Category Archives: Freedom

The civil liberties campaigner wants to stop cancel culture taking root in centres of higher education and is alarmed at resistance to hearing uncomfortable opinions. Mr Davis argues that free debate and a willingness to challenge accepted ideas is central to Britains success. He said: The right tochallenge and dispute has been critical to the growth of our culture.

And Britain would never have become a scientificsuperpower if scientists from Newton to Darwin to Crick and Watson had not been able to challenge orthodoxy.

The cancel culture, the unwillingness to hear uncomfortable opinions, the refusal of platforms to people you disagree with, puts all this at risk.

Universities, of all places, should never allow the suppression of free speech.

Conservative Lee Anderson, Ashfield MP, a supporter of the Bill, said people are afraid of challenging political agendas in universities because they fear that if they speak out, opponents would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

The Bill, he said, would give people protection and the confidence to debate without being persecuted.

The legislation will likely need Government support to become law but the Conservative manifesto contains a pledge to strengthen academic freedom and free speechin universities.

The Civitas think-tank has sounded the alarm bell about freedom of expression on campuses with a major report.

A spokesman said: Our recent study found that 48 of our universities are most restrictive on free speech while a further 70 (over half) are still moderately restrictive.

Ruth Smeeth, chief executive of campaigning group Index on Censorship, said: Universities are the home of debate and investigation in society and should always be a home for exploring new and controversial ideas. We must ensure free speech exists on campus.

A spokeswoman for umbrella body Universities UK said: There are already significant legal duties placed on universities to uphold freedom of speech and they are required to have a code of practice and update this regularly.

Link:

New legislation could see universities forced to protect freedom of speech - Express

H.L. Mencken, journalist and essayist, wrote in 1940, Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.

Twenty years later, the same thought was reprised by A.J. Liebling of The New Yorker.

Today, these thoughts can be revived to apply, on a scale inconceivable in 1940 or 1960, to Big Tech, and to the small number of men who control it.

These men Jack Dorsey of Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and Sundar Pichai of Alphabet Inc., and its subsidiary Google operate what, in another time, would be known as common carriers. Common carriers are, as the term implies, companies which distribute anything from news to parcels to gasoline. They are a means of distributing ideas, news, goods, and services.

Think of the old Western Union, the railroads, the pipeline companies, or the telephone companies. Theirbusiness was carriage, and they were recognized and regulated in law as such: common carriers.

The controversial Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act recognizes the common carrier nature of Big Tech internet companies by exempting them from libel responsibility. It specifically stated that they shouldnt be treated as publishers.Conservatives want 230 repealed, but that would only make the companies reluctant to carry anything controversial, hurting free speech.

I think the possible repeal of 230 should be part of a large examination of the inadvertently acquired but vast power of the internet-based social media companies. It should be part of a large discussion embracing all the issues of free speech on social media which could include beefed-up libel statutes possibly some form of the equal-time rule which kept network owners from exploiting their power for political purposes in days when there were only three networks.

President Donald Trump deserves censure, which he has gotten: He has been impeached for incitement to insurrection.I take second place to no one in my towering dislike of him, but I am shaken at the ability of Silicon Valley to censor a political figure, let alone a president.

That Silicon Valley should shut out the voice of the president isnt the issue. It is that a common carrier can dictate the content, even if it is content from a rogue president.

This exercise of censor authority should alarm all free-speech advocates. It is power that exceeds anything ever seen in media.

The heads of Twitter, Facebook and Alphabet are more powerful by incalculable multiples than were Joseph Pulitzer, William Randolph Hearst and Henry Luce, or is Rupert Murdoch. They can subtract any voice from any debate if they so choose. That is a bell that tolls for all. They have the power to silence any voice by closing an account.

When Edward Murrow talked about the awesome power of television, he was right for that time. But now technology has added a multiplier of atomic proportions via the internet.

The internet-based social media giants didnt seek power. They are, in that sense, blameless. They pursued technology, then money, and these led them to their awesome power. What they have done, though, is to use their wealth to buy startups which offer competition.

Big Tech has used its financial clout to maintain its de facto monopolies. Yet unlike the newspaper proprietors of old or Murdochs multimedia, international endeavors today, they didnt pursue their dreams to get political power. They were carried along on the wave of new technologies.

It may not be wrong that Twitter, Facebook, and others have shut down Trumps account when they did, at a time of crisis, but what if these companies get politically activated in the future?

We already live in the age of the cancellation culture with its attempt to edit history. If that is extended to free speech on the internet, even with good intentions, everything begins to wobble.

The tech giants are simply too big for comfort. They have already weakened the general media by scooping up most of the advertising dollars. Will the freedom of speech belong to those who own the algorithms?

Go here to read the rest:

Silicon Valley and Its Unique Challenge to Freedom of Speech - White House Chronicle

The Guardian

John Kiriakou, who was jailed in 2012 for identity leak, said his pursuit of a pardon came up in a meeting with Giuliani last year Rudy Giuliani reportedly rejected Kiriakous version of events and said he did not work as a pardon broker because he already represented Trump. Photograph: Jeff Kowalsky/AFP/Getty Images An associate of Rudy Giuliani told a former CIA officer a presidential pardon was going to cost $2m, the New York Times reported on Sunday in the latest bombshell to break across the last, chaotic days of Donald Trumps presidency. The report detailed widespread and in some cases lucrative lobbying involving people seeking a pardon as Trumps time in office winds down. The 45th president, impeached twice, will leave power on Wednesday with the inauguration of Joe Biden. The former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who was jailed in 2012 for leaking the identity of an operative involved in torture, told the Times he laughed at the remark from the associate of Giuliani, the former New York mayor who as Trumps personal attorney is reportedly a possible pardon recipient himself. Two million bucks are you out of your mind? Kiriakou reportedly said. Even if I had two million bucks, I wouldnt spend it to recover a $700,000 pension. An associate of Kiriakou reported the conversation to the FBI, the Times said. Meant to reward offenders who show contrition, presidential pardons do not imply innocence. Presidents often use them to reward allies but Trump has taken the practice to extremes. Among recent recipients of pardons or acts of clemency are Michael Flynn, Trumps first national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about contacts with Russia; the political dirty trickster Roger Stone, who did not turn on Trump during the Russia investigation in which he was convicted of obstructing Congress; Paul Manafort, Trumps former campaign manager convicted in the Russia investigation; and Charles Kushner, father of Trumps son-in-law Jared Kushner who was convicted of tax fraud and witness retaliation. The Times report detailed an ad hoc White House system for approving pardons which it said was run by the younger Kushner, bypassing the usual intensive justice department review process intended to identify and vet the most deserving recipients from among thousands of clemency applications. The report also identified lobbyists it said were seeking pardons on behalf of fee-paying clients. Margaret Love, who was the United States pardon attorney at the Department of Justice for seven years, told the paper: This kind of off-books influence peddling, special-privilege system denies consideration to the hundreds of ordinary people who have obediently lined up as required by justice department rules, and is a basic violation of the longstanding effort to make this process at least look fair. Trump will lose legal protection once he leaves office and faces threats both potential and already in train. He has reportedly discussed issuing pre-emptive pardons to himself, Kushner, Giuliani and other family members and close aides. It is not clear whether a self-pardon would work. Pardons issued as the president leaves the White House are not uncommon. Infamously, Bill Clinton pardoned the fugitive financier Marc Rich on his last day as president in 2001. Kiriakou told the Times his pursuit of a pardon came up during a meeting with Giuliani on another subject, at the Trump International Hotel in Washington last year. During the meeting, which reportedly involved substantial alcohol, Giuliani went to the bathroom. It was then, Kiriakou said, that Giulianis unnamed associate told him: Its going to cost $2m hes going to want two million bucks. The Times said Giuliani rejected Kiriakous version of events and said he did not work as a pardon broker because he already represented Trump. Its like a conflict of interest, he was quoted as saying, adding that though he had heard large fees were being offered for pardons, I have enough money. Im not starving. It was reported this week that Trump, angry with Giuliani over the failure of almost all lawsuits mounted against election results, had told staff not to pay his legal fees. Ken Frydman, Giulianis press secretary in the 1990s, said: Lay down with dogs. Wake up with fleas and without $20,000 a day.

Original post:

'Enjoy the Freedom': Orphaned Kangaroos Return to the Wild After Release by Animal Sanctuary - Yahoo News

My media law students often are stunned to learn their free speech rights dont apply to social media.

Why?

Because social media platforms are owned by private businesses, and the First Amendment protects you only from actions taken by the government.

These businesses Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. set their own rules and you agree to them when you establish your account.

They can change those rules as they see fit and your only alternative is to cancel your account.

They can suspend or cancel your account if you break those rules, as they have recently with President Trump.

Its not censorship, either, which the court defines as prior restraint by the government.

The Supreme Court has ruled many times that the government cannot take action that stops speech before it is published, with rare exceptions for national security, etc. The big case in this area was the Pentagon Papers case in the early 1970s.

But a private business can stop its clients and its employees from engaging in speech it disagrees with at any point.

This is the principle that allows a company to cancel contracts or fire people who express opinions that the owners of the company find repugnant.

But the courts have said the First Amendment means the government cant regulate the publics access to social media platforms.

In the case of Packingham v. North Carolina in 2017, the Supreme Court threw out a law that restricted social media access for convicted sex offenders, saying it violates free speech.

What is not quite so clear is the social media platforms responsibility when, and if, they try to edit or change content posted on their sites.

You may have heard about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from lawsuits over the contents of their users posts as long as the platforms dont try to edit those posts ahead of time.

Once they start editing them, then they are responsible for what they say.

As you can imagine, sites like YouTube, Facebook or TikTok get far too many posts to have any hope of editing or censoring them ahead of time, so they dont try.

But they can remove the posts later if they have violated their rules. And they can take action against users who violate their rules repeatedly.

Without the immunity provided by Section 230, however, Facebook, Twitter and the other large platforms likely would be swamped with lawsuits very quickly and forced to go out of business.

Dr. Carolyn S. Carlson is retired as director of journalism at Kennesaw State University and lives in Haywood County.

See the original post here:

Social media 'censorship' and freedom of speech | Columns - The Mountaineer

It started with President Trump getting kicked off Twitter, but the rush to banish him from the public square over the U.S. Capitol riot is threatening to engulf vast swaths of the right as conservatives gird themselves for what they describe as a political purge.

In the more than week since the attack, dozens of major U.S. corporations have halted donations to Republican lawmakers who objected to the 2020 election certification. Warnings about hiring Trump administration officials are circulating, while right-tilting Twitter accounts are being de-amplified with dramatic declines in their followers.

From libertarians to social conservatives, leaders on the right are sounding the alarm about what has been dubbed the progressive purge, reign of terror and blacklist.

This is Big Tech declaring war on the conservative movement and on the concept of free speech, said Dan Gainor, vice president for the conservative Media Research Centers TechWatch. Whats rippled from there is that corporate America is following Big Techs lead and embracing woke capitalism instead of freedom.

Fueling the purge are major media outlets: The media is 100% the driving force for all of this. If it werent for the news media, the whole idiotic woke movement would blow away like dust in the wind, Mr. Gainor said.

Democrats and progressives argue that such measures are necessary to stop Mr. Trump and his supporters from whipping up another insurrection, even as Republicans point out that the rioting was all but universally condemned on the right.

Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter and COVID-19 lockdown critic, tweeted that that it would be [h]ard to overstate what a titanic shift were seeing: one party and much of the media are engaged in an increasingly organized effort to use private companies not just tech companies, ALL private companies to punish people for their political views.

Mr. Trump has borne the brunt of the blowback. In addition to being dropped from Twitter and suspended from Facebook and YouTube, the PGA canceled tournaments at his golf course. Several major banks have stopped lending to the Trump Organization, and New York City canceled its contracts.

The President incited a rebellion against the United States government that killed five people and threatened to derail the constitutional transfer of power, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said Wednesday in a statement. The City of New York will not be associated with those unforgivable acts in any shape, way or form.

Eric Trump, the presidents son, blamed the age of cancel culture, saying in an interview with The Associated Press that it was something that they have been doing to us and others for years.

Whats different is the magnitude. The left-wing group UltraViolet posted a list of corporate donations to the anti-certification Republicans and warned that the companies were complicit and now must be held accountable for how they have funded hate and fascism.

Randall Lane, chief content officer and editor of Forbes, warned that anyone who hires one of five prominent Trump administration figures will be treated as if everything your company or firm talks about is a lie.

Want to ensure the worlds biggest business media brand approaches you as a potential funnel of disinformation? Then hire away, Mr. Lane said in an op-ed.

Steve Forbes, who serves as editor-in-chief, said he disagreed with the op-ed and warned of a return to the blacklist era of the 1950s, when prominent figures lost jobs and opportunities over their suspected support for communism.

Attack on free speech

This is reminiscent of what we had in the 1950s during the McCarthy era where there were blacklists, the Hollywood 10, Mr. Forbes said on Fox & Friends. People were denied work because of their political beliefs, and there are other dark periods in our American history. Were not going to blacklist and the like.

More than a dozen U.S. companies, including Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Disney, Verizon and Walmart, have said they will stop donations in 2021 to the 148 House members and eight senators who objected to the certification.

The insurrection at our nations Capitol was a direct assault on one of our countrys most revered tenets: the peaceful transition of power, Disney said Wednesday in a statement. In the immediate aftermath of that appalling siege, Members of Congress had an opportunity to unite an opportunity that some sadly refused to embrace. In light of these events, we have decided we will not make political contributions in 2021 to lawmakers who voted to reject the certification of the Electoral College votes.

Another 40 corporations plan to suspend all PAC contributions while they review their political-giving practices, according to the Wall Street Journal.

This is not just an attack on free speech, said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. This is an attack on an entire movement of people with the intent of driving them underground keeping them from getting jobs, having legal representation, and even cutting them off from legitimate financial transactions.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Democrat, pressed the lefts advantage Wednesday with a racially charged broadside on how the coup-supporting GOP and its lawmakers are unfit to serve.

They [Republicans] dont give a damn about the law. They dont give a damn about order. They dont give a damn about safety, she said in a video post. They give a damn about white supremacy. They care about preserving the social order and the mythology of whiteness.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez drew a quick rebuke from the pro-life Radiance Foundation, led by Ryan Bomberger, who is Black, asking whether she ever denounced the chaos and violence of the Black Lives Matter protests, many of which began peacefully but descended into looting and rioting.

Dems never cared about safety. Dems never cared about law and order. And certainly didnt care for democracy, tweeted Radiance. Too many politicians only care for power. Many of you are unfit to serve.

Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, said Wednesday during the impeachment debate that Democrats can raise bail for rioters and looters this summer, but somehow when Republicans condemn all the violence, the violence this summer, the violence last week, somehow were wrong.

Others argue that the Black Lives Matter unrest didnt pose the threat to the peaceful transfer of power and democratic norms as did the Capitol rioting, which saw lawmakers flee and hide as thousands sought to stop them from certifying the election.

Shutting down millions of non-woke Americans, however, will do nothing to cool tensions what Mr. Forbes described as one of the countrys white-heat moments.

The media, big tech and corporate America are all in on this, Independent Womens Forum policy analyst Kelsey Bolar said on Fox & Friends. It is a very dangerous and concerning trend. It is not going to unite the country. It is going to divide us.

View post:

Big Tech declares war: 'Woke capitalism instead of freedom' - Washington Times

Geoffrey R. Stone| Guest Columnist

A few days ago, shortly after the unprecedented invasion of the United States Capitol by a horde of unrestrained Trump supporters, Twitter announced that it was banning President Donald Trump from Twitter. After more than 36,000 tweets in four years, with 88 million followers, Trump was tossed, perhaps permanently, from his favorite social media megaphone.

Twitter explained that this was warranted because of Trumps irresponsible use of Twitter to lie about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and to incite the deadly riot that disrupted the critical deliberations of Congress, which was in the process of counting the electoral votes that would confirm Trumps personally mortifying defeat. At approximately the same time and for the same reasons, Trump was also banned at least temporarily from Facebook.

Trumps supporters immediately raged that these actions by Twitter and Facebook violated the First Amendment. Is this assertion correct? The answer is simple: No.

Like all of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendments fundamental guarantee of freedom of speech, and of the press limits only the actions of the government (federal, state and local), not the actions of private individuals, organizations or businesses. Just as a private enterprise cannot violate your constitutional right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, just as a private enterprise cannot violate your constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, and just as a private enterprise cannot violate your constitutional right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, so too is it legally impossible for Twitter or Facebook to violate your or Trumps constitutional right to freedom of speech, or of the press.

Having said this, I should note that in at least one case, decided some 75 years ago, the Supreme Court held in Marsh v. Alabama that a privately-owned company town could not constitutionally prohibit Jehovahs Witnesses from distributing literature on the towns sidewalks. In a once-in-history decision, the Court explained that the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the ... constitutional rights of those who use it.

That decision, however, stands alone, and it has never been followed. If it had remained good law, it would be interesting to see how that principle would apply to Twitter and Facebook. But the decision in Marsh was a one-time anomaly. It is not the law, and for all practical purposes it has not been the law for three-quarters of a century.

But that leaves our nation with a puzzle. If, let us suppose, the United States government could not constitutionally pass a law banning Trump from using Twitter or Facebook, why should Twitter and Facebook be allowed to do so? Even if they are private enterprises and not the government, they have enormous power and influence over public discourse in our nation. Should they have unlimited authority to decide for themselves who can and cannot share their views with other Americans on these extraordinarily powerful means of communication? Can they should they be trusted to have such authority to determine the bounds of public discourse in our democracy?

Our nation faced a somewhat similar question with the advent of radio in the 1920s. At that time, with only a small number of frequencies available in any location, the fear was that a small number of wealthy individuals could buy up all the frequencies in a city such as Chicago and completely dominate this powerful new means of communication and then distort and corrupt our democracy.

With that concern in mind, Congress enacted the Communications Act of 1934, which established the Federal Communications Commission and granted it broad power to regulate the broadcast spectrum. The FCC then adopted the Fairness Doctrine, which imposed on radio and television broadcasters the requirement that discussion of public issues be presented in a fair and balanced manner.

In 1960, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, noting that there is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all. The Fairness Doctrine remained in effect until repealed by the Reagan administration in 1987.

The question we face going forward is whether social media should be subject to similar government regulations. Should Facebook, Twitter and other major social media platforms be required by law to operate in a fair and balanced manner? Should they be required by law to function in a manner consistent with the First Amendment? Should they be required by law to ensure that individuals are exposed to both sides of a question in a responsible and evenhanded manner? Should they be constrained from taking down material that is protected by the First Amendment? This is a fundamental question our nation must wrestle with in the future.

If we move in that direction, what would that tell us about the decision to remove Trump from Twitter and Facebook? Would it be constitutional for the government to remove Trump from social media because of his past and recent posts? Were his consistently and dangerously false posts about the outcome of the election and about the protest/riots at the U.S. Capitol protected by the First Amendment, or did he go beyond the bounds of the First Amendment by intentionally inciting a likely and imminent seditious riot? That would be the critical question.

Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Chicago.

Read the original:

Social media and 'free speech': Is it time for government regulations? - Milford Daily News

The tide is beginning to turn in the fight against coronavirus in Ireland.But it may not always feel that way.

That's because this latest tide was a huge wave and given the scale of what the health system has been forced to deal with, the ebb and flow will take some time to settle.

The sheer scale of figures over the last week has also been daunting. The health system and its staff have faced unprecedented pressures.

These days will last long in the memory of every doctor, nurse and healthcare employee faced with the unimaginable.

For patients too, who must go to hospital, there is a terrible road of uncertainty.

Yesterday, there were over 170 patients in ICU with Covid-19. These are record numbers in terms of the disease. Most of these patients are on ventilators. We know from doctors in this specialty that ventilation is not a treatment. It's a support mechanism, to give the body time to heal.

A patient needs to be strong to survive ventilation. The average time on a ventilator is 7-10 days. Often patients are under anaesthetic for a period of time.

Sometimes ventilation can do more harm in the long term. Ventilation is not for everyone. Deciding whether a patient should be placed on a ventilator is not just about age; there are many factors, including the patient's own wishes.

NPHET predicts that there will be a large number of deaths in the coming weeks. The time lag between the recent surge of cases we saw in the community and admission to hospital is responsible for this.

The lower projections are that by the end of January there will be 650-800 people in hospital and 250-300 in ICU. Let's hope the more optimistic modelling plays out.

So much data is released each day now on Covid-19 that it probably makes some people immune from being shocked. But every case is an individual and, for many, their lives and those of their families have been turned upside down.

There have been so many deaths and also many people who continue to suffer the effects of long-Covid.

Yesterday, the Central Statistics Office said that since the start of the pandemic, the total number of people who have died from Covid-19 here is 2,096 with a further 231 deaths cited as probable deaths linked to the virus.

Because it can be up to three months or more before deaths are officially registered, the impact of Covid-19 will take some time to determine.

At last, official data on the number of vaccinations administered is being published on Ireland's Covid-19 Data Hub.

The current data shows that 77,303 first doses of the Pfizer-BionTech vaccine have been administered. It places Ireland high in the league table of vaccines administered for every 100 people, for now.

Along with the daily case numbers and deaths from this disease, the public wants to see the daily progress on vaccination. More detail is being promised over the coming weeks.

Although comparisons with other countries are not always simple, it is also important to be able to get a sense of where Ireland stands in relation to vaccinations. Some countries may be reporting vaccinations issued, not the number administered, so be careful with comparisons.

Widespread vaccination is an important part of the journey we now are on, a vital partner accompanying us on this long road to freedom. Realistically, we are probably some months away from the lifting of restrictions, given the case numbers and hospitalisations being reported currently.

The promise is that 700,000 vaccinations will have been given by the end of March, with the first three groups frontline health staff, nursing home residents and those over 70 years given the jab.

We have the Pfizer-BionTech vaccine coming in regular deliveries; the first batch of the Moderna vaccine arrived with 3,600 doses this week, and the hope is that the Astra-Zeneca/Oxford vaccine will get approval by 29 January.

Pfizer has said it is scaling up manufacturing operations to increase dose availability and output. It has to make modifications to the process and facility that will require additional regulatory approvals.

So although this will temporarily affect shipments in late January to early February, it will provide a significant increase in doses available for patients in late February and March.

There has been much discontent expressed this week by some health staff about vaccination, or the lack of it. Some nurses and doctors have claimed that some administrators and non-patient-facing staff were being vaccinated, ahead of the priority groups.

I asked the HSE about this and they said they had no specific accounts of deviation from the prioritisation, "but if any specific incidents of inappropriate prioritisation for vaccine are identified this will be addressed".

Because of the ease of administration, it's the Astra-Zenca vaccine that GPs and pharmacists are likely to be using when they begin to enter the general vaccination programme in a few months.

The Irish College of General Practitioners has said that a registration system for all GPs and their practice teams had been resolved, and that all GPs and their teams expect to be vaccinated via three mass vaccination centres, being set up from this weekend.

Ireland has to get the vaccination programme right. There will be no forgiveness for any delays on our part in delivering the immunisation programme.

People will expect it to be one of military precision, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The public will demand nothing short of a war effort, in a world emergency, the like of which has not been experienced before.

That may mean commandeering offices and buildings that are not being occupied due to the stay-at-home requirements, and using suitable premises as mass vaccination centres.

Every day that the country avoids from lockdown is also taxpayers' money saved for when the final bill for all of this has to be paid. Even now, that bill will clearly be astronomical and a burden on future generations.

Given the cost and for reasons of accountability too, it's likely that if and when the threat from Covid-19 has passed, there will be pressure for an independent review of how Ireland responded to coronavirus. There will be lessons to learn and no-one should be afraid of that, unless it turned into an ugly star-chamber.

Always remember that when you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at you. In this ongoing battle with coronavirus, we all have roles and responsibilities and it can be easy to pass judgment on others.

We are still in the midst of the crisis and deep in the worst phase. No-one has the full answers. Much is still unknown about Covid-19. People are tired, worn down, frustrated, angry and looking for targets for blame.

People's hopes and dreams have been upended. Friendships put on ice. Marriages delayed or cancelled. Relationships frazzled and under the microscope. Mental health under severe strain. Domestic violence increasing. And some children frightened or confused. What a collective horror story it has been.

The last thing people will tolerate in this crisis is any suggestion of red tape or bureaucracy getting in the way of the efficient delivery of the vaccination programme by European authorities.

Many European Union nations say they are receiving lower-than-expected supplies of vaccines. There are also concerns about the timetables for future deliveries.

Questions were raised this week about whether the European Commission bought sufficient vaccines in the first round and whether other countries did side deals for extra batches. The EU vaccine negotiator has denied bilateral supply deals. The commission said it had no knowledge of any individual member state signing bilateral deals, despite media reports.

"These parallel contracts have been much rumoured. I haven't seen yet one. And I don't think I will ever see one. It's something that in my view does not exist," said Sandra Gallina, the head of DG SANTE, the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, and lead vaccine negotiator for the commission. There is, of course, nothing to prevent countries doing deals, after any EU deal is completed.

The Government review of where we are at the end of January is unlikely to result in any notable reduction in restrictions. Let's face it, another St Patrick's Day will likely come and go and there will still be significant restrictions. This time around, the Government will be slow to take the foot off the pedal, especially with the danger posed by the new variants. There are three at the moment - the variant first identified in the UK, South Africaand Brazil. These new variants will make it difficult to get the R number low.

Hopefully, Ireland can look forward to a reasonable summer, but that remains uncertain. Some projections suggest that the 15 groups who are due to receive vaccines will have received them by the end of September. The mix of adherence to the public health measures, along with an efficient and effective vaccination programme, will chart the course of the months ahead. As in all things in life, no doubt there will be mistakes and some setbacks.

The Vaccination Task Force has done and continues to do very important work. The scale of data being produced each day now by the HSE, the Health Protection Surveillance Centre and NPHET experts is also impressive. People can now track the movement of the disease better than ever before. That is empowering for people. Although there are various advisory groups giving views on aspects of Covid-19, the NPHET remains the overarching body that advises Government. For example, any change to the vaccine schedule would have to go to it, and Dr Tony Holohan, for a view.

The backlog of cases that built up around Christmas has been a problem. It resulted in some daily case figures of over 8,000. For many days, there was a mix of new cases and backlog cases and we have still to see the official number of new cases that occurred each day during the festive season. Given that the public has seen 'daily' case numbers of 8,000 reported it may colour their perception of future daily case numbers and trends. If we get to under 1,000 cases a day, that could fuel pressure for a relaxation of some measures.

As case numbers decline over the coming weeks, as a result of the Level 5 lockdown rules, it should help lift the national mood.

People have felt let down by some of the approach to dealing with Covid-19. In early August, random testing at airports was promised. Only this weekend the requirement to show a negative Covid-19 test was introduced for people arriving into Ireland. But it does not apply to people flying into the North (the so-called Dublin Dodge) and coming into the Republic of Ireland. This, despite the emergence of several new strains of the virus.

For people to continue to have hope and commitment to the existing public health measures, they need to have some sense of the end game. Although vaccinations are not a silver bullet, they are a defining element in this collective effort.

Nothing short of a national mobilisation of all elements of society is needed to deliver the biggest vaccination programme the State has been tasked to deliver.

January is such a cruel, cold, dark month. The sooner we are rid of it the better.

But the days are getting brighter and 2021 has yet to fully reveal what it has in store for us.

There is a long road ahead to freedom.

At least now we have some sense of direction.

Every effort, from every quarter will be needed, to avoid being knocked off course.

Go here to read the rest:

Covid-19 and the long road to freedom - RTE.ie

Bill Allmann| Times Sports Correspondent

NEW SEWICKLEY TWP.On a typical mid-January evening, a game like the one between the Freedom and Ellwood City High School girls basketball teams would have had coaches pulling their hair out and those coaches and fans as well hoarse from screaming.

But, as the world has come to know, these are not normal mid-January evenings. Freedom coach John Kaerchers post-game voice was full and measured. There was a smile on as much of his face as could be seen above his mask.

The few parents in attendance were laughing and joking despite a comparatively ugly 40-22 Freedom win as well.

It was a struggle but it was just our second game, said Kaercher. We missed 10 free throws and 10 or 11 layups that I would call easily makeable.

Not only was this just our second game but we didnt get any scrimmages in before the shutdown. There are things you just cant simulate in practice.

It was just the second game for the Ellwood City squad as well and the need for game experience showed there was 1:06 left in the first half before the number of points surpassed the number of turnovers.

Most of our girls started the season in shape because of soccer, said Kaercher. But we lost all that in the shutdown. No one is in the condition they would normally be at this time of the year.

We have to learn to play 32 minutes again. We only lost two players to graduation but we still have to get all the players on the same page yet.

One of those returning players, though, may have had a lot to do with the post-game calm. Senior Karissa Mercier stepped up with eight of her game-high 14 points in the third quarter to keep the lead from getting uncomfortably close.

I was off in the first and second quarters, said Mercier, the only player on either team to score in double figures. Our whole team seems to be one that plays better in the second half and it worked for me.

Its definitely been a challenge this year because of the COVID. We havent had that many practices and, even then, we got a lot of breaks in practices because of the masks. You dont get those breaks in games.

Although neither team was in mid-season form for a mid-January game, both have qualified for the playoffs since the WPIAL is welcoming all teams into the playoffs because of the circumstances. That provides some time to get into post-season form but hasnt changed the urgency for Freedom.

I appreciate that we make the playoffs because of the way things are, said Mercier. But Id rather earn it. As long as we keep winning, well show that we earned it.

Kaercher has similar mixed feelings.

I totally agree with everyone reaching the playoffs, said the veteran coach. But we still need to prepare as if we want to win, to be at the top.

And every journey to the top has to start somewhere.

Read this article:

Freedom tries to shake off shutdown rust in win over Ellwood City - The Times

CHICAGO Revolution Brewing is expanding its sour beer program with the introduction of the Freedom Variety Pack a new 12-pack featuring four different Session Sours. Each beer is blended with real fruit juice concentrate, creating a vibrant range of colors along with compelling, distinct flavors.

Freedom of Speach, the brewerys first packaged Session Sour, was born at the Revolution Brewpub in spring 2017 and moved to cans the following year. The popularity of Revolutions sour beers has been on a steady climb since. Freedom of Speach is the top-selling sour beer in Illinois and second-best seller in the Great Lakes region.

Weve enjoyed fine-tuning our sour brewing and blending the last several years and seeing these beers enjoyed by a new group of Revolution drinkers, noted Josh Deth, Chairman of the Party at Revolution. People clearly want variety and fruit flavor options and its fun to try them all and pick your personal favorite.

The Freedom Variety Pack will ship to distributors beginning in mid to late February. Each 12-pack will feature three cans each of the following beers:

The Freedom Variety Pack will be Revolutions newest year-round offering, and will see distribution across much of the brewerys current nine-state footprint. Freedom of Speach will continue as a year-round six-pack, while the other three beers will remain exclusive to the Freedom Variety Pack.

About Revolution Brewing

Revolution Brewing is the largest independently owned brewery in Illinois. Brewed only in Chicago between the original brewpub space in Logan Square and production brewery in nearby Avondale. Revolution currently distributes in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nashville, New Jersey, New York City, and Wisconsin.

Read more:

Revolution Brewing Reveals Freedom Variety 12-Pack of Session Sours - Brewbound.com

The Justice Ministry on Friday presented its draft law that aims to ensure that freedom of speech is not breached on social media.

The bill seeks to set up a Freedom of Speech Council, a five member body elected by a three-fifths majority by the lower house of parliament for a six-year term, top ministry officials announced at a press conference on Friday.

Zbigniew Ziobro, the justice minister, said that the internet is nowadays a forum for numerous disputes, therefore Polish citizens should be ensured "the fundamental rights" mentioned in the country's constitution.

This calls for a legal framework that would force "global players" to respect the law, Ziobro went on to say.

"Today there are no such effective instruments, today social media decide themselves which content is to be censored or removed," Ziobro said.

The bill will be sent to the government for analysis and will also undergo broader consultation, said Sebastian Kaleta, a deputy justice minister.

"The Freedom of Speech Council will review complaints from internet users about content that has been removed or restricted by social media," Kaleta said, adding that the Council will have seven days to process the complaint.

Read the original here:

Poland drafts internet freedom of speech bill - The First News