Category Archives: Free Speech

Ouk Touch, the man who threw a shoe at Prime Minister Hun Sen in Washington, DC. fb

Prime Minister Hun Sen on May 17 questioned whether a man who threw a shoe at him while he was in the US was exercising freedom of expression or if it was an act of hostility.

Hun Sen was referring to an incident last week when a Cambodian-American later identified as Ouk Touch threw a shoe at him while he was greeting a crowd of supporters and taking selfies with them during his visit for the ASEAN-US Special Summit in Washington, DC.

Touchs shoe missed the premier but hit the phone of a supporter who was taking a picture. He was then chased off by those present before any police intervention could take place.

Speaking to the volunteer healthcare workers from the Samdech Techo Voluntary Youth Doctor Association (TYDA) on May 17, Hun Sen said he had told his supporters to remain tolerant because if he had not done so, they might have done something more drastic to Touch for his actions.

Please dont forget that it was the US who was responsible for my security there, he said. Does the US regard this as freedom of speech or an act of violence? That is my question for them. I am not preaching to them, but the US must clear this up for me. I hope that the US ambassador in Phnom Penh will send the entirety of my message to the US administration.

During an interview with Radio Free Asia, Touch confessed that he had tried to accomplish the act several times previously but failed, including during the ASEAN- South Korea summit in Busan in October of last year.

Hun Sen said that if the US regards throwing shoes at him as freedom of expression, then the world would be left without any semblance of law and order.

He said this was not a small issue, suggesting that the US think carefully on the matter before replying. He stressed that he was not calling for the US government to take legal action against Touch, but simply to explain their views to him.

We know the group in Phnom Penh who is backing [Touch] and they should be careful about who they throw shoes at. Thats not a threat. Its just my own legal and political analysis, he said, adding that those who support Touch seemed to regard his act as heroic.

He renewed his call for supporters to remain calm and exercise tolerance in the face of provocations, while adding that he hoped their anger was not so great that it could no longer be controlled and warning that civil society organisations should avoid willfully misinterpreting his comments on this issue.

He also instructed Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Prak Sokhonn and the Cambodian ambassador to the US not to file any formal diplomatic complaint with the US government over the incident.

Chad Roedemeier, spokesman for the US embassy in Phnom Penh, avoided addressing the issue directly when asked for a response to Hun Sens remarks.

The US-ASEAN Special Summit commemorated 45 years of US-ASEAN relations and demonstrates the US enduring commitment to ASEAN centrality in delivering sustainable solutions to the regions most pressing challenges.

The United States and ASEAN have committed to establishing an ASEAN-US Comprehensive Strategic Partnership that is meaningful, substantive, and mutually beneficial at the 10th ASEAN-US Summit in November 2022, he said.

Yong Pov, a professor of political science at the Royal Academy of Cambodia, said that throwing a shoe at the prime minister was immature and immoral and that Touch should know better given that he lives in a highly developed country and apparently comes from a Cambodian cultural background.

He shows his bad intentions with his actions that really are an embarrassment to civilised people and an affront to traditional Cambodian culture, he said.

Read the original post:
PM reflects on shoe throwing: Free speech or act of violence? - The Phnom Penh Post

This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Speaker 1: From the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, this is Free Expression with Gerry Baker.

GERARD BAKER: Hello and welcome to Free Expression with me, Gerry Baker, from The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page. We're delighted you're listening to this podcast. If you enjoy it, please be sure to subscribe at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and elsewhere, and please also be kind enough to leave us a favorable review.Now, at The Journal's Editorial Page, we believe strongly in free expression and each week on this podcast, we explore in depth and candor issues of topical and other interest. We speak in depth to people who are leading figures in their field, practitioners, experts, commentators, to give us a better understanding of the major issues of our times.I'm happy to say my guest this week is Ian Bremmer, geopolitical analyst, author, and commentator. He's the president and founder of Eurasia Group, the global research and consulting firm, and also of GZERO Media, which provides coverage and analysis of global affairs. That's named, by the way, for the concept that Ian developed of a GZERO World, one in which no major power has hegemony in an increasingly complex and competitive era. He is a prolific author, and he has a new book out this week called The Power of Crisis: How Three Threats and Our Response Will Change the World. Ian Bremmer joins me now.Ian, thank you.

Ian Bremmer: Gerry, always good to talk to you.

GERARD BAKER: I want to get onto your book, obviously, and the three crises that you talk about and how we respond to them. But it is, of course, one of the perils of book writing that we can be overtaken to some extent by events. I know you completed this book, I think literally days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In fact, you include an addendum in the book in which you address it and talked about that and how it fits in, so I do want to start with that, if we could, because I know you're a keen observer of these things and you talk to top politicians and policymakers around the world, and you've been observing the last couple of months just as the rest of us have with, I suppose, a degree of awe and shock.Let me ask you, start with this, if we could, with Russia and Ukraine. We are now, as I say, two months into this war. It clearly hasn't gone according to Vladimir Putin's plan. It's clearly resulted in an extraordinary response that in many ways probably is weakening Russia much more than Putin could possibly have anticipated, and the Ukrainians are showing extraordinary resilience and military capability. Where do you think this goes from here, Ian? How do you assess this and where does it leave Russia's ambitions?

Ian Bremmer: Well, Gerry, first of all, I wish that Putin had read my draft, because I feel that maybe he might have not pulled the trigger on this full on invasion into Ukraine. It's the whole point of the book.

GERARD BAKER: That's one of the most creative blurbs that anyone could possibly have come up with.

Ian Bremmer: Yeah, yeah. I'm not sure he'd want to give me a quote, frankly, but I mean, the fact is that this is a crisis that we are so obviously taking advantage of, and it was Putin who clearly thought that that wasn't possible and that's why he invaded. He believed, watching the lack of response from the West in Georgia in 2008, in Ukraine in 2014, watching the quagmire in Afghanistan and the United States pulling out of that war in disaster and largely unilaterally, watched the United States wanting to focus more on Asia, not wanting to deal with Russia particularly, watching a new German government, wasn't Merkel, social Democrats, more engaged with the Russians, watching Macron saying, "Let's go our own way," and thinking, "This is the absolute perfect time to go all in and remove Zelensky and create a new, greater Russian empire." Because of course, this is the humiliation that Putin has been dealing with for decades. The fact that what he calls the biggest geopolitical debacle of the 20th century, that the Soviet Union dissolved and the Russians were the losers of the Cold War.What Putin, of course, did not in any way appreciate was that that invasion was exactly what would bring the United States and Europe and other allies together, that it was precisely the motivation that would end the brain dead status, the obsolescence, as Macron and Trump put it, of NATO.Now to answer your question more directly, what's going to happen to Putin, he is going to be completely isolated, decoupled, cut off from the G7, from the advanced industrial democracies of the world, and I think that's permanent diplomatically, economically, culturally. I think that Putin in any scenario that we come up with is in materially worse position, as is his country, than they would've been if they had never decided to invade on February 24th.

GERARD BAKER: Cut off from the G7, true, but not cut off from China with whom he has a new alliance, not cut off from India, or some of the most important emerging markets in the world. I pose this in a rather sort of cynical provocative way, but does it really matter if he's cut from what we used to call the West, sort of north Atlantic, if you like, plus Japan and Australia and one or two other countries, has responded with remarkable unity to this, but does it matter in the end really? One of the central thesis of your analysis in the last dozen years or so is that we don't live in a unipolar world, we don't live (inaudible) by the US. Is his Alliance with China and there's continuing relations with other countries in the world, does that actually help him overcome the challenges that he's facing from the West?

Ian Bremmer: Well, first of all, Gerry, I don't think it's a provocative way of asking the question. I think it's an honest way of answering the question. You just put out a number of facts that are reality, right? There's no question that the developing world is continuing to do business as usual with Russia and they are not with the United States, decidedly not with the United States and NATO and Japan in the response to this crisis, even though arguably they should be because the impact, for example, on food prices and on fertilizer that is getting cut off makes this crisis vastly more important for poor countries than for example, the crises in Syria or Somalia or Sudan or Afghanistan.But be that as it may, a couple of things I would bring up to you. The first is that not only were there these massive sanctions from the West, but they literally froze half of Russia's assets, which has never been done to a G20 country before and which no one expected, even after the Russians invaded Ukraine. That's a significant hit to their economy and those assets are not going to be on frozen. Secondly, if you look at Russia, look at the map, very different from looking at China and increasingly the gravitational pull of the global economy being driven by Asia. Most of Russia's population is in the west, most of their infrastructure is to the west, most of their trade is towards the west, and so that means that for the near term future, the impact of Europe being cut off, the United States doesn't matter so much, there's very little trade there, but the impact of Europe being cut off actually matters a lot to Russian oligarchs, to Russian companies, to Russian oil and gas and coal flows, and that's not going to get changed anytime soon.The military, and of course the Russians, they're the second largest military producer in the world, but that's unlike oil and gas and coal, that requires supply chain and increasingly they don't have the spare parts. They're not going to be able to produce those advanced componentry, and so I worry, India's going to buy a lot of oil from Russia at cheap prices, but will India keep buying MIGS from Russia when they can no longer actually get the parts for them? Most of the people I talk to in the US military industrial complex believe this is a huge opportunity for them, not so much just because the United States is spending more in defense in the near term, but because all of those countries, the Russians were exporting to are now going to be markets that are up for grabs. So that's interesting.Then finally, I didn't mention China and China, of course, quite famously Xi Jinping on February 4th described his relationship with Putin as, "A friendship without limits." That's an extraordinary thing for Xian ping to do, but now a couple months into the war, we can increasingly describe the China relationship as also a friendship without many benefits because when the United States told the Chinese, "Don't you dare provide military support or break sanctions, or there's going to be held to pay," fact is that Chinese have a lot of lawyers in their companies and they like Russia. They have a much more aligned worldview with the Russians, and we can talk about that, Gerry, but they also understand that the Russian economy is 1/10th the size of China and their trade, China's trade, is vastly more important with Europe in the United States than it is with Russia. I think that informs the conversations that Xi Jinping has had both with Chancellor Schultz and with President Macron in the last week that are much more about not wanting to be tarred with the same brush in terms of international relations and economic engagement as they are with the Russians and the Chinese think privately, "No, no, no. We want to cease fire. We want to work with you guys."It's interesting that you're right, that it is the West that is leading the response to China and not the world, and there isn't an international community to speak of on this issue or on many frankly, but that this crisis has actually created real opportunities for the West to put itself in a better position, materially better, than it would have been in if no invasion had occurred and the Chinese and the developing world is ultimately going to do less with that than a lot of people would've expected.

GERARD BAKER: I just want to pry into that a little bit, but there's been obviously the kind of prevailing narrative in, again, what we generally call the West for the last decade or so has been declining faith in liberal democracy, rising populism, rising discontent with the system that we thought was actually had been so clearly demonstrated to be superior at the end of the Cold War, whether it's Brexit or Trump or rise of the populist rights in continental Europe, there's been this sort of general sense of, if you like, of kind of malaise and dissatisfaction. There's been a lot of talk since the invasion. That narrative is now changed by this. Do you, by that, do you think that this does renew the West's faith in itself? Does it diminish the self immolating process that the West has been going through in the last 20 years or do you think this is just a passing phase and we'll get back to thinking that we're doomed?

Ian Bremmer: First of all, it's a great question. It's the right question to be asking right now. I think the answer depends on where you're looking. I am much more optimistic about answering that question in Europe. I think that Macron won more decisively in France once he decided to start actually campaigning because people remembered Le Pen and said, "We cannot have someone aligned with the Russians. We can't have someone euroskeptic in this environment."

GERARD BAKER: If I may interrupt, she did get 42% of the vote.

Ian Bremmer: Yes, she did. But before she was within a couple of points before the invasion happened. Suddenly, remember, the election was pretty new. On the back most of that campaign was not with the Russians invading Ukraine. It was before. So you're asking me do I think that there was a response from the invasion and I'm saying yes. I'm saying I think this would've been a lot closer or maybe she could have even won if it wasn't for the invasion. I'm answering your question.I think Poland was heading in a much more euroskeptic direction until the invasion occurred and now, of course, they welcome 2 million Ukrainian refugees. They're asking for much stronger, much more integrated NATO. They're getting it from Germany, and I think the Polish government is seeing a much greater utility in a strong and united European Union.I, in general, I think that there is, and Hungary is the clear exception, and less of an exception if you look at their response to the pandemic, we can get into that later, but in general I would argue that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is seen as an existential crisis across Europe, not just for Ukraine, but for democracy as a whole and a stronger EU is becoming a higher priority for populations as a consequence. When even the social Democrats can take the lead on that in Germany, a little bit like Nixon is the only one that can go to China, I think that will be structural and long lasting. I would not make that argument in the United States.

GERARD BAKER: We're going to take a short break there, but when we come back, we'll have more with Ian Bremmer. Stay with us.Welcome back. We're talking with Ian Bremmer about his book Three Future Crises and How We Can Handle Them.In your book you talk about these three major crises. We can talk a little bit in more detail about them, but the three crises are pandemics, if you like, the global health risk that we've obviously seen for the last two years, climate change, which we are very familiar with, there are different views about how serious it is and what measures need to be taken but most people agree changing climate is a significant threat. Thirdly, you talk to us about the threat from technology. These are three big threats.What I find interesting about the book in, very interesting and perhaps unexpectedly so, even from you and you're an optimistic fellow, is you do express significant optimism about this. You talk about dealing with those challenges is going to require both international cooperation, particularly between the US and China and again, we'll talk a little bit more about that relationship, but you do also talk about the other big challenge is the US itself coming together rather more than it has over the last 20 years in a unified way to deal with that challenge. You do identify that as one of the central challenges. Tell us about that, and because as it stands, it doesn't look very promising, does it, in terms of us domestic harmony is not, even with the significant bipartisan support that there is, by the way, for the Biden administration's response to what Russia's done, there remains this underlying division, tension to the point where the two sides, it looks like they don't even want to be in the same country.

Ian Bremmer: No, I mean, look, even on Russia, I saw the tweet from Donald Trump Jr., not someone I usually like to quote yesterday talking about, "Hey, $40 billion to Ukraine and when are the Russians going to start sending nuclear subs off of our coast? And should we really be doing this?" Rand Paul's been very skeptical, JD Vance, of course, saying, "Why do we care about Ukraine?" I do think it is possible that Trump is testing that out and by the time we get to midterms, the United States might be much more divided even on that issue, even on that issue, in a way that the Europeans will not. But look, I start this book, the book is ultimately quite hopeful as you say, but I start this book from a position of realism, from recognition of where the world is today.I think there are two big realities that we have to accept. One is that the United States is the most politically divided and dysfunctional of the advanced industrial economies, period. It is just true, it is a reality, and it's not getting better. The second is that the most important geopolitical relationship in the world, the US-China relationship has no trust and is increasingly decoupling, it's not becoming more integrated. The trends of both of those things are not positive.If you told me that the optimism and hopefulness of my book relied upon the United States getting our political system functional and in order and the US and China coming to a level of partnership and agreement and collaboration on the global stage, I wouldn't have written the book because I don't think those things are going to happen in the next five to 10 years. I can tell you what would make them happen, but they're not realistic. They're not plausible in the near term. What's interesting and hopeful about this book, and you already see this argument in what we've just discussed on Russia, is that I firmly believe that we can respond effectively to these crises, even with the US being so dysfunctional and divided as an actor, even with the United States and China not getting along on the global stage.

GERARD BAKER: Let's go through these crisis just one by one. The pandemics, the global health threat, that has not been, and again, I do accept that a lot of this is the US and you think maybe even if the US is not involved in this corporation, then you can still deal with it. But the US is an important player and what we've seen from this pandemic, I think if anything, is far from a coming together in the face of a global threat, by the way, I like the way you start the book with a famous story of Ron Reagan and Gorbachev meeting in, what was it, '85 and '86. Reagan's first question being would Russia come to the US's defense if the US was attacked by an alien? And he says yes. You betray these threats on that level of threat to the globe as a whole and the need to come together.But surely what we've seen from the pandemic the last two years is actually, if anything, again, division, mistrust, division, don't trust the Chinese, they haven't been truthful about pretty well anything, the Americans have fallen apart themselves over pandemic responses, restrictions, mask wearing, vaccine mandates, all that kind of stuff. I agree with you. It's not been quite as extreme in Europe, but you have seen quite a lot of that, particularly in the UK and maybe some other countries. The experience the last two years doesn't lead us to much optimism, does it, that we would face another one, perhaps even greater one, that we'll be any more united or anywhere able to deal with it?

Ian Bremmer: Yeah, and of the crises in the book, the lessons from the pandemic on balance have not been great. Again, this is not a book in service of an ideology. This is a book in service of, it is a target rich environment for global crises. Clearly you can take advantage of crises when they occur. How are we doing and where is the hope? On balance, the pandemic is not the best argument here.Why not? Well, first of all, because the Chinese covered it up for the first month and as a consequence, led to enormous mistrust between the United States and China, led the United States to withdraw from the World Health Organization.

GERARD BAKER: Maybe not just for the first month. They've been covering up a lot. They've been covering up surely the extent of the spread up till now, and they may well, we still don't know, but there's still a very plausible argument that says this thing actually started leaked out of a lab by accident, and the Chinese absolutely adamantly resists that. It's not just that first (crosstalk).

Ian Bremmer: No, no, it wasn't just the first month. My point is that you started the crisis with this original sin from China and they lied to their own people and everyone else, and that made it much harder to create international trust and response to this. The only reason we found out about what this disease was and how to genetically map it was because of a Chinese doctor, against the admonitions of the Chinese government, got it out to an Australian website and then the rest of the world could start working on it. This was the opposite of international cooperation. This was the opposite of Gorbachev and Reagan coming together to fight the aliens. Once the Chinese finally started taking it seriously at home and they locked down and they tracked and they traced, and their economy got back open and running within months, well, they then had a lot of both arrogance and complacency in looking at the rest of the world that wasn't taking it as seriously, that didn't lockdown, that also cared about individual rights, and so much complacency that today you now have an environment where we have more mRNA vaccines in surplus than probably any other commodity in the world. The Chinese are desperately in need of them, but refuse to license them, refuse to let us help to be able to vaccinate their older populations with vaccines that would be effective. It's exactly the opposite of what's necessary.Now there are positive lessons from COVID, from the pandemic, that do show more cooperation, and I'm happy to talk about them, but if you asked me on balance in the last two years, did we learn from this crisis? Did we take away what we needed to? The answer for COVID has been no.

GERARD BAKER: Let's move on to see your second threat which is climate change. Again, isn't to some extent one of the lessons of the last two months we've seen since the invasion by Ukraine of Russia, that we as well, especially the Europeans, were put into this extraordinary position, partly as a result of pursuit of what many would argue were somewhat unreasonable ambitions for renewable energy, that they've been put in this strange position of essentially downgrading, in fact actually degrading their own domestic fossil fuel, traditional energy production. Also by the way, we can add into that nuclear powers, especially in the case of Germany, and upgrading their renewable capabilities, but not upgrading their renewable capabilities so anything like the level that was needed, and so increasing their dependence on fossil fuel energy from a country that was never going to be, and should never have been seen as a reliable partner.We could say the same to some extent in the US. The US has been energy sufficient as a result of climate change policies by this administration in particular, we've been moving away from that and Biden administration finds itself going out to Saudi Arabia and begging them to increase production. Again, the history of, talked about the history of the pandemic in the last two years, in terms of the context of your book and this idea of global cooperation, the history of energy and the environment in just the last two months doesn't inspire a lot of optimism either, does it?

Ian Bremmer: I hear, I just disagree. I actually think that you need to take the longer view when you look at climate and energy, just as when you look at most global crises. The reality is that we are in a radically different position today than we were five or 10 or 20 years ago. That trajectory is permanent and there's no question that the fact that the Russians are being boycotted in terms of their coal, increasingly in terms of their oil, and probably soon in terms of their gas by the Europeans and the Americans, and also in terms of their transit and their insurance, which again means that they will have a really hard time, even though those aren't secondary sanctions, with global export, precisely because the Europeans do so much of it, they have the supply chain. But that is going to lead in the near term, sure. That means that you have a major gap that needs to be filled and the Americans are filling it for the Europeans to a degree, the Qataris are filling it, these east areas are filling it, Saudi Arabia is doing a little bit though not because of the United States and on and on and on.But what that really means for the Europeans is we want to get as fast as possible, we want more efficiency and we absolutely want, we want more nuclear, and we want more transition faster to renewables. More broadly, not just looking at the last two months now but looking at the last five, 10 years, what we've seen is despite the fact that the United States and China are not coordinating globally, we've seen that people around the world increasingly see this as a major problem, that the amount of money that is being spent and invested in renewables and in supply chain for electric vehicles and in next generation nuclear, is exponentially greater than it was, making it cheaper at scale, so much so that within one generation, certainly by 2045, maybe by 2040, a majority of the world's energy will no longer be coming from fossil fuels. That is an extraordinary change that no one would have expected even 10 years ago.You have to ask yourself why. Well, how is it possible that we've moved the needle so fast? How is it possible that climate change feels a lot more like what I call a Goldilocks crisis. One that's not so big that you crawl up in a ball, but not so small that you just keep going on the way you were going on, as opposed to the crisis of COVID that we largely didn't coordinate, respond effectively to.I think there are a couple of answers to that. I think one is because in both cases you have most of the world that matters in terms of power in responding to this crisis, agreeing on facts. We talked about that already in terms of the response to Russia, that there was only a Ukraine narrative in all of the West, there was no one supporting Putin, there was no one justifying the other side of the story. There was no disinformation on it. The same thing didn't used to be true on climate, but is today. 195 countries have gotten together with the IPCC report and said, "Look, the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, we have 1.2 degrees of climate change already. We know it's anthropogenic, it comes from humanity, it's not because of nature." Even 10 years ago, you didn't have that level of agreement. Now you do. Everyone agrees on what the problem is. They don't agree on necessarily how to respond to it, how much money to spend, but they agree on what the problem is.Furthermore, the farther the crisis evolves, the more we recognize it affects all of us. That was true with the Russia-Ukraine crisis in a short period of time, that is increasingly true in the climate crisis. It's no longer about just the Maldives and about Bangladesh. It's about California and Australia and Italy. That also really compels. It creates much more movement towards confirmation of your (inaudible), as opposed to the pandemic where if you were skeptical about it in the early days, you became more skeptical about what Fauci was telling you, about masks, and about the need to lockdown over time because of the tools that were available, but also because of the politicization of the crisis.

GERARD BAKER: Very quickly back on the energy and climate. This isn't the lesson of the last few months that governments have learned is that security of supply, the changed world that we live in after February 24th and the Russian invasion, security of supply is going to Trump, isn't it? Even the longer term ambitions for whatever your net zero date ambition may be, security of supply we've seen is so important in terms of the immediate threats, in terms of significantly higher prices or indeed, actually, of lack of availability of physical supply. Isn't that going to, at minimum, complicate the ambitious net zero agenda that you've outlined?

Ian Bremmer: I actually think that securities supply and a net zero agenda are very aligned. They weren't aligned when you couldn't develop these renewable energies at scale. But the reality is moving away from fossil fuels, one of the solutions is don't decommission your nuclear plants. Keep them. It's not fossil fuels anymore. That helps you with net zero, that's really important. A second one is move faster on renewables so that you have control. That's a decentralized energy source. You're not as reliant on the Saudis if you have more effective and larger renewables at scale. A third is don't rely on the Russians. Nord Stream 2, horrible idea. The United States has been pushing on that for a long time. Trump administration was very solid on that with Merkel. Merkel said, "No, talk to the hand." The Germans now understand that was completely stupid, it was a strategic mistake. But all three of those things work in concert in my view, very clearly. In the short term and in the long term.

GERARD BAKER: I think the third threat that you identify is a really particularly interesting one and one that I think hasn't been as much explored, which is technology. We're all familiar with cyber security concerns. You particularly talk about that, but you talk about artificial intelligence and also quantum computing and how much of a threat that can be. Just explain, first of all, what that is, and the threat that poses, and how you think we are positioned to resist that?

Ian Bremmer: This crisis is, you're right. It's the one that's getting the least attention right now. Everyone's been talking about COVID and climate and Russia for the last couple of years. Who's really talking about disruptive technologies and what are they talking about when they discuss it? Because everyone's problem is different, is that monopolies, the tech companies have too much power, or is it free speech and cancel culture or is it political polarization, disinformation? All this stuff.What I'm focusing on broadly is that we are developing technologies which are incredibly dangerous to the development of our kids, to the persistence of democracy as a political system, and even to the existence of the species. These disruptive technologies, we've had an experience with one in the 20th century. It was nuclear weapons, and we knew how dangerous it was and we did everything we could to contain the proliferation, and we were largely very successful at that, but we were successful precisely because it was a very complicated technology that required both very dangerous and fairly rare natural elements in order to put it together, and that meant that governments coming together had an easier time preventing them from proliferating.I am deeply concerned, cyber weapons, and you look at AI algorithms and disinformation, when you look at lethal autonomous drones. Even when you look at quantum computing, the ability to contain those disruptive technologies, to stop them from proliferating, is orders of magnitude greater and maybe undoable compared to nuclear weapons. Yet these technologies are potentially, and perhaps even very likely, as dangerous if not more dangerous than nuclear proliferation, so how can we not, as governments and as other actors with power over these technologies, how can we not start to address them as an existential crisis?

GERARD BAKER: But how do we? This, again, requires a remarkable degree of international cooperation. How do we achieve that kind of corporation, that sense of solidarity, which doesn't seem to be there at the moment that enables us instead, people view technology not as an existential threat to the globe, they see it as not a framework of your aliens coming from out of space and invading the earth. They see it as a great opportunity, a great advantage to secure their own benefit, to secure their own dominance in the world. How do you persuade them to back off that and somehow see it as a common threat?

Ian Bremmer: Well, they see it as both. When the colonial pipeline hit occurred, Biden met with Putin a year ago in Geneva, and didn't even bring up Ukraine. He said, "Look, if you guys don't cut that out, this is going to lead to direct conflict between our two countries." The Russians actually did tell some of these cyber gangs to knock off the attacks on critical infrastructure as a consequence of that conversation. I think people do understand in time some of the nature of these threats, but you're absolutely right, Gerry, that mostly when we talk about tech, we talk about convenience, we talk about click through, we talk about all the money that's made, and certainly the business models are not doing anything to try to prevent us, to try to display us.

GERARD BAKER: State actors and bads see it as a weaponized opportunity for them to secure advantage over somebody else. They're not incentivized to share what they know, they're incentivized actually to achieve more and more of an advantage, whether it's in cyber or AI or all of these things so they can actually inflict damage on their rivals. Isn't that right?

Ian Bremmer: Again, I think that they see it in both ways, but to the extent that there is no architecture, there are no guardrails, there is no nudging towards more responsible behavior, then you have a collective action problem. What these individual actors will do is say, "Well, if it's mostly offensive technology, I'm going to make sure I'm really good at it." It's what the Americans do, it's what Chinese do, it's what the Russians do, it's what the Israelis do.Part of the problem, so you say, "What do we do about it?" I think there are a couple of things that we do. One is you educate the public about it so that they get outraged and they start pushing for changes in behavior the way they have on climate change before it's too late and it's not too late on climate change. That's the extraordinary thing. Well, it's not too late on AI either. That's one thing you do.A second thing you do is you recognize that we have none of the institutions in architecture that would actually allow for us to identify which of these issues really would benefit from collaboration, would benefit from common rules of the road that otherwise we're going to destroy ourselves. We did that with nuclear weapons. We haven't done that yet with AI and disruptive technologies. We have a World Trade Organization and a lot of money has been made by the Americans on the back of that, the multinational corporations and a global middle class has emerged as a consequence of it. We don't have a world data organization. It seems fairly clear that we need one because it actually is responsible for driving so much of the global economy, but also for creating so many of these dangerous practices that undermine national security and personal security. The only reason we don't have it is because when we were in institution building mode, data wasn't a thing for the global economy or national security, now it is. It's pretty clear that the world, and we're going to need to start with countries that trust each other, but it needs to be suitably open, that chapters can be opened for anyone that's willing to behave in accordance to those values, will need to start creating that architecture.Another thing I will say is that unlike the WTO, which was an organization of governments, of states, a world data organization, and all of the regulatory framework and all of the rules of the road that need to be created to deal with at least some of these issues cannot just be about governments, because corporations are actually sovereign in their digital space. Big tech companies, they create the walled gardens, they build the algorithms, they determine the rules of the road. They know. Even cybersecurity, Ukraine's getting attacked, the Americans and NATO are defending them in terms of javelin weapons and stinger missiles but in terms of cyber, it's Microsoft, it's Google. It's not the United States government. The multilateral framework you're going to need to create to start to respond to these problems cannot just be through governments, will need to be multi-stakeholder from day one, and that's new. That's completely new in the way we think about global governance.

GERARD BAKER: Right. Finally, it's been a fascinating conversation, but final broad point, which again, you address in your book and I want you to address it here. It's become almost automatic among commentators and political figures in the West now to say that we are in a new kind of cold war. They were saying that before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, they were saying it, obviously, with respect to China, with what we saw when Trump came in 2017, radical change in US posture towards China. There was no more strategic engagement, there was actually strategic rivalry, and economic tariffs and all this stuff. But even when Biden succeeded Trump, there was a clear acknowledgement that we were in a changed relationship with China. Since early February, as you say, China and Russia have now established themselves in this alliance without limits. They talk about you've got other countries, obviously, who are in that sphere around China. This does all tend to reinforce the sense that we are revisiting the Cold War and only in potentially much more dangerous, much more frightening ways.It seems to me that if that is true, and if the world is devolving into these two camps, as it did in the Cold War, then your book and the hopeful, but realistic, but certainly aspirational objectives that you lay out in your book for this world of global corporation just seems to me that it's kind of like, it belongs to the pre-new Cold War era. That happy period we had maybe between 1991 and 2010 or whatever, when we did think that the world would move in global cooperation. Now we're in these two camps. What's the real prospect for achieving this global cooperation to address these big threats you talk about? What is the prospect for actually achieving them?

Ian Bremmer: Well, I mean, the fact that I'm as hopeful on climate as I am, and this is in an environment where the Americans and Chinese are competing with each other, but competing because both countries recognize that you don't want the other to just dominate the post-carbon energy environment. It's not just about polar bears, saving the whales, and hugging the trees. It's about if we're not going to be fossil fuels in 30 years, we better make sure that the Americans have influence there and the Chinese saying the same thing. It's actually a virtuous competition as opposed to a vicious competition. That also leads me to the response to the core piece of your question, which is in a new Cold War environment, can you get global responses?My response to you is there is a new Cold War between Russia and the G7 and Russia's going to be cut off economically, and I think that's essentially permanent, at least as long as Putin is there.I completely reject the idea that we are in a new Cold War with the Chinese. First of all, the Germans don't accept it, the French don't accept it, and they don't accept it anymore because of what's happened in the last couple of months. The Chinese don't accept it. The Chinese do believe the Americans are trying to contain China in Asia and they don't like that, but there's also massive interdependence between the two countries economically. If you ask me in the next 10 years, even though there is decoupling happening with some ensuring and with areas of the economy that are seen as dual use for national security, I would make a strong argument that there will still be more interdependence between the US and China overall in a decade than there is today. That is not a Cold War. It's mistrust, but what it really is a married couple who don't love each other anymore, but they have kids in the house, and they both love the kids, and as a consequence they're going to stay together.

GERARD BAKER: That's a particularly mutually hostile Cold War, even if I may say so, but I'm teasing you slightly, but you know what I mean.

Ian Bremmer: It does mean that you can work together and I do think that we're going to, and the same way that Democrats and Republicans will ultimately have to work together. I think that the US and China will ultimately have to work together. The question is, will it be enough? In a way that the Americans and the Soviets never had to work together.

GERARD BAKER: You're optimistic that despite China's ambitions, despite the challenge that it poses in east Asia, you think that those concerns can be buried in the face of these larger threats?

Ian Bremmer: No, I don't think they can be buried at all, but I think that those concerns coexist with greater interdependence and the crises that I talk about only add to the interdependence. They don't lead to more decoupling. Climate creates more interdependence, not less. The next pandemic will create more interdependence, not less. Our AI concerns will create more interdependence, not less. Will that be sufficient for us to continue to exist as a species? I have to hope so and I suspect you do too.

GERARD BAKER: Ian Bremmer, Eurasia Group, author of the new book, The Power of Crisis: How Three Threats and Our Response Will Change the World. Thank you very much indeed for joining us.

Ian Bremmer: Gerry, that was a real pleasure.

GERARD BAKER: That's it for this week's episode of Free Expression with me, Gerry Baker, from the Wall Street Journal Opinion Pages. Thank you very much for listening. Please do join us again for another deep exploration of the issues that are driving our world. Thank you very much and goodbye.

View original post here:
Will the World Overcome the Russia and Covid Crises? - Opinion: Free Expression - WSJ Podcasts - The Wall Street Journal

We renew our support for the Student Journalist Free Speech Act, a bill in the New York state Legislature that would protect young peoples right to express themselves in school-sponsored publications.

School administrators exercise great power over what students can say in school newspapers, yearbooks and online publications under guise of keeping order. That power can be misused to censor material that might embarrass the school, and to stifle free and open discussion of controversial issues affecting kids and their school communities.

This bill (A04402/S02958), sponsored by Assembly Member Donna Lupardo, D-Binghamton, and Sen. Brian Kavanagh, D-Brooklyn, gives student journalists the right to determine the content of school-sponsored media, in consultation with their teacher/advisers. It instructs administrators to keep their hands off unless student speech is libelous, an unwarranted invasion of privacy, incites students to violence or law-breaking, violates school policies, or disrupts orderly school operations.

In other words, casting the school in a poor light is not reason enough to censor student speech.

School censorship is real but it rarely breaks into public view. An exception happened locally earlier this year when a Tully High School administrator attempted to prevent publication of a students essay about being bullied because he is gay. The student, Tyler Johnson, broadcast the incident over social media, attracting a national audience. After a furor, the school relented and allowed Tylers essay to be published in a school newsletter.

Schools have great latitude to tell students how to behave while on school grounds (and sometimes even away from school). But as Justice Abe Fortas wrote in the landmark 1969 decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

As school censorship controversies erupt around the nation, New York has an opportunity to join 15 other states in protecting student free speech through law. After years of dithering, the Legislature should get off the dime and pass this bill.

Editorials represent the collective opinion of the Advance Media New York editorial board. Our opinions are independent of news coverage. Read our mission statement. Members of the editorial board are Tim Kennedy, Trish LaMonte, Katrina Tulloch and Marie Morelli.

To respond to this editorial: Submit a letter or commentary to letters@syracuse.com. Read our submission guidelines.

If you have questions about the Opinions & Editorials section, contact Marie Morelli, editorial/opinion lead, at mmorelli@syracuse.com

Read more here:
Students have free speech rights, too. NY should protect them (Editorial Board Opinion) - syracuse.com

Just over two weeks ago, free speech seemed to be Americas most pressing issue. At the end of April, Elon Musk's $44 billion bid to buy Twitter was accepted, and all sides of the political spectrum were consumed by what this meant for the discourse. Musk is sympathetic to right-wing criticisms of Twitter as biased against conservatives (claims that are factually untrue) and has vowed to make Twitter a platform for free speech around the world (of course, Musk recently stated that, under his leadership, tweets deemed wrong and bad could be either deleted or made invisible, so who knows). This issue has more or less faded from the news cycle, but a vision of lives destroyed for the wrong expression isnt some dystopic future. As the recent arrests of Gunna and Young Thug prove, its happening right now.

The 56-count indictment was handed down on May 9. It names 28 associates of Young Thugs label YSL (Young Slime Life) including Thug and Gunna according to prosecutors, YSL is a criminal gang founded in 2012 and connected to national Bloods crews. Each person in the indictment is charged with conspiracy to violate the states Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. To prosecute someone under the Act, the state of Georgia must prove that a defendant has committed at least two offenses under the broad umbrella of racketeering and that they were perpetrated by at least two members of a criminal enterprise. If found guilty, a defendant can face up to 20 years in prison, a fine, or both.

Young Thug is accused of over 30 RICO violations. Some are serious, like the charge that he rented a car used in the murder of a rival gang member. But on the whole, the indictment against Thug is built on the allegation that he used lyrics in his songs and his social media presence as recruitment tools for YSL and to direct violence. Vague Instagram threats, pictures and videos of Thug displaying alleged gang signs, and lyrics from songs like Eww, Take It To Trial, and Slime Shit are treated as transmissions from a criminal enterprise. (Young Thugs attorney Brian Steele has vehemently denied any wrongdoing by his client).

Other YSL rappers facing RICO charges are Unfoonk, Yak Gotti, and Gunna. Prosecutors have accused Gunna of nine RICO violations between 2017 and 2022 ranging from possession of drugs with intent to distribute, to an appearance in Lil Gotits video for Fox 5, where, according to the indictment, Gunna was wearing a YSL pendant and a Slatt pendant, with lyrics stating We got ten-hundred round choppers. The indictment calls this behaviour, and all its other assertions, an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Read the original here:
Young Thugs prosecutors are using his lyrics against him. Wheres the free speech brigade? - The FADER

Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that while consumers are putting the Covid pandemic in the rearview mirror, the economy is clearly a growing concern for the company and the broader market.

"We definitely see uncertainty ahead, like everyone else," Pichai told CNBC's Deirdre Bosa in an interview on Wednesday at Google's annual I/O conference in Mountain View, California. "The good thing is we've been around as a company for a while. [We] have worked through past moments like this, be it 2008 or the early days of the pandemic, and we take a long-term view."

He also said he thought the economy would "take time to work through" the current high rate of inflation.

"What gives uncertainty is there are so many different factors, be it supply chain issues or be it rising energy prices," Pichai said.

"I do think people are seeing relief in certain sectors," he suggested, pointing to travel as an example. "But then you have other new areas which are showing problems, maybe due to supply chain constraints. ... Energy has been an issue, as an example. In some cases rentals have gone up, and food prices."

Watch the full interview on CNBC Pro.

The Nasdaq is headed for its steepest quarterly drop since the end of 2008, when the economy was in the throes of the housing crisis. Consumer prices jumped 8.3% in April, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Wednesday, higher than expected and close to their 40-year high of 8.5%.

Shares of Google parent Alphabet have fallen about 22% this year, plummeting alongside the rest of the tech sector as fears of inflation and higher interest rates push investors into assets that are viewed as safer during a potential downturn.

Alphabet's earnings in late April fell short of analysts' estimates, largely due to a big miss at YouTube, which was hammered along with other digital ad companies in the first quarter. Executives pointed to weaker YouTube ad spending in Europe after Russia invaded Ukraine in February.

"Obviously, when you're serving [ads] across the economy ... a lot of the macroeconomic factors like GDP growth end up affecting advertiser spend as well," Pichai said.

He said the economic story isn't all doom and gloom. Building on comments last month from Alphabet Chief Business Officer Philipp Schindler, Pichai noted that people are again on the move, an important indication for Google's core advertising unit.

"We definitely see travel recovering," Pichai said. "There are signs that people are clearly moving post the pandemic, and so there is some return to normalcy. But what gives the uncertainty is there are so many different factors, be it supply chain issues or be it rising energy prices. And so trying to add all of that up together is where uncertainty is."

Pichai pointed to the company's technology investments as a vital way to keep its business strong through times of weakness, and did not indicate the company is planning to slow hiring or draw back in particular areas.

"We want to be resilient in moments like this. We are very excited about the opportunities ahead. And so we are investing. We are continuing to hire, bringing in great talent. There are areas where we are seeing a secular transformation, like cloud and the transformation to digital. So [we] are continuing to invest."

Alphabet boosted research and development spending by 22% in the first quarter from a year earlier to $9.1 billion, despite economic uncertainty and market volatility.

He also mentioned the company's diversification across many business lines as a source of strength.

"We invest in foundational technologies and we are in many areas. So in some ways, we are diversified. Obviously, we have important products like search and YouTube. We have computing products involving Android, Play and our hardware devices. And cloud is a big area of opportunity for us as well. So I think we are exposed to many, many sectors. And we do this globally as a company. And I think that allows us to take a long-term view and think through these phases."

Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet and Google being interviewed by CNBC's Deirdre Bosa.

Source: CNBC

Google kicked off its conference on Wednesday by announcing new smartphones and teasing augmented reality glasses that use artificial intelligence to translate spoken words into text on screen. Facebook parent Meta and Microsoft are also working on AR devices.

Google has to spend to keep up with competitors in a market that's rapidly evolving, particularly with the emergence of short video service TikTok, which is immensely popular among younger consumers. Google's response to TikTok, YouTube Shorts, is growing quickly, attracting more than 30 billion daily views as of late April, up from 15 billion in January.

"We have to respond to what users are asking for," Pichai said. "We are trying to give them the best experience, and so we feel challenged to do better."

He also highlighted"things like Snapchat, Pinterest all of this didn't exist a few years ago," and said that smartphones and the mobile ecosystem are creating all sorts of new opportunities.

"We always have to be nimble, and we have to adapt, and that's how it feels every Monday when I come to work," he said.

He also addressed the balance of free speech versus content moderation on the internet, which has come under new attention lately with Elon Musk's planned acquisition of Twitter.

"I grew up in a large democracy, and the importance of free speech and giving people a voice I think is really foundational," said Pichai, who was born in India. "Search represents what's on the web today. We only take down stuff that is against the law."

He added: "In a product like YouTube, where we recommend and where we can amplify content, we do have community guidelines. So we have clearly stated policies. And we take action. And that's what actually allows us to maximize free speech, [to] help keep the platform safe for everyone involved."

He also spoke a bit about the company's approach to content moderation. "I think it's important to give people a sense of transparency. And there are many ways to accomplish that. For example, we publish our community guidelines, or in the case of search, how our raters evaluate for search quality, we publish that publicly." He added, "I think it's important to do it in a way in which spammers and others who are trying to work around your products are not able to do as well."

As far as Musk's plans for Twitter, he said: "I'm an avid user of Twitter. I think it's an extraordinarily important product for the world. I've gotten a lot out of it. And I think there is value in investing in it for the long term ... I think that is important because it plays an important role in democratic society ... I would like to see the product continue to get better."

See more here:
Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai on inflation, investing in growth and free speech on the internet - CNBC

Job well done, Rick Gross

Thank you for the article and photo regarding the grotto at St. Bartholomew Church in the April 27 issue of the Northeast Times.

It was a beautiful story.

Mr. Gross is a man much to be admired and respected. Our community and country desperately need men of his caliber.

I am not surprised he is a veteran of the Vietnam War. Dedication and sacrifice were not uncommon among men who served there.

J.A. Zaleski

Bustleton

States rights

It appears that the Supreme Court will decide against Roe v Wade and send the abortion rules back to the states where 26 states (a majority of states) have laws banning some sort of abortions now.

The Democrats say it will hurt the poor minorities.

If they can pick black women for jobs just because they are black, they can see that all minorities get more money, as not to make them poor.

The Democrats would never improve the poor peoples status because then they would erode their base.

Let each state vote as to how to handle abortions.

Majority votes in each state wins like they taught us in school about democracy.

Mayer Krain

Modena Park

Promises, promises

The May 17 Pennsylvania primary election offers an opportunity to heal our divided republic. A cursory reading of the letters to the editor displays absence of common courtesy, as writers criticize anothers position. First, we need to accept that we have differences, and the reality of a functioning democracy is that everyone cant have what they want. How might we achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens? The primary, and the Nov. 8 general election, allows citizens to vote for the leaders they believe will represent them. But do we know if and how a candidate will support citizens ideas and interests? We have been bombarded with TV ads where candidates talk and talk, but say nothing. Hence, we have no idea if and how a candidate will serve the citizens interests. I found promises by a number of the candidates to be confusing. Granted, they make some big promises, but no details are offered how the promise can be delivered. Allow me a few illustrative examples:

One ad shows a Senate candidates brother and mother extorting their proficiency with guns; yet the candidate then declares he is pro-gun and pro-life. A bit confusing, as CDC data from 2020 reveals that 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S.

A gubernatorial candidate proposes to cut gas tax in half; maybe he will first double the gas tax by executive order; and then rescind it; and, voila, he did cut the gas tax in half.

A TV personality says elect him to the Senate, and hell fire Dr. Fauci. Perhaps this candidate needs to know that a senator doesnt have that authority.

I urge voters to take their responsibility seriously and dont give in to glad handing.

Joseph Morris

Somerton

Ironic? You bet

Mr. Michael A. Podgorskis brilliant note to this page (Beware Russian disinformation and those who spread it, 4/20) prompted a response from a Mr. John Farley (4/27) a letter that featured several questions for Mr. Podgorski. I do not know Mr. Podgorski, but Mr. Farleys questions for him deal with matters of such timely relevance that many of us who read this page may feel inspired to respond to them.

The following are several of Mr. Farleys questions for Mr. Podgorski, and my own responses:

Q: Who are you, sir, to decide whats in my mind, or in my heart?

A: Well, who does Mr. Podgorski, or any of us, have to be other than folks who can read? Assuming that Mr. Farleys words to this page are from his mind or his heart, we all know what is in his mind or his heart, from having read his words in black and white on this page as he exercises his right to free speech.

Q: Who are you to decide what speech is real or fake, or even Russian disinformation?

A: Here again, who does Mr. Podgorski, or any of us, have to be other than not brain dead to see through the lies and disinformation tyrants use to maintain power? Mr. Putin says his troops do not kill Ukrainian civilians. Those of us not brain dead know that this is fake news.

Q: Who are you to insinuate that three taxpaying neighbors of the Northeast are doing the dirty work of Mr. Putin?

A: Mr. Podgorski does not need to insinuate, as Mr. Farley reveals whats in his mind and heart when he says that, Someone down in Florida might call Mr. Podgorskis warnings to us fake news! We all know that Mr. Farley is referring to Mr. Trump, who, in March of 2018 sent a note to Mr. Putin, congratulating him on his winning reelection. This when the rest of the free world knew that Putins win was a complete fraud, based on his autocratic stranglehold on power.

And, Mr. Farley forgets what the rest of us remember: That on the eve of Mr. Putins war on Ukraine, Trump said that Putin is pretty smart. Hes taking over a country. (fundraiser, Mar-A-Largo Club, Palm Beach, Florida, Feb. 23)

Mr. Farleys letter is mostly in defense of his right to free speech. Mr. Podgorskis

letter is not at all an attack on this right, but rather a warning that this and other rights

are taken from us under dictatorships such as Mr. Putins. Mr. Farleys support for Mr.

Trump aids indirectly, or directly, Mr. Putins dirty work. Ironic, dont you think?

Roland Williams

Pennypack East

Contradictions, inconsistencies

In response to Mr. Farleys last two opinion pieces, I hope readers are taking note of several glaring contradictions. In typical fashion, his April 13 piece lists a litany of grievances of the radical right. Farley scolds would-be candidates to leave our kids alone, raising the specter of the politicization of children, and yet Gov. Ron DeSantis just signed the Dont Say Gay Bill in an attempt to limit the free speech of LGBTQ+ Americans signing the bill in front of children a bill that effectively attacks the free speech of certain other children. In addition, recent censorship efforts by Republican school boards and state Houses across America have resulted in over 1,500 ordinances/laws that ban books, of which the common denominator seems to be whether the books align with the radical rights political agenda. To be clear, none of this has to do with Critical Race Theory, which is not taught until students are of college age, at which age they can typically vote, sign up for military service and get an abortion all without parental consent. These are not kids. Farley wrote leave the kids alone and yet he politicized them for his own political ends. Farley wrote that we must respect all forms of free speech, yet his party is attempting to pass laws to curtail the free speech of Americas marginalized communities. So who is politicizing kids? Who is banning free speech? Radical Republicans, like Farley.

Further, let me disabuse Mr. Farley of his false notions of free speech. In fact, it is the governments role via the courts to determine what is and what is not constitutionally protected free speech. For example, if a person were to incite a riot that did grievous damage to the U.S. Capitol thats not likely protected free speech and will probably be determined by the courts in the coming months. Further, the First Amendment does not obligate social media platforms to extend anyone the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. Like all services, you agree to their terms and you use their product according to their terms. Or you dont. If a platform deems your speech, for example, as hate speech and they kick you off, then that is their decision to do so. The First Amendment does not apply because no entity of the government is attempting to abridge your free speech. So sorry Mr. Farley, but not sorry, because your free speech is highly contextually dependent and is not unlimited in the way you have so ignorantly described.

No doubt you believe in your own good intentions. Like you, I support a free and democratically self-determined Ukraine, but just because you dont believe your points of view align with Russian disinformation does not mean that they dont align with Russian disinformation. Free speech comes with the added burden of grasping the larger context in which we responsibly disseminate our political views. Instead of making any sort of admission, you attempted to cloak your statements in the immunity of unlimited free speech. This thinly veiled ruse was apparent to any astute reader, and you again exposed the contradiction of what you write on one hand about supporting Ukraine and then write on the other that echoes Russian disinformation. Beyond these self-evident contradictions, and your obvious attempt to avoid responsibility for what you have written, your piece is filled with a series of silly recriminations. Unlike you, I do not resort to questioning a persons patriotism; I deconstruct your writing in order to expose its logical inconsistency on display for all readers.

Michael A. Podgorski

Fox Chase

Send the bums a message

When you go to the polls this year, please remember.

Remember the empty shelves at your local grocery store.

Remember the higher costs of chicken, eggs, bread, milk.

Remember the price of gas going up over $2.50 per gallon for each gallon of regular gas since 1/20/2021.

Remember the $33 billion that the federal government say it needs right now for emergency funding to fight the COVID-19 pandemic with more tests, masks and vaccines that are suddenly in short supply.

Remember the $83 billion of taxpayer military equipment left behind to help arm the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Remember the rising crime in neighborhoods throughout the entire region and frankly in the whole country.

Remember your wives, sisters, daughters and granddaughters who go from store to store in the middle of the night searching for baby formula for their newborns.

Remember all of this. Then remember to vote and punish the arrogant leaders who only remember you and me on Election Day.

Send them all a message. A message they will always remember and a permanent message that these bums can and will never forget.

Please go out and vote like your life depends on it, because it really does.

John Farley

Somerton

Personal responsibility, please

There was a food problem at Mitchell Elementary School that too little free breakfast and free lunch food arrived, and no cafeteria workers were on hand to serve it. The principal paid for pizza herself and the staff bought plates and juice. One teacher gave out an emergency stash of granola bars and apple sauce. Couldnt parents at the very least be called in to serve their own children let alone feed them in the first place? This is an example of entitlement rather than personal responsibility. What did the children do for the 18 months that COVID closed the school?

When I attended my neighborhood elementary school, mothers came to the schoolyard at recess with milk and cookies. We came home for lunch. We were also just as poor. One memory I vividly have is that we had only day-old bread and butter to eat and I said, Im hungry. Whats for dinner? and my father said, Bread and butter. I said, I dont want bread and butter. He replied, Then youre not hungry.

Desperate people reluctantly signed up for relief (a temporary fix), which was a terrible embarrassment. Today it is called welfare. All families were poor. My recently unemployed father and uncle who lost their jobs to returning WWII veterans took the train to Los Angeles to look for work.

Back in multiracial North Phila., about 75 years ago, parents were responsible for feeding their own children. In junior high for lunch, parents might give a child 2 dimes for a lunch platter of a hot dog, baked beans, a container of milk and the best brown betty imaginable. Those who could not afford the 20 cents brought their lunch in a brown paper bag, which they carefully folded for use the next day. There was no such thing as a free lunch. For some kids, this was their only meal of the day. At Lincoln H.S. where I taught for 32 years, we had a BWAFWHO drive (Because We Are Fortunate We Help Others) to provide food and clothing at Christmas time. Unfortunately, times have changed.

Mel Flitter

Somerton

Read more:
Letters to the Editor - Northeast Times

We expect a great deal of criticism of our new book, Its Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom, but we were taken aback by Jeffrey Aaron Snyders misconstrual of its main argument. If you go by Snyder, weve written a deeply flawed book attacking three racists that is bound to get attention because of its bold thesis. Snyder positions himself, in his essays in these pages, as a defender of free speech against left overreach and the excesses of diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, and he has also written a notable entry in the free speech is threatened by both sides subgenre. Articles like those can help fuel exaggerated perceptions of campus politics, but we do not begrudge him this territory. Its just not our territory. We are not interested in saving free speech: We are interested in saving academic freedom from free speech. Its Not Free Speech explains how academic freedom differs from free speech and why that difference is of great importance in the era of what Richard Hasen calls cheap speech.

At one point, Snyder invokes the authoritarian legislation sweeping the country and snarkily suggests that our time would have been better spent mobilizing resistance to that even though much of Chapter 4, Whos Afraid of Critical Race Theory Today?, is devoted to explaining those attacks and their origins. (As it happens, Jennifer does spend her time promoting the African American Policy Forums campaign against those bills.) But the real issue is that Snyder does not grasp the main point of the book. Its Not Free Speech is an argument against the bills and the right-wing movement behind them (calling them a perfect, and perfectly hideous, example of intellectual authoritarianism), precisely because it insists that academic freedom is the collective responsibility of faculty members in their disciplines. It is not something politicians can interfere with without destroying the role of the university in a democratic society (as Jennifer has argued in these pages). Central to the book is the belief that academic-freedom cases must be placed in the hands of faculty peers, not administrators vulnerable to outside political pressures or the courts with their wildly uneven record on academic freedom.

So the issue here is not just a misrepresentation here and a misconstrual there. There is something more important at stake: a real disagreement about the relation of academic freedom to free speech.

But as for those misrepresentations: the most serious concerns Snyders claim that we would rule out of bounds any debate about Brown v. Board of Education. This claim rests on a sloppy reading of two sentences in chapter four: Some things are not worthy of entertaining as if we could pretend they were bloodless. Whether Brown v. Board of Education should have happened is one. The phrase should have happened comes from a Princeton undergraduate, Brittani Telfair, who was arguing that some debates do not make symmetric asks. Black people who have to argue, again and again, against the premises of segregation and Jim Crow are not in a symmetric relation to people whose forebears never experienced segregation and Jim Crow. This is an important and, we hope, by now elementary point about the difference between free speech in theory and free speech in practice. Brittney Cooper made it brilliantly back in 2017 in these pages. Snyder implies that by the logic of our book the kinds of arguments made by Derrick Bell regarding how Black children might conceivably have been better off under Plessy v. Ferguson or by Gloria Ladson-Billings on the price paid for Brown v. Board would be off limits. This strikes us as absurd, and we think will strike careful readers of the book as absurd as well.

Snyder missed that point by focusing on the phrase not worthy of entertaining and ignoring as if we could pretend they were bloodless. He also ignores our citation of our Black colleagues Carolyn Rouse and Mark James, who, in the pages that lead up to those two sentences, explain that debating the virtues of segregation or the benefits of colonialism puts Black people in the position of having to take seriously the belief that racism is and always has been justified and having to pretend that the question is bloodless. Of course debate about Brown v. Board is legitimate. The only ideas were proposing to exclude or to put in the dustbin alongside phrenology and phlogiston are the white supremacist ones that provided the foundations for Jim Crow, for eugenics, and for the Holocaust.

But then, Snyder takes things out of context, while cleverly accusing us of taking things out of context. He writes: The authors refer to legions of racist professors and the entrenched, unshakeable beliefs of the white-supremacist professoriate. Snyder does not explain that the phrase refers to the historians of the Dunning School, who devoted their careers to arguing that Reconstruction failed because Black people are incapable of self-government, and that the second phrase was delivered in the context of a discussion of Gregory Christainsen, now retired from California State University-East Bay, a race realist who taught students that there are measurable differences in the intelligence of various races; that these differences are captured in IQ scores; and that they are attributable to genetics rather than to social variables. Anyone familiar with the legacy of pseudoscientific racism would know that these beliefs are indeed entrenched and unshakeable. (Christainsens field? Economics.) His university ignored student complaints about his courses, as readers of our book will learn. We do not think that the professoriate is packed with Klan members; we do think that there are some zombie ideas that keep making a comeback despite their being repeatedly discredited.

James Yang for The Chronicle

It is fitting, somehow, that when Snyder baselessly accuses us of taking a professors words out of context, the professor in question is the notorious Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania. Snyder objects to our calling Wax a white supremacist: The authors evidence consists of two excerpts, largely stripped of context, from a speech that Wax gave at the 2019 National Conservatism conference. In that speech, which we discuss in detail, Wax promoted a cultural distance nationalism whose premise is that we are better off if our country is dominated numerically, demographically, politically, at least in fact if not formally, by people from the First World, from the West, than by people from countries that had failed to advance or, more succinctly, our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites. Snyder writes, Without seeking additional information beyond what they have presented, I am not sure how many people would feel qualified to judge whether Wax is a white supremacist. I dont. But when someone says that white people are better (more civilized, more advanced) than nonwhite people, that is literally white supremacism. We cant imagine what else to call it. (Fortunately, The Chronicle provided a link to Waxs speech in Snyders essay, so curious readers can read her remarks for themselves.)

This disagreement about Wax brings us to another fundamental misrepresentation in Snyders review: the implication that we are the ones calling these shots or ruling anything out of court. We explicitly say that we are not. We are calling for what the American Association of University Professors has long considered best practice: a deliberative process, with authority distributed among a horizontal panel of peers in the relevant fields. Too many cases today, we argue, are decided without such a process and, importantly, this includes the adjunct instructor who can simply not be rehired to appease complaining students, parents, or donors. We think academic-freedom committees can do a better job adjudicating the controversies that pop up almost daily than can an individual provost, a series of tweets, or arguments made in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Free speech as a slogan once served dissenting voices and struggles (the Berkeley Free Speech Movement was about the right to protest the Vietnam War on campus), but thats not how it typically functions today. In the public sphere, it facilitates hate speech and conspiracy theories. Most important, the widespread conflation of free speech and academic freedom makes it incredibly difficult for universities to do their jobs, which is to discriminate between high-quality speech (which refers to disciplinary expertise and is protected by academic freedom) and low-quality speech (which refers to ungrounded opinion).

The First Amendment doesnt demand or expect that speech be responsible or informed in any way, but academic speech speech with a claim to expertise does. That distinction is critical. When commentators ritualistically frame every academic disagreement in terms of free speech, they blur an essential distinction and facilitate the movement by which self-interested and partisan forces actively undermine democracy.

The contribution of Its Not Free Speech is not so much to recognize that content-free ideals like free speech work differently at different times on playing fields that have never been even; many people understand this better than we do. (We turn to the philosopher Charles W. Mills for help with this). Our contribution is, we hope, to think about what these insights about content-free ideals, cheap speech, and who makes judgment calls in the academic arena now mean for how we realize academic freedom. Of course, we are not the only ones trying to think this through. A growing body of work analyzes the relationship of power to academic freedom: We are thinking, for example, of Steven Salaitas Uncivil Rites; Johnny E. Williamss article The Academic Freedom Double Standard: Freedom for Courtiers, Suppression for Critical Scholars in the AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom; and Reshmi-Dutt Ballerstadt and Kakali Bhattacharyas collection, Civility, Free Speech, and Academic Freedom in Higher Education.

We welcome spirited discussion of Its Not Free Speech. We hope, though, that it will be discussion aimed at addressing some of the serious problems we face in academe and in democracy.

See the rest here:
Saving Academic Freedom From Free Speech - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt argues the government's alleged collusion with Big Tech to violate the First Amendment 'needs to stop.'

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt slammed the Biden administration for allegedly colluding with Big Tech to censor free speech, arguing his lawsuit will take on big government and Big Tech, "two of the biggest, most corrupt institutions that are out there."

ERIC SCHMITT: The government can't violate the First Amendment by suppressing speech, and the government can't outsource that also to the Big Tech partners. And that's what we're alleging in this lawsuit. And we're taking on two of the biggest, most corrupt institutions that are out there, big government and Big Tech

FCC COMMISSIONER SAYS BIDENS 'DISINFORMATION BOARD' IS 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL'

First, they hold over these special protections that big tech has, principally section 230, which makes them immune from typical liability because they're not considered a publisher. So they hold that over, the left does, unless they censor more.

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt discusses the Biden administration's alleged collusion with Big Tech during "Varney & Co." on May 9, 2022. (Fox News)

MUSK HOPES TO BUILD BRAND TRUST THROUGH FREE SPEECH, TRANSPARENCY WHICH 'BIG TECH NEEDS': FMR PARLER CEO

The second way they do it is the direct collusion that we see now and Jen Psaki in press conferences has told us with her own words that they're working directly with Facebook to flag, quote unquote, disinformation. And this has played itself out on a number of different fronts, whether it was the laptop from hell, election integrity issues, certainly during COVID with the origins of COVID and then with the efficacy of masks. So those are just a few examples. But in this lawsuit, we're essentially alleging that they're violating the First Amendment, and they're doing it with their big tech partners, and it needs to stop.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW BELOW:

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt discusses his lawsuit against the Biden administration and top officials for allegedly colluding with Big Tech to censor free speech.

Read more from the original source:
Missouri AG targets Biden, Big Tech in free speech lawsuit: Taking on the biggest, most corrupt institutions - Fox Business

Welcome to Kentucky Derby week.

In celebration, after you've had a mint julep and dropped acid in memory of Hunter S. Thompson, come join us by the fireside and let's talk about free speech before the eighth race claims all our money.

Last Saturday, President Biden paid tribute to journalists at the annual White House Correspondents Dinner. Comedian Trevor Noah cheered the efforts of the fourth estate while WHCA president Steve Portnoy recognized fallen journalists from around the world who died trying to bring the world the news from Vladimir Putin's chosen war in Ukraine.

The dinner was quite the event. It celebrated journalism instead of calling us "fake news" and featured a president who is willing to sit and take a few jokes at his expense instead of one who refused to attend and instead hid out in the White House and called us "the enemy of the people." Since the entire purpose of the night is to raise money for a scholarship fund for future journalists, it was nice to have a president who understands the need to educate our youth.

RELATED:Will we really let ourselves be governed by irredeemable idiots? That's the choice, America

But what about free speech? Sure, the night celebrated it but it almost feels like we're celebrating the passing of a relative we loved from afar. You know, the relative everyone in the family says they love, but no one really wants around which, oddly enough, is how many treated Hunter S. Thompson while he was still alive. Not that he ever appeared to give a shit about that.

Honoring "free speech" can feel like celebrating the passage of that relative the family all claimed to love, but no one really wanted around.

For many, the mere mention of free speech without saying the words "fake news" is such an improvement that the Biden administration is often applauded just for holding briefings at the State Department, the Pentagon and the White House on a regular basis. A video produced by the administration for World Press Freedom Day earlier this week, proudly tweeted out by press secretary Jen Psaki, praises itself for doing just that.

Sure, after Donald Trump it's nice to have regular and reasonable briefings. But Trump's administration set a low bar, and no one should take too much pride in crawling over it. Yet that's the central point of the video.

It features walking and talking standups from three press secretaries. It looks like an airline video of flight attendants explaining how seat belts work.

Biden has briefings. Wow.

There are serious issues regarding access to the president and the White House, and the administration's horrible track record of returning phone calls or emails to anyone outside the dozen or so reporters who make up the protective pool around the president. And of course there are questions about control, contrivance and avoidance that accompany any administration. Biden and his administration often use Fox News as a foil, and happily point out Fox News reporters in the room. The Murdoch network knows this game and plays it well, having been denigrated for years by the Obama administration and others before Trump came along and the whole operation morphed into freakish Trump cheerleaders, in an incestuous relationship that culminated in Sean Hannity taking orders from Trump's team during the 2021 insurrection.

Biden's outward display of support for free speech cannot hide his administration's wish to control how the press covers him. It's not particularly wrong or surprising that he tries to put his best foot forward. As Sam Donaldson once told me, it's the job of the White House communications team to do so, and it's our job to hold the administration accountable for its actions.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

That's the wild card. Today, more often than not, we fail to do our jobs, and the American people know that. That's why Biden could joke this weekend about how happy he was to be in a room full of people whose favorability ratings are lower than his.

As you sip that julep, contemplate that "funny because it's true" state of affairs, and what is being done to combat it. That would be nothing. Nothing is being done about it. Certainly none of the multinational media corporations who bought up most of the tables at the WHCA dinner have done anything to change the status quo they're doing OK.

To be fair, the responsibility to clean up the problem doesn't rest on Biden's shoulders alone. He's inherited a large, often misunderstood problem that every president since Reagan has made worse. Even the Democrats' beloved Barack Obama: He claimed to support journalism, but used the Espionage Act seven times to go after whistleblowers and leakers. Biden hasn't done that.

But Biden hasn't done a hell of a lot to support us either. Jamal Khashoggi wasn't even mentioned on Saturday during the WHCA dinner. He was a Washington Post columnist who was murdered, dismembered and cremated in Istanbul, by a team of killers connected to the Saudi government. We've done nothing about it, and nothing to dissuade future murders of reporters. When Biden says he'll stand up for us, who can take that seriously? We all know that if the death of a journalist is tied to a powerful potentate, our government will do nothing. The rest of the world gets the message.

Jamal Khashoggi wasn't even mentioned at the correspondents' dinner. We've done nothing about his murder, and nothing to dissuade future despots from following suit.

As I say, you can't just blame the president. Congress could pass a shield law protecting reporters from having to give up confidential sources. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., got his latest attempt at a shield law out of committee, but it's doubtful it will ever see a floor vote. If it does, it's even more doubtful it will pass the Senate. Everyone from Jim Jordan to Mike Pence to the most powerful Democrats have said they support the measure, which would immensely enhance a reporter's ability to gather information. Yet it still hasn't passed.

Meanwhile, large corporations continue to control the press. Ben Bagdikian, the former dean of the journalism school at UC Berkeley and former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, famously said that if you want a greater diversity of reporting, you need a greater diversity of ownership. But no one in Congress and no one at the White House has suggested using existing antitrust laws to break up the robber-baron media monopolies. When I bring that issue up before lawmakers, they look at me as if I'm trying to steal their wallet.

There is another step that could be taken. Sam Donaldson, who appeared with me and CNN's Jim Acosta in a panel at the National Press Club last week, argues for the reinstatement of the FCC's fairness doctrine, as a way to guarantee more accountability in the press. His voice is among the multitude of owners, reporters, editors, anchors and others in journalism recommending such a move.

Nothing has been done there either.

This isn't an issue untethered to reality.

The need for a stronger First Amendment was driven home this week by events at the Supreme Court. It was first reported, and later confirmed by Chief Justice John Roberts, that the court has already drafted an opinion, ("authentic" but not "final," Roberts explained) that would overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, which gave the country legal abortion and recognized a woman's right to choose.

Rep. Byron Donalds, a Florida Republican, called the release of this draft opinion "illegal." He wants to prosecute whoever leaked it.

Roberts has acknowledged the draft's authenticity, but hasn't apologized for it. He apparently agrees with Donalds, and immediately ordered an investigation into the leak. That's called shooting the messenger. It's a deflection from the real issue. That makes you wonder if Donalds and Roberts are the type of people who'd show up at a comedy show just to attack the comedian.

Roe v. Wade was one of the strongest foundations of bipartisan cooperation but what worries Chief Justice Roberts is who told us that the Supreme Court is about to screw us.

More than 70 percent of the American public supports Roe v. Wade. It was one of the strongest foundations of bipartisan cooperation, and what worries the chief justice is who told us that the Supreme Court is about to screw us. He wanted to keep that quiet until it was a done deal.

That's why what we do is important and why those who give us valuable information, and those who report it, need to be protected.

Of course Roberts wants you to worry about the leaker. That way, he doesn't have to deal with fallout from the fact that the Supreme Court has apparently seized an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade when it didn't have to.

Without the efforts of reporters, the world wouldn't know what the Supreme Court planned to do until it was done. And mind you, while knowing ahead of time may change nothing about the court's decision,, forewarned is indeed forearmed. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is among those already protesting with crowds outside the Supreme Court.

As you celebrate the Run for the Roses this weekend (like every true American should) and drink that mint julep (perhaps followed by another), remember that the free press helps ensure everyone's freedom.

The people have a right to know.

The next time the Biden administration wants to demonstrate its commitment to that cause, I hope it produces a video dealing with a shield law, whistleblowers, the fairness doctrine and media monopolies. Those are the real issues that threaten free speech.

Words and platitudes are great at award dinners. Having comedians support us is just fine (after all, it's an exercise of self-defense for the comedians). But today's media not only reflects the division we see in our country, it obviously shoulders some responsibility for it.

President Biden, we need your help.

In memory of one of the wildest men I've ever personally known to exercise his free speech, I tip my mint julep in honor of Hunter S. Thompson and get on my knees and pray we don't get fooled again. (With a tip of my wildest Derby hat to Pete Townshend.)

Read more from Brian Karem on the Biden White House:

Original post:
We celebrated "free speech" this week just as it's slipping away from us - Salon

Bill Maher delivered a scorching attack on the movement in the U.S. to censor what we say ... and gotta say, it may be his best commentary in a long time.

The "Real Time" host declared his position from the jump -- "Sorting out lies from truth is your job," adding it's ridiculous we treat everyone like "helpless dumb blondes ready to believe everything ... like Donald Trump!"

He makes the point ... people living today aren't special -- as he says, every age is the misinformation age. He harkens back to 1858, when the New York Times worried Americans couldn't handle the transatlantic telegraph because it was "superficial and too fast for the truth."

Go back even further, Bill says, to 1487, when the Pope cautioned against the misuse of the printing press, saying it was the source of pernicious writing -- hmmm, sounds like fake news.

And, then there's radio ... in 1938, some listeners freaked out listening to Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds," believing the Martians invaded New Jersey.

As Bill says, lies are everywhere ... like germs. He says you can't germproof the world, so develop a better bull*** meter.

And, then he makes a brilliant point ... "Sometimes misinformation is history's first draft" -- like the stories that circulated about COVID -- that 50% of those who are unvaccinated become hospitalized when it's less than 1%.

To drive home the point, he notes lots of folks believe in "an imaginary best friend in the sky who they can talk to to help them with their problems." Bill asks if there should be a warning label on that.

He's all for banning things like child porn, calls for insurrection, personal threats, etc, but people should be able to express their opinions even if they are repugnant. And, deciding whether something is true, half-true, a quarter true or false ... well that's our job, not the job of some publisher.

In sum, Bill says people have the right to be assholes and express ridiculous opinions. That's called free speech. That's called democracy -- it's as messy as it is precious.

Read this article:
Bill Maher Rails on People and Media that Want to Censor Free Speech - TMZ