You may call them crazy, but in the film youll see theyre real people, just like you and I.

We are all on our own climb and we are sharing that climb with these climbers and seeing their lives and we can all relate to getting through something difficult and to get to the beauty on the other side, Lee said.

Its not just about climbing its about them and their struggles and how they overcame things as well thats super powerful, McKenzie said.

Vertical Freedom was shot at several different locations across the country. If youd like to see the movie trailer in its entirety, click here.

Read this article:

Filming Vertical Freedom 2,000 feet in the air - KELOLAND.com

A movie that was widely discussed for asking disturbing questions about how patriarchy works inside families and marriages, The Great Indian Kitchen was a movie which exposed the hypocrisy and toxicity of male privilege inside our own families. The Great Indian Kitchen director-writer Jeo Baby has said in many interviews that his movie was a result of genuine self-introspection as a male who finally has to take the responsibility of the kitchen. Since the release of The Great Indian Kitchen, the whole discourse around spaces like kitchen and family has been reshaped and reinvented as many women have dared to come out and speak about the discrimination or burden they have been facing because of predetermined gender roles starting from the families itself. As Great Indian Kitchen fame Jeo Baby is all set to release his next movie titled Freedom Fight which is an anthology, the director talks about his politics on issues of patriarchy, Sabarimala and his upcoming project.

Starting from The Great Indian Kitchen, when did you decide this was a subject that needs to be told?

I have said this in many interviews. As a person involved in the field of art, this concept first struck me when I started working in a kitchen. I realised the importance of this subject and also realised how much the kitchen was ignored by writers and filmmakers. The reason for that is the male dominant society. This happens because of a historical conditioning by the patriarchal society we are part of. Even if you look at the works of women writers, the subject of kitchen is discussed very rarely and that I think it is because of this conditioning. Male writers have ignored it conveniently so that they dont have to work in a kitchen. Its an escapism to ignore kitchen as a subject. After my marriage in 2015, its my personal experiences with the kitchen space that formed the base of The Great Indian Kitchen and its more of a self-introspective thought process. Though we have cooked in a kitchen, the dread and horror of it strikes when you take the full responsibility of the kitchen and that made me think of this subject seriously and prompted me to write The Great Indian Kitchen.

The climax of The Great Indian Kitchen touches upon a volatile topic where the heroine (played by Nimisha) throws dirty water on her husband who is fasting to visit Sabarimala. How did you decide to stick on to that particular climax which could have attracted threats to your life?

I started planning this movie in 2017. It takes me some time to fine tune a subject. It was during that time the Supreme Court verdict which allowed women of all ages to enter Sabarimala was declared. Though it was portrayed as a progressive move at first, soon we witnessed how the verdict was seen as a threat to religious sentiments and all that. Again the burden was on the women as they were the ones who were not allowed to enter a temple because of their biology. I find that the regressive attitude against women starts from home. If a man from a home is planning to go for a Sabarimala pilgrimage, a woman in that house cant touch him or cook food while shes on her periods. Even her movements are restricted inside a home during that time. So more than the courage to touch a so-called sensitive subject, I consider it my responsibility as an artist to bring that subject into perspective. If we have to be fearful of a society to talk about such a subject, its not our problem. Its societys problem. I deliberately used the Sabarimala reference in my movie. It was a conscious effort to do something through my movie to throw at least a stone against this Hindutwa propaganda. See, The Great Indian Kitchen could have been made without touching the Sabarimala issue and it would have been cinematically better if I would have done it without touching the Sabarimala issue. However, I was adamant to include it even if it looks deliberate, mainly because I felt so much indignation, seeing the way women are being insulted and out-casted by these religious views. Also this issue has helped me to overcome the creative block or dilemma I had with the climax of the movie. It may be my shortcoming as a filmmaker for not using something subtle for that climax, but I am confident that it was very relevant. It has to be said strongly considering the times we live in where society is holding onto outdated religious views. And I think that climax helped the movie to be discussed more and even it helped many women to rethink their position on this issue.

As a filmmaker who has touched upon the Sabarimala issue and womens rights through your movie, how do you see the constant attack by RSS on Bindu Ammini, the first woman who entered Sabarimala following the Supreme Court verdict. And how do you see the state governments approach when it comes to the repeated physical attacks on Bindu?

Firstly, the left parties took a strong and progressive stance on womens entry into Sabarimala. People like us were happy regarding the stance of Left government on this issue. Then, Bindu Ammini and Kanaka Durga entered Sabarimala. Initially, even the mainstream media celebrated the entry of women in Sabarimala. The first impact was positive, I think. But slowly in the name of religious sentiments, we have seen how Sangh Parivar outfits and even Congress took a very regressive stance on this issue. Subsequently, the Left also diluted their stance which is disappointing. See, the Left government clearly used Bindu Ammini and Kanaka Durga to make a statement. These women have historical relevance. They have been helped by the Left government to enter Sabarimala with the help of police which gave the government a significant mileage in the minds of progressive people. But what happened after that? We have seen Devaswom Minister Kadakampalli Surendran asking for forgiveness for their stance and we saw the Left government taking a U-turn in their stance during the elections. Then we saw the Left government abandoning Bindu Ammini. See Bindu Ammini comes from a Dalit background and we all know what is Lefts attitude towards Dalit communities over the years. What we are seeing is a very unfortunate state of affairs. A historical woman like Bindu Ammini has to fight for justice and self-protection from the police. She has to fight for justice and her right to live without fear while the same Left government which supported womens entry into Sabarimala is ruling. This makes the situation even more worse. I was with Bindu Ammini during her fight for justice, so I know what she stands for. All this clearly shows the double standards of the current government which we never expected.

As a filmmaker who has closely observed the workings of patriarchy inside families, do you think the responsibility to run the family, the burden of being an ideal wife or ideal mother etc are imposed by patriarchy over women?

Yes, definitely. Many women are living in fear and suffocation inside these so-called families. Some of them are showing courage to come out by opening up about in social media and other platforms. Institutions like family which is a construct of patriarchy has held back the voices of women in general. Now things are slowly changing and we will hear more voices of women in the near future.

After the release of The Great Indian Kitchen, have you got messages from people, especially women, about how their life is similar to what youve shown in the movie?

Yes, Ive got thousands of messages, if not more. And many personal messages from women detailing their experiences in families are scarier than we can imagine. I havent completely read all the messages Ive received. I still have many unread messages in my Instagram which explain the experiences of women in their families. After reading many messages, I think what we have shown in The Great Indian Kitchen is actually a lighter version of womens experience inside families and marriages. The reality is even more brutal.Has your perspective changed as a filmmaker after the release of The Great Indian Kitchen, given the kind of reception it got?Not really. I am a filmmaker who wishes to reinvent my craft with every film I do or who wants to experiment in my films. Cinema has to change with the times we live in. But as a filmmaker, I dont think my perspective about cinema has changed much since the release of The Great Indian Kitchen. Im a person who enjoys all kinds of films, be it an entertainer, comedy or action film. The Great Indian Kitchen is just a movie in my film journey. Also, the films or the content for films is found only in the society I live in or the experiences I have had. I dont add much fiction to my movies other than some creative elements to connect the story. I try to stay true to reality which is evident from my other movies like Kunju Daivam, Randu Penkuttikal etc.

Tell us about your upcoming project Freedom Fight?

Its been almost a year since the release of The Great Indian Kitchen and the urge to make another film was constantly on my mind. But, we have this ongoing pandemic in front of us and the restrictions that come with it. So, it would be difficult to shoot a full length film in such a scenario. Thats when I thought of an anthology so that four or five movies of half an hour can be shot at different places and can be completed in one or two weeks. I finalized on a subject for my part and then I was on the look out for content for other movies. My plan was to put together five good movies and I was in search for other four movies after I finalised mine. I didnt plan for this title Freedom Fight or didnt have a general theme in mind. I didnt even know the other directors of this movie before, other than Francies Louis who was the editor of The Great Indian Kitchen. Francies briefed me on an idea he had in mind and I asked him to develop it- which made it two films including mine. I connected with the other three directors who are part of this anthology through their content. I told my idea to make an anthology in my friends circle. I just wanted to make five good movies. I didnt put forward any other restriction. I didnt want it to confine it to a particular genre or idea. I just said you can do the best with what you have. So it was through my friends that I got the other three directors of this film. We finalised the five movies and it all happened in different locations and different schedules. After seeing the first cut of the whole project, we realised that all these five movies are speaking about the freedom of humans or an individuals right for freedom. It happened accidentally and we decided to name the movie Freedom Fight.

Do you see filmmaking as activism or a medium to express a political stance?

It happens naturally because of the society we live in. I think filmmaking is a combination of activism, political statement and entertainment. How does international films from Iran or other war ridden countries portray the hard reality of the people affected by this man made conflict? It happens naturally. These socio-political situations affect our thought process even without our knowledge. Even if I want to make a movie for pure entertainment, some of the socio-political issues will be discussed in my film. It sometimes happens naturally because of the society we live in. I personally dont believe in making films to put across my political stance and I dont want to get typecast as a filmmaker. But, sometimes my political stance can be read in the films I make because I live in a society which has socio-political issues which need to be addressed and discussed.

Youve never held back on your views on socio-political issues. Do you think its a social obligation as an artist?

I think its our responsibility. But we should be genuine about what we say. What we see in political discourse , be it online or offline, is that we cannot stand an opposing idea. Theres no space for constructive discourse, instead its all done with an intention to silence the opposing view. I think its a kind of fascism. We talk against fascism but were not ready to confront the fascist tendencies inside ourselves. Weve seen the ban on Media One channel two days back and weve seen the dirty silence of many social media warriors on this issue. These are the kind of silences we should be ashamed of.

We have seen many movies with toxic content being celebrated over the years. In that perspective, what do you think can be considered as the success of a movie?

As an industry, the success of a movie is determined by the profit it makes for the producer. Other than that were seeing a definite change in Malayalam cinema in terms of content. Were seeing movies that discuss topics which were ignored before. Weve seen movies like Arkariyam, Saras, Thinkalazcha Nischayam, Jan E Man etc in the last year. Theres a definite shift in the treatment and subjects discussed in these movies and a group of filmmakers are responsible for this shift which is a good thing for our industry. These are young or new people who are bringing on this change and Im not saying all these movies are perfect or beyond criticism including mine, but that were changing is a very positive sign. The movies of a particular time period have influenced our thought process in a negative way. Its not just a Narasimham or Valsalyam. Movies that came out in a time period generally influenced us in a negative way, reassured patriarchal tendencies, glorified toxic masculanity but now we are changing. We have made movies which holds up the right of abortion from a womens perspective. So were definitely starting to change in a progressive manner at least in some areas. Im happy that I and my friends are also part of that change.

Your last movie The Great Indian Kitchen was an OTT release and your upcoming movie Freedom Fight is also an OTT release. How do you see this change in shift from theaters to OTT?

There are positive sides to OTT release. But as a filmmaker, its a bit unfortunate that were missing the theater experience. The biggest positive of OTT release is that the movies with quality and relevant content are widely discussed even outside Kerala. If The Great Indian Kitchen was released in theaters, it would have been a failure. Firstly, because its mainly men who go to theaters. We dont usually see a woman going to the theatre alone. Traditionally, men take their family to the cinema and I dont think many men would want their wives or daughters to watch The Great Indian Kitchen. So in the case of movies like The Great Indian Kitchen, OTT release was a boon considering the reach we got. I think were at a time when movies are released in both OTT and theaters which is good for cinema.

Read the original post:

Freedom Fight talks about individuals right to freedom: Jeo Baby - The Indian Express

Supreme Court punches another hole in Freedom of Information Act with protection for all trooper photos - Arkansas Times

On

The Arkansas Supreme Court today reversed and dismissed a ruling that blogger Russ Racop was entitled to photographs of all state troopers under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Supreme Court sided with the State Police, which argued that it would effectively identify undercover officers who are specifically protected by law by releasing photographs of all other tropers.

Clearly, comparing information already available to the public, from sources like the Arkansas Transparency websitewhich provides names, service dates, salaries, race, gender, and other identifying information of State employees, including state trooperswith a list of non-undercover troopers would reveal the identities of the undercover officers. This is because knowing who is not undercover would reveal that the officers whose photographs were not released are undercover. Accordingly, the trial court erred in ordering disclosure under FOIA, and the order is therefore reversed and the case dismissed.

The Supreme Court seems to have put photographs of all law officers off-limits.

Racop, representing himself, had requested in 2020 a list of non-undercover officers, the same as hed requested in 2019. The State Police resisted. Racop noted that the State Police routinely posted photos of troopers on social media and applying the exemption it sought here would swallow the public records rule. The argument was non-persuasive, the Court said in an opinion written by Justice Robin Wynne.

Great analysis from lawyer Matt Campbell (Blue Hog Report) on the ruling, beginning with the obvious retreat from the courts love of following statutory language (except situationally).

See original here:

Supreme Court punches another hole in Freedom of Information Act with protection for all trooper photos - Arkansas Times

SALISBURY Angela Galloway has been with Yadkin Path Montessori School for less than a year, but she is already making a big impact.

The elementary guide is one of five honored as Educators of the Year by Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina.The awards were doled out in recognition of National School Choice week.

Galloway was nominated for the award by the schools administration, which commended her for the transition from traditional education to Montessori and how she individualizes instruction for each student.

She was born in Florida but has mostly lived in western North Carolina and the Piedmont.

Galloway had a long journey to education. She knew she wanted to be a teacher when she was 9, but she decided to get married and focus on her family first.

She decided to go back to school in her early 30s and earned an early education degree from Pfeiffer University. She taught for Rowan-Salisbury Schools starting in January of 2013 before moving to North Hills Christian School for six years. In the spring, she decided to leave North Hills for Montessori.

The method always interested her because it is student driven and gives students the opportunity to master concepts at their own pace.

She serves as the elementary guide at Yadkin Path, and this is the first year the school has had an elementary program.

Thankfully I have very good administration, Galloway said.

She first knew she wanted to get into education in elementary school because her first grade teacher inspired her by loving her students and making learning fun.

I loved her so much that I wanted to become like her, Galloway said.

Galloway knew she had been nominated for the award but was shocked to win.

This is throughout all of North Carolina, so the chances of winning arent huge, Galloway said.

She said she felt honored to win an award after just six months of working at Yadkin Path and taking on a new kind of teaching.

It reassured me that what Im doing makes a difference and matters to those that I work with and the students I teach, she said.

Galloway said she feels like she made the right decision even though the move to Montessori was a big change for her.

Director Myra Tannehill said Galloway was a strong contender for the award and she was not surprised but delighted she had won.

Tannehill pointed out the classroom has only been open for a few months and Galloway may not have a Montessori background but her heart is in education. She said Galloway is good at discerning what each child needs

You teach to the childrens interests, you teach to their strengths and then you challenge them, Tannehill said.

Read more from the original source:

Yadkin Path teacher one of five awarded for educational freedom - Salisbury Post - Salisbury Post

Does anyone notice that America is becoming more totalitarian? Does anyone care? Tyranny is flourishing in the U.S. because Americans are not aligning their behaviors with natural behavioral laws.

Most Americans do not even know these laws exist. Laws are fixed, inherent, immutable and unalienable principles. Humans cannot make laws. Humans cannot change or eliminate laws. Humans make rules and call them laws. Laws of behavior apply to all humans. Physical laws, such as gravity and thermodynamics, cannot be changed or altered by humans. This is the same with behavioral laws.

The results of natural laws exist whether humans know, understand and align with these laws or not. Humans have the gift of free will. Natural behavioral laws work in two ways. The amount of freedom in a society is proportionate to the amount of objective moral behavior in a society. Conversely, the amount of slavery is proportionate to the amount of immoral behavior in a society.

Morality is objective. A moral behavior is any action that does not initiate physical harm to another sentient being. This includes behaviors that support the initiation of physical harm to others. This is not pacifism. We choose to either align with the laws of freedom or not.

I could refuse to align with the law of gravity and walk off a four-story building. No matter what happens, I am going to fall to my death. Even if I have a propulsion device, at some point, I will descend to the surface of the Earth. Gravity is constant. Gravitational force can be different due to the masses of objects and the distances between them. However, gravity itself is always present and constant throughout the whole universe.

The results of behavioral laws can be different depending on how much or how little humans align with these laws individually. The results can also vary depending on how many people in a large society align or do not align with behavioral laws.

The results of behavioral laws are most visible in large societies over long periods of time. Compare the levels of freedom in America starting in the 1980s to the present day. Observe how over a period of 40 years, America slowly became less free. This is how natural behavioral laws work.

The founders of America had a good understanding of these laws. The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Rights do not come from kings or governments. Only privileges come from a ruling class. Driving is a right; a license to drive is a privilege giving a person permission to engage in the right to travel freely. Natural rights are birthrights endowed by the Creator, or God. This is not a religion.

To be clear, the founders of America were not completely enlightened. Abhorrent practices such as the slavery of dark-skinned people and the destruction of the original Americans were common. However, these nefarious activities had been going on for thousands of years. The founders of America were not going to change this overnight.

What the founders did was give information to the public about the truth of natural behavioral laws. For the first time in history, a nation was founded on the principle that human beings do not have the right to rule over other human beings. This was a great start.

Bill Hoey lives in Barnegat.

View post:

Freedom vs. Tyranny: We Have a Choice - The SandPaper