Category Archives: Freedom

Recent debates around vaccine passports, or formal/mandatory certification of vaccination, point towards a potential widening societal divide between those who are vaccinated and those who are not. Those with certification of covid-19 immunisation might be permitted to travel, work, go to the gym, play sports, attend entertainment events, dine in restaurants, and ultimately, return to normal life. According to Clare Wenham of the London School of Economics, such a distinction would contribute to the creation of a two-tier system and given history shows that when you create division within society it leads to civil unrest, she believes this may result in a vaccine apartheid.

There are many international and country level experiences in which proof of immunity or prior vaccination are either encouraged or required, highlighting the potential use of covid-19 passports both on a local, national, and international scale. Historically, this includes travel vaccine certification (for diseases such as yellow fever, or previously, smallpox), or vaccination for various occupational purposes to protect at-risk healthcare workers and/or their patients. Mandatory vaccination of children before kindergarten or school-entry is also used in some countries.

The UK prime minister has ordered a review of vaccine passports. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, plans to implement the Digital Green Certificate, which would have three primary objectives: providing proof of vaccination, recovery, and/or results of a recent covid-19 test. It should ultimately represent a path to gradual, safe, and lasting reopening, she says, by enabling citizens to move safely and freely in the European Union. Such certificates shall be available for all EU citizens and respect non-discriminatory and data protection standards. This is an ambitious project, particularly given the current vaccination rates in the EU. Nonetheless, this document would include an escape clause and potentially allow for the provision of covid-19 test certificates, which could be a partial solution to the issue of vaccine unavailability.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has taken a distinct position regarding vaccine passports based on ethical, technological, legal, and scientific questions, and urges measures that least impede freedom of movement. Ethical considerations relate to the global shortage of vaccines and the further worsening of existing inequalities (both in terms of accessibility and availability of covid-19 vaccines and tests). WHO currently discourages national authorities from mandating covid-19 immunisations passports. They say there are still critical unknowns regarding the efficacy of vaccination in reducing transmission. Furthermore, to implement such passports, vaccines shall first be approved by the WHO securing quality and global availability. This is of utmost importance when considering the multitude of current covid-19 and candidate vaccines and the country-wise differences in the adopted vaccines.

The development of fake passports is also a concern. The need for interoperability standards, as stressed by the WHO, is crucial, along with securing confidentiality and traceability. Such solutions must work locally and internationally.

Despite these recommendations, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Austria, and Greece are considering introducing covid-19 vaccine passports. Similarly, Asian and American governments are considering such a move. In contrast, the French government has expressed its concerns regarding passports.

Use of vaccine passports may extend beyond travelling purposes and determine access to normal life. Israel has issued a green-pass, allowing individuals to attend gym classes, theatres, concerts, and hotels; use of such certificates has extended to those wishing to sit inside restaurants and bars. Yet, while this approach has already allowed about 5 million citizens to return to some normality, the process of implementing and enforcing the use of these passports remains problematic, mainly from logistic, legal, and ethical aspects. The green passport may be complemented with rapid testing. The Polish government has issued a QR code allowing a downloadable version of a vaccine confirmation document, which shall grant rights to which vaccinated people are entitled.In addition to national measures, large private actors (e.g. British tour operator Sage and British Airways) are considering introducing vaccine passports. Travel insurers may operate a two-tier system charging higher premiums for unvaccinated individuals.

Vaccine passports can contribute to vaccine hesitancy in two ways, either by increasing citizens concerns or by encouraging vaccine uptake. Vaccine hesitancy is strongly dependent on contextual factors and the vaccines available. There are extensive areas of covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in Eastern Europe, Russia, and France. There is a higher desire for covid vaccination in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Scandinavia, and the UK. In the UK, not only are there problems with uptake and reluctance amongst certain ethnic minority groups, but there may be a shift from using the term vaccine hesitancy as it could perpetuate stigma and discrimination. Vaccine confidence conveys a more positive outlook.

The role of vaccine passports for countering vaccine hesitancy remains problematic. Those who actively resist vaccine programmes (anti-vaxxers) may portray vaccine passports as coercive measures of the global vaccination plan to control the population and violate privacy. The lack of consistent evidence of effectiveness highlighted by the WHO compromises the message to be vaccinated. Furthermore, the lack of globally endorsed-measures and a WHO-accepted vaccine leads to questions such as: Which vaccine is best? Which vaccine would I like my neighbour to have had, before a flight or before attending a gym class? Which vaccine is safest for me to travel given the various mutations? A key issue in relying on individual consumer choice weakens the ability of governments to vaccinate large percentages of their populations. All these factors can exert negative influences on hesitant individuals and may subsequently lower immunisation rates.

In contrast, vaccine passports may increase the uptake of immunisation as part of a collective desire to return to normality. Moreover, individuals may realise that vaccinated individuals do not suffer from adverse effects leading to higher perceived benefits than risks. For instance, the Israeli green-pass has been seen as beneficial in enabling freedom of movement and persuading many, including minorities and hesitant groups to be vaccinated. Employers may reasonably believe that vaccine passports offer an additional level of assurance to keep their workplace safer and their workforce protected, maintain business continuity, and ensure protection from litigation and trade disputes. Vaccine passports may be highly desirable in areas with high infection rates, often stimulated by poor quality working and living conditions.

There is an urgent need for coordinated, global policy on vaccination passports or certification, and for complementary policies at national and local levels. The need for such policies raises many questions: How should vaccine prioritisation plans be modified in light of possible growing demands linked to immunisation passports? How would this deal with the different variants and their fit with prior vaccines? How would vaccine passports be implemented in countries/areas with high vaccine-hesitancy rates? Would this result in fraudulent documentation? Would clinicians come under pressure to provide medical exemption certificates? Will vaccine passports be a precondition for ones working environment?

Imposing vaccine passports is likely to provoke even more community resistance to vaccination where it exists. We need high levels of vaccination coverage across and within all countries. We will not be free from the virus until everyone is free. Since passports are an imminent reality, trust, community involvement and consent are essential in bringing societies together and ensuring effective international action.

Giulia Sesa, European Public Health, Department of International Health, CAPHRI, FHML, Maastricht University

Brian Li Han Wong, Medical Research Council Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at UCL, Department of Population Science and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London.

Katarzyna Czabanowska, Past President of ASPHER and Department of International Health, CAPHRI Maastricht University

John Reid, Honorary Professor of Public Health, Chester University.

Nadav Davidovitch, Professor of Public Health, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.

Jose M Martin-Moreno, ASPHER Honours Committee & Department of Preventive Medicine and INCLIVA, University of Valencia, Spain

John Middleton, HonProfessor of Public Health University of Wolverhampton and President, Association of Schools of Public Health in the European Region (ASPHER).

Competing Interests: none declared

On behalf of the Association of Schools of Public Health in the European Region (ASPHER) COVID-19 Task Force Vaccination group: Laurent Chambaud, Katarzyna Czabanowska, Nadav Davidovitch, Ranjeet Dhonkal, Manfred Green, Jose M Martin-Moreno, John D Middleton, Jean-Philippe Naboulet, Robert Otok, John Reid, Giulia Sesa, Mohamud Sheek-Hussein, and Brian Li Han Wong. Address for correspondence john.middleton@aspher.org

Continued here:

Covid-19 vaccine passports and vaccine hesitancy: freedom or control? - The BMJ - The BMJ

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech, which is a thing terrible to traitors.

Benjamin Franklin

By Peter Ready

Americas gateway drug to its tyranny addiction has been to forget and reject what is true, submit the mind and voice to slogans and work hard to remain stupid by believing and supporting fantasy lies.

One of these lies is in the assumption that America will always be free. Yet history is a grim march of nations looted by reckless tyrannies and regimes.

The United States was the first government created with strict limits on its powers and rests on the foundation of Christian morality. Remove, discard, cancel and reject the Bible to guide Americans and their government, then all individual rights, social liberty and justice collapse.

Americas Patriot Act of 2001 removed 200-year-old vital constitutional protections that stopped government corruption and abuse of U.S. citizens. Since 2001 the government has been collecting and harvesting everything digital that is conceivable.

This 20-year 24-hour-a-day global data roundup includes all that can be collected. When the time is right (for them) those in power utilize it according to their purposes. Many today without realizing it, are building our own personal concentration camps databit by databit.

Example 1: King Zuck rules over 2.8 billion active Facebook users, plus 1.84 billion who visit the site daily.

Average users spend over 20 hours per month on the app (93 billion hours per month), freely submitting daily offerings of their likes, photos, addresses, names, friends, families, associates, dislikes, opinions, ventings, travel trip details, pets, and addresses to the entire known universe.

Looks like we have self-relinquished our Fourth-Amendment rights the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, etc.

We have pre-empted our own privacy voluntarily and published to all the world everything about us. So why should we care about the Fourth Amendment rights for people we do not like?

Example 2: Surveillance Government and Surveillance Capitalism must be identified and addressed if we are to end this dangerous era and move forward as Americans and not as un-Americans.

Surveillance Government, partnering with Surveillance Capitalism were applied massively to the Jan. 6 capitol riot crowd. This was never enlisted to police the hundreds of building-burning BLM/Antifa riots during the prior 14 months around the nation.

Americans are now in a dangerous place: we are a suspect society of digits: monitored, governed and controlled by our technology, which does not answer to usit answers to government and big-tech.

Surveillance capitalism is undermining personal autonomy and eroding democracy, while surveillance government spells tyranny, psychological control and loss of liberty under the illusion of collective anonymous empowerment.

Both government and big-tech exploit people with surveillance tools. They both use technology to see, take, sell, predict and manipulate behavior.

Individuals are now more digit than citizen in the governments massive data dragnet, and it is so in Big-Techlandia. Surveillance capitalism tunes, herds and intervenes in our behavior with subtle, subliminal cues, with rewards and punishments toward their most profitable outcomes.

BigTechs power erodes democracy from within by extracting our autonomy of thought and action; critical thinking and judgment erode. They know everything about us and we know nothing about them.

This is not an equal economy: they will keep all their knowledge and keep you in the dark. This economy has much injustice and inequality and they will not give up their superiority over you.

Their knowledge of you is far more than what you tell them. In one sense, their design is to keep us ignorant and believing we must always affirm digital technological progress.

New surveillance-based systems thrive in every economic sector and every smart product and personalized service. Surveillance capitalism and surveillance government are neither necessary nor inevitable.

In fact, they are reducing us all to digits without personhood, rights, liberties, or true freedom.

This is also the case in the political economy. It is not equal. We are suspects, semi-ciphers, who need to be re-programmed to think according to the prevailing political partys trending views.

Americans must re-orient our lives with the liberties as expressed in our founding documents, which are based on Christian values and liberties expressed in Scripture and our founding documents.

The fulfillment of the pretend smart economy is actually entrapment and you are thrilled by your own behavior, which has been studied and replicated in you by your tech-overlords in techland.

The un-Americans of today will lead the nation to further destruction and captivity.

Let us wake up to surveillance capitalism and surveillance government and return to our roots in this nation and in our Bill of Rights. We need to leave un-America and revive America.

The U.S. Constitutions Sixth Amendment grants six rights to the accused to ensure a fair trial and verdict rendering. But in the un-American techno-suspect society the burden of proof has been flipped: now, you start off guilty and must prove your innocence.

Already, faulty facial recognition tools have led to wrongful arrests. Change and reject being downgraded by surveillance capitalism and surveillance government. We must work together, since these adversaries are ubiquitous and they tend to remove all other competition.

Example 3: The COVID-19 pandemic with its lockdowns, mask mandates, surveillance, snitch lines for Americans to report fellow citizens for engaging in risky behavior, plus veiled threats of forced vaccinations are each and all markers on the road to tyranny ahead.

America is descending into a cage-keeper democracy where voters select the politicians to place them under house arrest.

Example 4: In the Soviet Union, under communism, Russian children were taught, much like USA students today, that atheist Marxism leads to a classless, brighter future with no racism or injustice towards minorities.

People were soon disillusioned by totalitarian hypocrisy among their leaders. If they objected in the slightest, they got swift, harsh iron fist reactions.

Soviet slave master-leaders punished them, put them in captivity and gulag imprisonment. Free speech was forbidden in the Soviet Union. Soviet Cancel culture resulted in a Russian communist holocaust.

Politically correct: If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.

Benjamin Franklin

Peter Ready, a longtime reader and regular letter writer, lives in Albany.

Read more from the original source:

Freedom's not a given, and rights are being lost - Sweet Home New Era

JERUSALEM (AP) A year ago, Giordana Gregos parents spent Passover at home in Israel, alone but grateful that they had escaped the worst of the pandemic in Italy. This year, the whole family will get together to mark the Jewish feast of liberation and deliverance from the pandemic.

Israel has vaccinated over half its population of 9.3 million, and as coronavirus infections have plummeted, authorities have allowed restaurants, hotels, museums and theaters to re-open. Up to 20 people can now gather indoors.

Its a stark turnaround from last year, when Israel was in the first of three nationwide lockdowns, with businesses shuttered, checkpoints set up on empty roads and people confined to their homes. Many could only see their elderly relatives on video calls.

For us in Israel, really celebrating the festivity of freedom definitely has a whole different meaning this year after what we experienced, said Grego, who immigrated to Israel from Italy. Its amazing that this year were able to celebrate together, also considering that in Italy, everybody is still under lockdown.

Passover is the Jewish holiday celebrating the biblical Israelites liberation from slavery in Egypt after a series of divine plagues. The week-long springtime festival starts Saturday night with the highly ritualized Seder meal, when the Exodus story is retold. Its a Thanksgiving-like atmosphere with family, friends, feasting and four cups of wine.

Throughout the week, observant Jews abstain from the consumption of bread and other leavened foods to commemorate the hardships of the flight from Egypt. Instead, they eat unleavened matzah.

Holiday preparations involve spring cleaning to the extreme to remove even the tiniest crumbs of leavened bread from homes and offices. Cauldrons of boiling water are set up on street corners to boil kitchenware, and many burn their discarded bread, known as chametz. Supermarkets cordon off aisles with leavened goods, wrapping shelves in black plastic.

Most Israeli Jews religious and secular alike spend the Seder with extended family. Last years Passover was a major break in tradition.

Government-imposed restrictions forced the closure of synagogues and limited movement and assembly to slow the virus spread. Some conducted the ritual meal with their nuclear family, others over videoconference, while an unfortunate few held the Seder in solitude.

Another lockdown was imposed over the Jewish High Holidays in September, again preventing family gatherings, and a third came earlier this year with the emergence of more contagious variants of the virus.

By the third lockdown, Israel had launched one of the most successful inoculation campaigns in the world after the government secured millions of doses from Pfizer and Moderna. Israel has now vaccinated more than 80% of its adult population.

Its too early to say that Israels coronavirus crisis is over, as new variants could emerge that are resistant to the vaccines.

The vaccination campaign in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza has been slow to get off the ground, with Israel facing criticism for not sharing more of its supplies. Israel has vaccinated over 100,000 Palestinian laborers who work in Israel and West Bank settlements, and has sent a couple thousand doses to the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinians have imported more than 130,000 doses on their own, but it could be several months before shots are available for the vast majority of the nearly 5 million Palestinians in the territories. Experts say that could pose a risk to Israels own public health efforts.

For now, however, Israelis are enjoying what feels like a post-pandemic reality, lending special significance to Passover.

Its not only symbolic that its the holiday of freedom, but its also the holiday of the family, said Rabbi David Stav, chief rabbi of the city of Shoham and head of the liberal Orthodox organization Tzohar.

This year, families are uniting. People that were so lonely, especially older people, who were disengaged from their families, all of a sudden they discover the freedom and the joy of being together with them.

Excerpt from:

Israelis gather for Passover, celebrating freedom from virus - Associated Press

Crime

Sacramento, CA Relying on a defendants ability to pay bail will no longer be the sole basis for getting out of jail while awaiting trial.

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that judges must consider suspects ability to pay when they set bail, meaning that indigent defendants can be freed unless deemed too dangerous. In a unanimous decision, the justices stated, The common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional. Electronic monitoring, regular check-ins with authorities, or ordering the suspect to stay in a shelter or undergo drug and alcohol treatment is allowed.

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which represents the interests of crime victims, argued in a friend of the court brief that making cash bail contingent on suspects ability to pay violates state law, which allows for considering the safety of the public and victim, the seriousness of the alleged crime, the suspects criminal record, and the likelihood that he or she will flee.

This decision comes after voters last year rejected a state law that would have ended Californias cash bail system entirely by substituting risk assessments for every suspect, and after months when a judicial order set bail at zero for lower-level offenses during the coronavirus pandemic. The courts ruling allows cash bail, so long as defendants can afford it.

Written by Tracey Petersen.

Report breaking news, traffic or weather to our News Hotline 532-6397. Send Mother Lode News Story photos tonews@clarkebroadcasting.com. Sign up for our FREE myMotherLode.com Daily Newsletters by clicking here.

For local news delivered to your email daily, sign up myMotherLodes FREE Daily Newsletter here.

Follow this link:

Freedom Based On Ability To Pay Bail Unconstitutional - MyMotherLode.com

The scenery and production design of Cowboys make you sit up and take notice from the off. They feel like signals that this is not just another trans tearjerker but a film with much bolder ambition and complexity.

The plot revolves around dad Troy and 11-year-old Joe, who run away from their problems together into the Montana wilderness, with but the flimsiest of plans. We are given context via flashbacks: Troys struggle to be a good man and Joes to be a girl. The interweaving works well yet results in a lack of time spent up in the mountains, getting to know present-day father and son.

Young newcomer Sasha Knight is a testament to the treasures producers can unearth if they see trans casting as an opportunity rather than a chore. His pain, fear and joy feel viscerally real throughout, not just because he is a talented actor but because he can, of course, empathise with his character. He does not have to approximate or analogise Joes experiences and so, as viewers, neither do we.

This emotional realness paradoxically leaves space for richer dynamics to play out in the plot. While some tired tropes and clunky dialogue (Im in the wrong body!) mean Cowboys stops short of being a great trans film, it triumphs as a moving portrait of parenthood and family, two more universal experiences with the power to make and break any of us.

Rrangi is about a trans man returning to his rural hometown after an unexplained 10-year absence and it, too, relies on flashback to bring us up to date. While the conscious LGBTQ+ casting pays off, the film as a whole suffers from a lack of plot driving everything forward. Eventually, we understand where protagonist Caz is coming from, but we never find out where he is going or what he wants. Instead, the film offers engaging, well-executed, albeit sometimes over-egged, scenes from a trans life. They play out in small-town New Zealand but could probably be transposed elsewhere.

There is a kind of storytelling about trans people (usually by non-trans people) that mistakes trans experience coming out, transition, family rejection, etc for plot. A few years ago, this was understandable, perhaps even a necessary growth stage. But portraying gender dysphoria, or even euphoria, as the story in and of itself is no longer enough. Nor does it do justice to ones ample on-screen talent.

Rrangi began as a miniseries that was recut into film shape. Hopefully, it can be disassembled again and develop rich present-tense storylines in future episodes.

Another Flare film that struggles with lack of story arc is the affecting Colors of Tobi. It is never fair to judge a film by what is not, however, given the rise of the far-right and anti-LGBTQ+ politics in Hungary in recent years, it was a shock to slowly realise this is not the films backdrop.

Instead, the documentary zooms its much more intimate lens in on one working-class family with three almost-adult children, one of whom is figuring out their gender identity.

The family, in particular Tobi and mum, are full of charisma and unafraid to have bracing, faltering conversations on camera. The director does a brilliant job of recognising when her big characters are about to enact a small human drama and letting the camera soak it up.

Yet there is also a risk to being hands-off with such a complex individual story. Sometimes it feels as though the director is not fully equipped to translate what she captures for her audience and it is not clear whether Tobi could not or would not share a little more of their inner dialogue.

There were moments when it seemed as though this filmmaker might also have mistaken a complex trans person for a compelling trans story. Rather than collaborate more with Tobi to find the narrative that truly is their journey, the editing hints at more sensational ideas, such as regret and confusion. These may well be accurate or projections, added to create tension or simplicity where neither really existed.

Thiessa Woinbackk, star of the Brazilian coming-of-age drama Valentina, is a trans YouTube star and activist in her home country. She is also a formidable screen presence and another exciting discovery among this years Flare lineup.

The titular character is a moody and defiant, yet smart and tender teen, upon whose shoulders the universe happens to have placed the added weight of being trans. In the opening scene, when forced to out herself to a club bouncer during a night out with friends, she impatiently asserts: Thats me five years ago, wearing an expression that says: Now let me in, I want to dance like everybody else.

It is clear that she does not see herself as a victim, so nor should we. In terms of where we are in the global struggle for trans equality, this characterisation feels very real and timely. And yet, precisely because Valentina is a girl, her small-town, conservative surroundings and the men who dominate it may yet break her spirit.

This film assuredly explores intersections of gender inequality, sexuality and societal change. Its transness is not a crutch or a hook but rather a rubric, which it uses to ask new and surprising questions, such as, for example, Valentina in the final scene: What is it about my freedom that bothers you?

No Ordinary Man is trans history, one many of us assumed we would never get to see and some feared did not even exist. It is also a meta narrative in more than one way, which sounds dubious but is magnificently executed.

The life story of mid-20th century trans jazz musician Billy Tipton is told in part as straight biography, with home audio recordings and black and white photos. A full sense of the man remains elusive but the makers know this. Indeed, they are asking: why is that?

We also go, and return throughout, to a casting call for a Tipton biopic, where a diverse range of trans masculine people are auditioning for the leading role. Its surprising and instructive in its own right to see these script readings become emotionally charged over and over again.

Lastly, by way of sociopolitical analysis and context, Tiptons original biography Suits Me: The Double Life of Billy Tipton is firmly but fairly critiqued from contemporary trans perspectives. We are reminded of how absolute the trans people are deceitful theory was and how recently that began to change.

So, there is a lot going on and yet the documentary retains room to breathe, and to exhale in disbelief and sigh with feelings of collective grief for our hidden elders. Then, just when you think both you and the film are spent, in comes the inscrutable Billy Jr, who held his father as he died from treatable illnesses .

This is a devastating and mighty documentary. It offers us trans or cis vital lessons about our past and reassures us of entirely different and hopeful ways forward.

Towards the end of No Ordinary Man, the writer Thomas Page McBee says that people who are transgender are learning to tell our own stories. This years BFI Flare lineup of trans-led and trans-made films is promising evidence of this. But it is also a reminder that, while seeing trans actors play trans characters is powerful and necessary, it is not enough.

Empowering trans people to tell trans stories at every level is not about ticking boxes or being woke; its much simpler than that. Its about unlocking great stories and making films that are as good as they can possibly be.

Continued here:

'What is it about my freedom that bothers you?': how trans films are evolving - The Guardian

SCOTT HAMMOND/STUFF

New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Marlborough chairman Ian Simmons at Blenheims Wynen St freedom camping site.

The Marlborough District Council has found itself on the wrong side of caravanners with its disproportionate and unreasonable clampdown on freedom camping.

The New Zealand Motor Caravan Association believes the councils new freedom camping bylaw, put down in December, could spell the end of freedom camping as we know it.

The association would vote at a public-excluded board meeting on Thursday on whether the group should ask the High Court to review the bylaw.

The bylaw put an end to freedom camping at all but five council sites and ruled vehicles at the remaining sites must be self-contained, which the association dubbed a dangerous precedent.

READ MORE:* Hundreds stop at newly closed freedom campsites over summer* Smoke alarm advice for freedom campers after van explodes suddenly* Kiwi-laden campsites forced to hang 'no vacancy' signs in Marlborough

Association chief executive Bruce Lochore said the council's disproportionate and unreasonable freedom camping bylaw punished tens of thousands of responsible Kiwi families.

He said the council failed to consult the public on its second drafting of the bylaw, released three days before it was adopted.

We have lost faith in the councils ability to follow due process and make lawful decisions ... We now have a bylaw that undermines national legislation designed to protect a Kiwi tradition, he said.

A council spokesman said it was inappropriate for the council to comment as it involved the potential for legal action.

Robert Steven/Stuff

New Zealand Motor Caravan Association property and policy national manager James Imlach says the councils new freedom camping bylaw is prohibitive.

Association property and policy national manager James Imlach said the association had long taken issue with the region's bylaws. It had flip-flopped four times between banning camping in all but some camp sites and allowing campers everywhere except certain sites.

However, the new 2020 bylaw is far more prohibitive towards [certified self-contained] vehicles than any previous edition. It explicitly prohibits freedom camping unless allowed in designated areas which departs from Parliaments expectations and Local Government New Zealand advice to its own membership, he said.

Marlborough's bylaw establishes a dangerous precedent that could spark the end of freedom camping as we know it. Challenging the bylaw sends another clear message and warning to local and central government that the only watchdog with the resources and commitment to hold councils to account will not back down.

The association was one of 350 to submit on the bylaw last year, concerned it would effectively ban freedom camping in the district.

SUPPLIED

In red, the Marlborough District Council-owned freedom camping sites that closed last year after a new freedom camping bylaw was approved.

The association challenged the Thames-Coromandel District Council freedom camping bylaw in 2014 because we felt that it went too far, Imlach warned the freedom camping bylaws hearing panel last year.

What were seeing in Marlborough is creating similar concerns, he said at the time.

Thames-Coromandels bylaw was found to be illegal, and had to be rewritten.

Imlach said the association had tried to take responsibility by setting up a camp site for members that visited Marlborough, but had missed out on more than a dozen properties in the last decade.

It had asked to lease council-owned land many times, he said.

CHLOE RANFORD/LDR

Marlborough District Council rangers say several information signs warning campers of the regions new rules have been stolen.

There's just been zero appetite from the council to work with [the association] to find a solution that's outside the box, Imlach said.

The council later agreed to work with the association.

But the groups Marlborough chairman, Ian Simmons, said both members and travellers felt they had been prohibited from sites some of which had been open for decades without a real reason.

There were 3000 members living in Marlborough.

The feedback we've had ... is there's just a lack of spaces available for people to camp on at the Marlborough District Council sites, let alone the number of sites. We used to have 13, now we have five.

MARION VAN DIJK/Stuff

Only self-contained vehicles are allowed at Marlborough District Council camp sites.

Council parks and open spaces planner Linda Craighead told residents during consultation on the bylaw last year that the council expected to be challenged on its non-self-contained vehicle ban.

As with a lot of legal matters, there are some lawyers who feel we can ban non-self-contained units, and some lawyers who think we can't. We're going to have a go and see how we do, Craighead said.

Changes to the bylaw were promised following a wave of submissions against freedom camping in the last two annual plans.

Council rangers have reported considerable surprise from several freedom campers over the changes, particularly so for those who had planned to use the camping sites over the [summer] holidays.

Read more here:

Caravanners fear regional bylaw the 'end of freedom camping as we know it' - Stuff.co.nz

Syracuse, NY Police made an arrest last week in the murder of a 93-year-old former teacher in her home at the Skyline Apartments, but the discussion quickly turned to this question:

Why was the suspected killer free?

A woman who police say admitted to the February murder of Connie Tuori had been arrested a week prior the death and charged with attacking another elderly woman in the same building. But a judge released her.

Seven days later, Tuori was murdered inside her 12th floor apartment at Skyline, a high-rise building overrun by crime and neglect, Syracuse police say.

Victoria Afet, 23, now faces up to life in prison without chance of parole if convicted of first-degree murder, police Chief Kenton Buckner announced Thursday.

Afet is accused of killing Tuori while trying to steal from her apartment. That led to an additional first-degree burglary charge.

Victoria Afet, 23, of Syracuse, is pictured in this undated selfie.Provided

Despite the arrest, Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick said Tuoris cause of death remains under investigation. He declined to say if anything was taken from her apartment, saying only that would come out at trial.

Afet was the last person seen with Tuori before her death, Fitzpatrick said. The two women, 70 years apart in age, were not acquaintances, he said.

But Afet, who is homeless, was seen on security camera following Tuori into the elderly womans apartment just before 3:30 p.m. on Feb. 26, police detective Matthew LaLonde wrote in court papers. Afet was seen leaving two hours later.

Thats the day authorities believe Tuori died.

But her body was not found for another 19 days. During that time, many people came and went from the apartment, as she lay dead inside, Fitzpatrick said, based on security video.

No one at Skyline reported Tuori missing. Her family asked police to check on her March 17 because they had become concerned. Thats when her body was discovered.

It just makes me kind of sad to think about, Fitzpatrick said of the fact no one in the building reported anything.

RELATED: Connie Tuori, 93, survived Afghanistan, Antarctica and African safari, only to be killed in her Syracuse apartment

Connie Tuori

Tuoris killing and an investigation by The Post-Standard have drawn attention to the desperate conditions inside the Skyline Apartments. Local governments have scrambled to take action against the owners, and non-profits are looking to move out their clients who fill the building plagued with crime and filth.

Related: Walsh says hes exploring legal action against Skyline owners: Its public nuisance No. 1

The DA implored those who had been in Tuoris apartment after her death to speak to authorities. Those individuals have already been identified on security video, he added.

Fitzpatrick promised that any witnesses who spoke truthfully would not be charged with entering the apartment, but he vowed to prosecute anyone who refused to talk to the full extent of the law.

A police detective wrote in court papers that Afet made admissions to the murder. But details of that alleged confession remain unknown. Fitzpatrick would only say Thursday that the implicating statements were not made to police.

In a court appearance, defense lawyer Susan Carey protested the suggestion that Afet made admissions, arguing that the criminal complaint outlining that allegation lacked specifics about any admission. A judge allowed the reference to a confession to remain in court paperwork.

Perhaps the biggest controversy surrounding Afets arrest involved what happened before the murder: the suspects release from jail without bail on a robbery charge at the same Skyline Apartments a week before Tuoris death.

Afets robbery charge from the earlier incident is one that cant typically result in jail under the states recent bail reform law. Thats because third-degree robbery defined as the forcible stealing of property is not considered a violent felony.

The reform law, however, does have a legal exemption that would have allowed the judge to set bail and hold Afet in jail. The law allows a judge to send a defendant to jail on a new offense during a pending case, if both the new and old cases involve identifiable harm to other people.

As she stood before a judge Feb. 19, Afet already had four ongoing felony cases, a short, failed stint on probation and a misdemeanor larceny conviction, public records show.

Shed been jailed seven separate times in the past three years and had gotten released or bailed out each time, according to records provided by Onondaga County Sheriffs Office spokesman Sgt. Jon Seeber.

In the robbery case, Afet had been accused of robbing a 74-year-old woman at Skyline, stealing $38 and biting her hand, police said in a felony complaint filed in Syracuse City Court. She also had prior ongoing allegations that included, in separate cases from 2020: slamming a womans head against a tree, flashing a serrated knife while threatening someones life and injuring someone with a knife outside a store.

Newly elected Syracuse City Court judge Felicia Pitts Davis in from of Onondaga County Courthouse. Dennis Nett | dnett@syracuse.com

City Court Judge Felicia Pitts Davis ordered Afet released from jail on pretrial release, akin to probation for those awaiting their day in court.

Its unclear what weighed into Pitts Daviss decision, including how much she knew about the previous pending charges. Judges are not allowed to talk about pending cases.

Still, the record shows that the judge considered and rejected an argument from prosecutors to keep Afet jailed on the bail-reform exemption that involves harm to people.

Afet was let go from jail Feb. 19. A week later, on Feb. 26, authorities say she followed Tuori into her apartment and killed her.

Buckner, the police chief, expressed concern Thursday that someone like Afet, facing multiple violent felonies, was still walking the streets at the time of Tuoris murder.

Thats what jails were built for, the chief said Thursday, while stressing that he wasnt blaming anyone.

Fitzpatrick pointed out that prosecutors had asked Afet to be held in jail on $50,000 bail on the robbery charge, a week before Tuoris death. The judge decided to release her with no bail.

Thats a big difference of opinion, Fitzpatrick said Thursday.

One of us was seriously wrong, the DA said. I think we now know who was wrong.

While questioning the wisdom of bail reform, the DA noted that the judge had the ability to send Afet to jail in the earlier robbery and had decided against it. The same judge would have made the same decision before bail reform, too, he suggested.

The circumstances of Afets release from jail before Tuoris murder were first revealed by Syracuse.com | The Post-Standard on Thursday morning, based on a timeline compiled from public records, sheriffs office jail records and interviews with lawyers involved in the case.

That history was later confirmed by the police chief and DA during the news conference announcing Afets arrest.

The day authorities say Afet killed Tuori she was charged again in an unrelated incident: driving a 2005 Honda Civic that had been reported stolen in DeWitt, said Trooper Jack Keller, a state police spokesman.

She was ticketed and released in that case without going before a judge, records show.

Two days later, on Feb 28, state police found Afet in another stolen car in the Baldwinsville area, Keller said. This time, she was driving a car that had been reported stolen in Syracuse. She was also carrying methamphetamine and hash oil, the trooper said.

That time, Afet was arraigned before a judge. Since Pitts Davis had placed Afet on pretrial release earlier in February, that was another factor that could be considered in sending her to jail.

This time, Clay Town Justice Jeffrey Schiano ordered Afet jailed with no bail, records show. Afet has been in custody ever since.

Including the murder, Afet now has a total of eight pending cases and one conviction, records show:

April 10, 2020: Accused of stealing a Chevrolet SUV from outside a North Side store. She was seen getting into vehicle with a bandaged, bloody hand injury, according to court records. When the vehicle was later recovered, blood inside was matched to Afet, police said. (Afet wasnt arrested until Oct. 22, 2020, after DNA blood analysis completed.)

June 16, 2020: Accused of stealing from the Butternut Street Rite Aid, then flashing a serrated knife at a civilian who tried to stop her; also accused of threatening to kill the civilian. Sent to jail with unknown bail, remained there for a month. That case is still pending in City Court after prosecutors consented to pursuing misdemeanors, not felonies.

July 16, 2020: Pleaded guilty to misdemeanor petit larceny from May, which also closed or reduced several other pending cases. Sentenced to three years on probation, freed from jail for the first time since June 16.

Aug. 16, 2020: Accused of injuring someone with a knife outside a North Side store. That case has been indicted as an assault and is pending in felony court. She faces up to 7 years in prison, if convicted. (Afet wasnt arrested in this case until Oct. 1, 2020.)

Aug. 22, 2020: Accused of slamming another womans head into a tree on Highland Street. That case is also pending in City Court after prosecutors consented to pursuing a misdemeanor.

Aug. 23, 2020: Sent to jail in head-slamming case, with bail set at $2,500 cash or $5,000 bond. Bail is increased as older cases linked to Afet: additional $20,000 bail in head-slamming incident from June; additional $1,000 bail in SUV theft case from April. Remains jailed for nearly next five months.

Sept. 4, 2020: Accused of violating probation from her sentence in the earlier petit larceny conviction. Specific allegations are unknown, though new arrests are considered probation violations.

Jan. 13: Officially taken off probation, resentenced to nine months in jail. Because shed already spent six months behind bars since her crime back in June 2020, shes released from jail Jan. 29. (Under jail rules, an inmate only serves 2/3 of a sentence, assuming theres no problems in custody.)

Feb. 18: Does not show up for felony court for 10:15 a.m. arraignment on indicted assault charge stemming from 2020 knife incident outside store. Around 4:30 p.m. the same day, accused of robbing and biting the 74-year-old woman at Skyline Apartments. Released from jail the following day, after arraignment, on pretrial release. A grand jury is now hearing the Skyline robbery case.

Feb. 26: The day authorities say Afet killed Tuori. Its the same day Afet is accused in DeWitt stolen car case. Ticketed by police and released.

Feb. 28: Accused of driving another stolen car in Baldwinsville. Also charged with drug possession. At arraignment, sent to jail with no bail, based on her prior pretrial release provisions.

March 17: Connie Tuori, 93, found dead by police in her 12th floor apartment at Skyline, 753 James St. Police were checking on her condition after she missed an appointment. Her death ruled a homicide.

March 23: Defense lawyer Susan Carey confirms to Syracuse.com | The Post-Standard that she is meeting with Afet in jail that afternoon regarding the Skyline Apartments homicide. Authorities decline comment.

March 25: Afet is officially charged with murder and burglary in Tuoris death. Security camera show Afet following Tuori into her apartment on Feb. 26, the day authorities believe the elderly woman was murdered, and leaving two hours later, police say. A criminal complaint alleges that she admitted to the crime, but details of that apparent confession remain unknown.

Accused Skyline Apartments killer admitted to murder before body was found, police say

Accused Skyline killer followed 93-year-old victim into her apartment, police say. What happened next still a mystery

Woman charged in slaying of 93-year-old woman in Syracuses Skyline Apartments

Skyline murder suspect was accused of attacking other woman, 74, in same building and freed a day later

Skyline Apartments to hire off-duty Syracuse cops for extra security after womans murder

Walsh says hes exploring legal action against Skyline owners: Its public nuisance No. 1

Elderly murder victims family on Skyline squalor: Did they get away with this because who owns it?

Connie Tuori, 93, survived Afghanistan, Antarctica and African safari, only to be killed in her Syracuse apartment

Family IDs 93-year-old woman murdered in Skyline Apartments

Inside Tim Greens Skyline Apartments: Murder, drugs and filth. Tenants, cops say enough is enough

Woman killed at Skyline Apartments on James Street

Police, tenants push football legend Tim Greens firm to fix nightmare apartments

Staff writer Douglass Dowty can be reached at ddowty@syracuse.com or 315-470-6070.

See the original post:

Inside the Skyline murder: A tale of arrests, freedom and the heartbreaking death of an elderly woman - syracuse.com

HUNTER, N.Y. (NEWS10) Freedom the bald eagle is on the mend and responding well to treatment. The bird of prey was hit by a vehicle on Route 17 in Blooming Grove on Tuesday. New York State Police took the lead on the rescue after a driver spotted the eagle on the side of the road.

Trooper Bryan Whalen was one of the responding officers and used a combination of his jacket and a K9 Troopers bite sleeve to corral the eagle into a kennel provided by the Warwick Valley Animal Rescue. The Department of Environmental Conservation helped get the eagle to the Friends of the Feathered and Furry Wildlife Center in Hunter to be treated. The rescuers named the injured bird Freedom after the symbol he represents.

Thats where Missy Runyan comes in on the apex predators road to recovery. The licensed eagle rehabilitation expert says Freedom suffered a massive head injury affecting the entire left side of his body, including his eye. Eye injuries can be life-threatening for birds and limit their ability to ever be re-released into the wild. Thankfully, Runyan says Freedoms vision is improving as his cranial swelling begins to go down.

Freedoms personality is also much improved, Runyan added, noting a boost in the birds attitude as hes treated for breathing and bruises. On Facebook, Runyan thanked the incredible teamwork of State Police, Department of Environmental Conservation, and Warwick Valley Humane Society for their speedy response saying delay in care could have surely worsened an already dismal situation.

For now, the group at Friends of the Feathered and Furry Wildlife Center will closely monitor Freedom with the hope of getting him back into the wild where he belongs.

Read the rest here:

Freedom a fighter: Injured bald eagle on the mend - WETM - MyTwinTiers.com

While my parents missed their parents and siblings, they were also free from expectations, from societys eyes.

Free to wear whatever they wanted, to worship however they wanted, to raise their kids however they wanted. Like the original pilgrims, they were drawn to America by that promise, of freedom.

In our small town in upstate New York, there was no temple, so our religious education happened at home, or in others homes. My parents read the texts and picked the parts that they liked. They found friends who shared their language and gathered with them often, but they also sent me to a Christian camp, encouraged my friendships with a wide variety of people.

And I was free. I made so many decisions without any regard to the societal pressures that would have existed for me in India. Instead of marrying within my caste or even culture, I fell in love with a kind Polish engineer who understood feeling like an outsider, as I do a marriage my parents supported. Instead of pursuing the sciences, I found my way as a reporter.

As a member of the second generation, I wasnt raised with the traditional standards of responsibility to my parents.

But now that my father was gone, my sense of duty toward him was profound.

At least for the week after my fathers death, my path was clear, and that was a comfort. I performed rites and rituals for his body and soul, accepting the reality of his final stage of life. I sat with another Hindu priest a few days after the cremation and performed a puja a ceremonial ritual for his soul. We called out to all his ancestors to take him with them, and we asked for forgiveness for him and for us, so that his soul could be at peace, with all the tensions and worries of his life put to rest. I could feel their presence in my family room. The candle in front of my fathers picture burned for hours.

If I had been in India, I likely would have been pushed to the side, as those rites are traditionally performed by a son or a nephew a male descendant. But here, I did them without facing a fight from anyone.

Read more from the original source:

In an Immigrant Family, the Tension Between Freedom and Duty - The New York Times

This blog post was co-written by Dr. Aleksandra Kuczerawy (Senior Fellow and Researcher at KU Leuven) and inspired by her publication at Verfassungsblog.

The suspension of the social media accounts of former U.S. President Donald Trump by Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and others sparked a lot of controversy not only in the U.S, but also in Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel considered the move, which is not unprecedented, "problematic." The EU Commissioner for the internal market, Thierry Breton, found it perplexing that Twitters CEO Jack Dorsey could simply pull the plug on POTUSs loudspeaker without any checks and balances. Some went a step further and proposed new rules seeking to prevent platforms from removing content that national laws deem legitimate: a recent proposal by the Polish government would ban social media companies from deleting content unless the content is illegal under Polish law. As a result, non-illegal hate speechfor example, insults directed at LGBTQ+ groupscould no longer be removed by social media platforms based on their community standards.

All these comments were articulated using the argument that without intervention by governments, freedom of expression rights would be at risk. But does the lockout from certain social media channels actually constitute an interference with or even a violation of free expression rights in Europe?

The right to freedom of expression is embodied in the European Convention of Human Rights: everyone has the right to freedom of expression (Article 10(1) ECHR). Freedom of expression in Article 10 ECHR, interestingly, is a compound freedom. This means that Article 10 includes the right to hold and express opinions, to impart information and ideas, and to seek and receive information, even if they are not explicitly listed in the provision. Yet, this right is not absolute. Restrictions could take the form of formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties (para. 2), and are permissible if they comply with three conditions: They must be (1) prescribed by law, (2) introduced for protection of one of the listed legitimate aims, and (3) necessary in a democratic society. Legitimate grounds that could justify interference include national security, territorial integrity or public safety, and the prevention of disorder or crime.

Similar to the U.S, the right to freedom of expression is a negative right; that is to say, states cannot place undue restrictions on expression. Accordingly, it prevents only government restrictions on speech and not action by private companies. However, in Europe the right also entails a positive obligation. States are required to also protect the right from interference by others, including by private companies or individuals. Extending the scope of the ECHR to private relationships between individuals is referred to as the horizontal effect. According to the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the horizontal effect is indirect, meaning that individuals can enforce human rights provisions against other individuals only indirectly, by relying on the positive obligations of the State. If the State fails to protect the right from interference by others, the ECtHR may attribute this interference to the State. The ECtHR specifically found the positive obligation present in relation to the right to freedom of expression (e.g. Dink v. Turkey). The duty to protect the right to freedom of expression involves an obligation for governments to promote this right and to provide for an environment where it can be effectively exercised without being unduly curtailed. Examples include cases of states failure to implement measures protecting journalists against unlawful violent attacks (zgr Gndem v. Turkey), or failure to enact legislation resulting in refusal to broadcast by a commercial television company (Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz v. Switzerland).

The doctrine of positive obligations and the horizontal effect of the ECHR could support the argument that rules may be necessary to prevent arbitrary decisions by platforms to remove content (or ban users).

However, it does not support the argument that platforms have an obligation to host all the (legal) content of their users. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) elucidated that Article 10 ECHR does not provide a freedom of forum for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. This means that Article 10 ECHR does not guarantee any right to have ones content broadcasted on any particular private forum. Private platforms, such as social media companies like Twitter or Facebook, therefore, cannot be forced to carry content by third parties, even if that content is not actually illegal. This makes sense: it is hard to imagine that a platform for dog owners would be forced to allow cat pictures (despite what internet cat overlords might think about that). A positive obligation by platforms to do so would lead to an interference with the freedom to conduct business under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and, potentially, the right to private property under the ECHR (Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR).

In a case concerning prohibition to distribute leaflets in a private shopping center (Appleby and others v. the UK), the Court did not consider lack of the States protection as a failure to comply with positive obligation to protect Article 10 ECHR. This was because the Court considered that a lack of protection did not destroy the essence of the right to freedom of expression. However, the Court did not entirely exclude that a positive obligation could arise for the State to protect the enjoyment of the Convention rights by regulating property rights. The Court examined such a conflict in the Swedish case Khurshid Mustafa & Tarzibachi, which involved the termination of a tenancy agreement because of the tenants refusal to dismantle a satellite dish installed to receive television programs from the tenants native country. To decide which right takes precedence in particular circumstances, the property right of the landlord or the right to access information by the tenant, the Court conducted a test of viable alternatives. This test basically analyzes if parties were able to exercise their right to freedom of expression through alternative means. While in Appleby such alternative expression opportunities existed, in Tarzibachi, the existence of information alternatives functionally equivalent to a satellite dish could not be demonstrated. Noting that the applicants right to freedom of information was not sufficiently considered in the national proceeding, the Court concluded that Sweden failed in its positive obligation to protect that right.

What does this mean for Trumps ban on Twitter and Facebook? Clearly, as the then-President of the U.S., Trump had ample opportunities to communicate his message to the world, whether through a broadcaster or an official press conference, or other social media platforms. While those alternatives might, in terms of impact or outreach, not be equivalent to the most popular social media platforms, it can hardly be argued that the essence of the right to freedom of expression was destroyed. For an ex-President, some expression opportunities might be limited but Trumps options still put him in advantage in comparison with an average user deplatformed by Twitter or Facebook. Such bans do happen, whether for clear violations of the Terms and Conditions or the most absurd reasons, but they rarely reach similar levels of controversy.

Article 10 ECHR protects expressions that offend, shock, or disturb. The scope for restrictions on political speech is narrow and requires strict scrutiny. However, hate speech and incitement to violence do not constitute an expression worthy of protection (see here). The ECHR does not provide a specific definition of hate speech but instead prefers a case-by-case approach. Moreover, per Article 17 ECHR, the Convention does not protect activity aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms contained in the Convention. This provision has been interpreted to exclude protection of speech that endangers free operation of democratic institutions or attempts to destroy the stability and effectiveness of a democratic system. It goes beyond the scope of this blog post to analyze if Trumps tweets and posts actually fall within this category of expression.

The critical statements by EU politicians following the decision to ban Trumps account are not exactly consistent with a general trend in Europe in recent years. For some time now, European politicians and the EU have been trying to convince online platforms to do more to police the content of their users. National laws such as the German NetzDG, the Austrian KoPlG and the unconstitutional French Avia Bill all require more effective moderation of online spaces. This means, more and faster removals. Under the threat of high fines, these laws require platforms to limit dissemination of illegal content as well as harmful content, such as disinformation. In an attempt tocatch up with national legislation, the EU has been steadily introducing mechanisms encouraging online platforms to (more or less) voluntarily moderate content, for example the 2016 Code of Conduct on hate speech, the 2018 Code of Practice on Disinformation, the update to theAVMS Directive and the proposal on Terrorist Content Regulation.

One would think that Twitters proactive approach, in light of these initiatives, would be appreciated. The somewhat confusing political reaction has led to questions whether the recently proposedDigital Services Act (DSA) would address the problem of powerful platforms making arbitrary decisions about speech they allow online.

The DSA is the most significant reform of Europes internet legislation, the e-Commerce Directive, that the EU has undertaken in twenty years. It aims at rebalancing the responsibilities of users, platforms and public authorities according to European values. If done right, the Digital Services Act could offer solutions to complex issues like transparency failures, privatized content moderation, and gatekeeper-dominated markets. And the EU Commissions draft Proposal got several things right: mandatory general monitoring of users is not a policy option and liability for speech still rests with the speaker, and not with platforms that host what users post or share online. At least as a principle. The introduction of special type and size-oriented obligations for online platforms, including the very large ones, seems to be the right approach. It is also in line with the proposal for a Digital Markets Act (DMA), which presented a new standard for large platforms that act as gatekeepers in an attempt to create a fairer and more competitive market for online platforms in the EU.

Its noteworthy that the DSA includes mechanisms to encourage online platforms to conduct voluntary monitoring and moderation of the hosted content. Article 6, in particular, introduces an EU version of Section 230s good samaritan principle: providers of online intermediary services should not face liability solely because they carry out voluntary own-initiative investigations or other activities aimed at detecting, identifying and removing, or disabling access to, illegal content. There is a risk that such an encouragement could lead to more private censorship and over-removal of content. As explained in the preamble of the DSA, such voluntary actions can lead to awareness about illegal activity and thus trigger liability consequences (in the EU, knowledge of illegality deprives platforms of liability immunity).

At the same time, the DSA clearly states its goal to ensure more protection for fundamental rights online. Recital 22, in particular, explains that the removal or disabling of access should be undertaken in the observance of the principle of freedom of expression. How could the DSA ensure more protection to the right to freedom of expression, and what would it mean for banned accounts? Would it privilege certain actors?

The DSAs contribution to more effective protection of the freedom of expression comes in the form of procedural safeguards. These strengthen due process, clarify notice and take down procedures, improve transparency of the decision making and ensure redress mechanism for removal or blocking decisions. It will not prohibit Twitter from introducing its own internal rules, but will require that the rules are clear and unambiguous and applied in a proportionate manner (Article 12). Any blocked user would also have to be informed about the reasons for blocking and possibilities to appeal the decision, e.g. through internal complaint-handling mechanisms, out-of-court dispute settlement, and judicial redress (Article 15).

The main goal of the DSA is thus to regulate the process and not to regulate the speech. Adding these safeguards could have an overall positive effect on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression. This positive effect would be achieved without introducing any must-carry rules for certain types of content (e.g. speech by heads of states) that could potentially interfere with other rights and interests at stake. The safeguards would not necessarily help Donald Trumpplatforms will be still able to delete or block on the basis of their own internal rules or on the basis of a notice. But the new rules would give him access to procedural remedies.

The DSA sets out that online platforms must handle complaints submitted through their internal complaint-handling system in a timely, diligent and objective manner. It also acknowledges that platforms make mistakes when deciding whether a users conduct is illegal or a piece of information illegal or against terms of service: following the suggestion by EFF, users who face content removal or account suspension will be given the option to demonstrate that the platforms decision was unwarranted, in which case the online platform must reverse its decision and thus reinstate the content or account (Art 17(3)).

There are a number of problematic issues under the DSA that should be addressed by the EU legislator. For example, the provision on notice and action mechanism (Article 14) states that properly substantiated notices automatically give rise to actual knowledge of the content in question. As host providers only benefit from limited liability for third party content when they expeditiously remove illegal content they know of, platforms will have no other choice than to follow up by content blocking actions to escape the liability threat. Even though the DSA requires notices to elaborate on the reasons why the information in question is illegal content (Article 14(3)), it does not mean that the stated reason will in fact always be correct. Mistakes, even in good faith, can also happen on the side of the notifying users. As a result, attaching actual knowledge to every compliant notice may become problematic. Instead of safeguarding freedom of expression, it could lead to misuse and overblocking of highly contextual content and, if not well-balanced, could turn the Digital Services Act into a censorship machine.

There are also open questions about how platforms should assess what is proportionate when enforcing their own terms of service, how much pressure there will be from public authorities to remove content, and whether that clashes with the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.

For example, Article 12 provides that providers of intermediary services have to include information about content restrictions and are required to act in a diligent, objective, and proportionate manner when enforcing their own terms and conditions "(Article 12). Would platforms conduct any proportionality tests or just use it to justify any decision they take? Moreover, how does the requirement of proportionate enforcement interplay with mandatory platform measures to avoid both the distribution of manifestly illegal content and the issuance of manifestly unfounded notices? Under Article 20, online platforms are compelled to issue warnings to users and time-limited suspensions in such cases.

It is the right approach to subject the freedom of contract of platform service providers to compliance with certain minimum procedural standards. However, it is wrong to push (large) platforms into an active position and make them quasi-law enforcers under the threat of liability for third party content or high fines. If platforms have to remove accounts (shall suspend, Article 20); have to effectively mitigate risks (shall put in place mitigation measures, Article 27 - notably, Article 26 refers to freedom of expression being a protected risk); and have to inform law enforcement authorities about certain types of content (shall promptly inform, Article 21), there is a risk that there will not be much freedom left at some platforms to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. There are reasons to doubt that the Commissions sympathy for a co-regulatory approach in the form of EU Commission guidelines on how to mitigate systemic risks on online platforms (Article 27(3)) will give enough orientation to platforms for when to act and when not to act.

It will now be up to the EU Parliament and the Council to strike a fair balance between the rights anchored in the Fundamental Rights Charter, including freedom of expression.

Follow this link:

Twitter, Trump, and Tough Decisions: EU Freedom of Expression and the Digital Services Act - EFF