Category Archives: Transhuman News

Jack Bernard was formerly SVP of a national healthcare corporation and the first Director of Health Planning for GA. He was Chairman of the Jasper County GA GOP. He's now Vice Chairman of a Board of Health in Fayette County, a suburb of Atlanta.

This Supreme Court decision is a huge win for the First Amendment and protection of speech on college campuses.- Rep. Drew Ferguson

Rep. Ferguson was referring to the little known Uzuegbunam v Preczewski case (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf). It was recently decided by SCOTUS, 9-1 in favor of a Georgia Gwinnett College students right to free speech, even if the damages sought are only nominal and the schools policy has changed. And Ferguson was 100% correct; it is a big win for all Americans who are against censorship, regardless of political or religious affiliation.

Essentially, the case boiled down to the issue of whether or not Gwinnett could restrict Uzuegbunam from proselytizing on campus, including handing out LDS religious materials, if it disturbs the peace and/or comfort of persons. Gwinnett had complaints and campus security stopped Uzuegbunam, threatening disciplinary action. Later, Gwinnett refused to give him a permit to speak and hand out literature in a campus free speech zone. When the case was filed, Gwinnett did away with these policies and then argued that the suit should be disallowed.

As for myself, I believe religion is something that is personal to each individual. And I do not like proselytizing which invades my space. However, I still support the right of other Americans to speak about their religion in public if they so choose. And that includes Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Wiccans and anyone else. But this case goes far beyond religious free speech on campus. It relates to censorship coming from both the left and right.

Far left censorship has recently become an issue at numerous other American universities. The best example is debate regarding the Israeli-Palestinian situation.As someone who firmly believes in an equitable two state solution, I see fault with both the Palestinians (especially terroristic Hamas) and the Israelis (especially Netanyahus right wingers) on this issue. Both sides should be able to express their viewpoints on our campuses. However, pro-Palestine campus protestors do not let both positions be publicly expressed. In undemocratic fashion, they have prevented debate from occurring on numerous campuses including UNC, Duke, SFSU, Columbia, UC Irvine, U of Va. and elsewhere.

Censorship coming from the right is also at work in our society. Colin Kaepernick was the star quarterback for the San Francesco 49ers. When the National Anthem was played before a game during the 2016 season, he chose to kneel in solidarity with black people who have been wronged by police. President Trump then stated that athletes who did not stand during the National Anthem should be fired.

Kaepernick became a free agent after the season was over and NFL owners decided to censor him, punishing him for exercising his free speech rights. Although many teams were and still are in need of a fine quarterback, he has yet to be signed. He has now reached the age (33) where it would be increasingly unlikely. Kaepernick has become a victim of right wing cancel culture simply for expressing his free speech rights under the Constitution.

Over the last decade, our nation has become more tribal. Free speech has become a casualty of these right-left divisions. Regardless of our personal politics, we must all push back against stifling the non-violent views of others from being heard.

Jack Bernard was formerly SVP of a national healthcare corporation and the first Director of Health Planning for GA. He was Chairman of the Jasper County GA GOP. He's now Vice Chairman of a Board of Health in Fayette County, a suburb of Atlanta.

Originally posted here:
Free speech, censorship and the constitution - Newnan Times-Herald

When we receive a valid legal request, we review it under both the Twitter Rules and local law. If the content violates Twitters rules, the content will be removed from the service, the spokesperson said. If it is determined to be illegal in a particular jurisdiction, but not in violation of the Twitter rules, we may withhold access to the content in India only.

Some advocates have slammed the companies for complying with the order, citing Facebooks partnership with the Global Network Initiative, a coalition that seeks to limit online censorship by autocratic governments, and Twitters stated mission to serve the public conversation.

Facebook, Twitter, and other technology companies have a responsibility to respect human rights, including right to free speech, said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch, in an email interview. Online censorship can have a debilitating effect on dissent. It is important for companies to protect the human rights of their users and not censor information in violation of international standards.

Despite the Indian governments order, the companies should interpret and implement legal demands as narrowly as possible, to ensure the least possible restriction on expression, notify users, seek clarification or modification from authorities, and explore all legal options for challenge, Ganguly said.

But the choice by social media companies facing government demands isnt only a moral one but a business decision, too. India has more than 755 million internet users second in the world only to China making it an attractive market for U.S. companies. Modis use of the countrys digital regulation laws places the companies in an unenviable position.

Visit link:
In India, Facebook and Twitter walk censorship tightrope with government - Roll Call

Former President Donald Trump told Fox Business on Thursday that Rudy Giuliani was "the greatest mayor in the history of New York and a great patriot. (April 29) AP Domestic

One of the nations largest states is taking on Big Tech.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is likely to sign into lawa bill that would prevent social media companies Facebook, Twitter and Googles YouTube from deplatforming politicians such as former President Donald Trump.

The bill was approved Thursday by the Republican-controlled state Legislature.

It would ordersocial media companies to publish standards with detailed definitions of when someone would be censored or blocked and makecompanies subject to as much as $250,000 daily fines for deplatforming a Florida candidate. The bill would requirea social media company to notify users within seven days that they could be censored, giving them time to correct posts.

Republican lawmakers in Florida said legislation is needed to curb the influence the nations leading social media companies have over the national conversation.

"What this bill is about is sending a loud message to Silicon Valley that they are not the absolute arbiters of truth," state Rep. John Snyder, a Republican from the Port St. Lucie area, said Wednesday, according to NBC News.

Trump and Capitol attack: When Trump started his speech before the Capitol riot, talk on Parler turned to civil war

Censorship or conspiracy theory?Trump supporters say Facebook and Twitter censor them, but conservatives still rule socialmedia

"What this bill does is send a loud message that the Constitution does not have an asterisk that says only certain speech is free and protected," he said.

The legislation is likely to face industry opposition.

This bill abandons conservative values, violates the First Amendment, and would force websites to host antisemitic, racist, and hateful content. Content moderation is crucial to an internet that is safe and valuable for families and Floridian small businesses, but this bill would undermine this important ecosystem, Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of trade group NetChoice, said in a statement to USA TODAY.

Szabo argued that the legislation would make it more difficult for conservatives to get their voices heard.

He told Florida lawmakers this monththat conservative speech has never been stronger.

No longer limited to a handful of newspapers or networks, conservative messages can now reach billions of people across multiple social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Gab, Parler, Rumbleand MeWe, Szabosaid. Weve seen the rise of conservative voices without having to beg for an op-ed in The Washington Post or New York Timesor a speaking slot on CNN. Social networks allow conservative voices to easily find conservative viewers.

Donald Trump was booted off social media after the Capitol riot by a mob of his supporters Jan. 6.(Photo: AP)

Conservatives intensified attacks on social media companies after the ejection of Trump and other conservatives in response tothe attack Jan. 6 on the U.S. Capitol.

DeSantis, a Republican and a Trump ally,condemned the oligarchs in Silicon Valley for deplatforming Trump and other conservatives.

Without citing evidence, DeSantis said Facebook, Twitter and YouTube use their size, advertising power and global reach to influence thought and play favorites being tougher on those who comment from the political right than left.

DeSantis revived his criticism after a roundtable he held in March was taken down from YouTube because the governor and scientists he invited were accused of airing COVID-19 misinformation.

Now accepting reader submissions: Creating a gaming community at USA TODAY

If conservatives want to remain on social media platforms, they should follow the rules, State Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, an Orlando-area Democrat, told NBC News.

"There's already a solution to deplatforming candidates on social media: Stop trafficking in conspiracy theories. That's the solution. Stop pushing misinformation if you're a candidate or an incumbent elected official. Stop retweeting QAnon. Stop lying on social media," Smith said.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/04/30/facebook-youtube-twitter-florida-ban-censor-trump-politicians/4897949001/

See more here:
Ban Trump? Not so fast. Florida is about to pass a law to stop Facebook and Twitter from censoring politicians - USA TODAY

As thousands of people die each day, the Modi government is cracking down on people criticizing it online.

Posted on April 29, 2021, at 5:05 p.m. ET

A worker adjusts a funeral pyre of those who died from COVID-19 during a mass cremation at a crematorium in New Delhi on April 29, 2021.

India, a country with 1.4 billion people, has been gripped by a deadly second wave of the coronavirus pandemic. But even as its healthcare system gasps for breath and its crematoriums burn with thousands of funeral pyres, its leaders are scrambling to censor the internet.

Last week, Indias IT ministry ordered Twitter to block more than 50 tweets from being seen in the country. Days later, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Times of India reported that Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube had also taken down posts that were critical of the government. Over the last week, ordinary people running WhatsApp and Telegram groups to help people find medical oxygen and hospital beds have complained of threats demanding that they shut them down, and police in the state of Uttar Pradesh filed a complaint against a man who asked for medical oxygen for his dying grandfather on Twitter, claiming that he was spreading misleading information. On Wednesday, posts with the hashtag #ResignModi disappeared from Facebook for a few hours. And even though the company restored it and claimed that the Indian government didnt ask for it to be censored, it didnt provide details about why the hashtag had been blocked.

These incidents which happened within days of each other as criticism of Indias government reached a fever pitch highlight the shrinking space for dissent in the worlds largest democracy. As social unrest against an increasingly authoritarian government grows, it has cracked down on social media, one of the last free spaces remaining for citizens to express their opinions. New regulations have given the government broad powers to restrict content, forcing US tech platforms, which count India as a key market, to strike a balance between growth and free expression.

This isnt the first time that an Indian government has attempted to censor speech online. In 2012, before Modi came to power, Indias United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government ordered internet service providers to block more than a dozen Twitter accounts, including those belonging to people from the right wing.

In February, Indias government ordered Twitter to take down more than 250 tweets that criticized how the government handled protests over new agricultural laws. Although Twitter blocked most of the accounts, it unblocked the ones belonging to journalists, activists, and politicians, despite jail threats from the Indian government.

Indias current internet censorship ties directly into social criticism of the governments policies.

But now, there is an increase in the frequency and scale of the censorship that is being demanded, Apar Gupta, director of digital rights organization Internet Freedom Foundation, told BuzzFeed News. Indias current internet censorship ties directly into social criticism of the governments policies.

Over the weekend, Indias IT ministry attempted to explain its reasoning in an unsigned Word document it shared with the press, and which was accessed by BuzzFeed News.

The [g]overnment welcomes criticisms, genuine requests for help as well as suggestions in the collective fight against COVID19, the note said. But it is necessary to take action against those users who are misusing social media during this grave humanitarian crisis for unethical purposes.

The ministry cited a handful of the 53 tweets that it ordered to be blocked as examples of problematic content. There are four tweets that call the coronavirus pandemic a conspiracy theory, and four more containing old and unrelated visuals of patients and dead bodies. At least two of these four instances are genuine examples of misinformation, fact-checkers from Indian outlets Alt News and Newschecker who examined the images told BuzzFeed News.

In an example of how thin the line between removing dangerous rumors and censoring political expression can be, the ministry offered no explanations for any other content ordered down. A BuzzFeed News examination of the rest of the restricted tweets showed that at least some of them appeared to make legitimate criticisms of Indias prime minister. One of the restricted tweets, for instance, belongs to Moloy Ghatak, a minister from the state of West Bengal. He accuses Modi of mismanaging the pandemic and exporting vaccines when theres a shortage in India.

Neither Ghatak nor the IT ministry responded to requests for comment

One of the tweets restricted in India belonged to Pawan Khera, a national spokesperson of the Indian National Congress, Indias main opposition party. The tweet, which was posted on April 12, shows pictures from the Kumbh Mela, a religious Hindu gathering held earlier this month during which millions of people bathed in a river even as coronavirus cases were rapidly rising. Both ordinary Indians and the global press have criticized Indias government for allowing the gathering to happen. In his tweet, Khera contrasts Indias lack of reaction to the Kumbh Mela with an incident last year, when members of a Muslim gathering were accused of spreading the coronavirus when the country had fewer than 1,000 confirmed cases.

Why was my tweet withheld? Khera told BuzzFeed News. Thats the answer I need from the government of India.

What laws am I violating? What rumors am I spreading? Where did I cause panic? These are the questions I need answered, said Khera, who sent a legal request to the IT ministry and Twitter this week.

If I dont hear back from them, Ill take them to court.

If I dont hear back from them, Ill take them to court, he said. I need legal relief to protect my freedom of expression.

Twitter did not respond to a request for comment.

Experts said the ministrys note didnt provide sufficient justification for ordering social media platforms to censor posts. Since when did the government start sending takedown notices for misinformation? asked Pratik Sinha, editor of Alt News. And why have just these tweets been cited [out of 53]?

Social media platforms havent been the only places seeing a crackdown. Over the last few weeks, volunteer-run networks of WhatsApp and Telegram groups amplifying pleas for help, and getting people access to medical oxygen, lifesaving drugs, and hospital beds have sprung up around the country. But over the last few days, some of them have disbanded. According to a report on Indian news website the Quint, volunteers running these groups received calls from people claiming to be from the Delhi Police asking them to shut them down.

The Delhi Police denied this, but by then, people were spooked. A network of WhatsApp groups run by more than 300 volunteers disbanded days ago even though they didnt get a call. We decided not to take a chance, the founder of this group, who wished to remain anonymous, told BuzzFeed News. [I felt] frustration and anger.

Experts said one of the biggest problems in this situation is a lack of transparency from both the government and the platforms. Last week, Twitter revealed the details of the IT ministrys order on Lumen, a Harvard University database that lets companies disclose takedown notices from governments around the world. But Facebook, Instagram, and Google havent commented on alleged censorship in one of their largest markets, either to the public or to BuzzFeed News when asked.

They didnt even put out a public statement about this, said the Internet Freedom Foundations Gupta. The primary duty of transparency lies with the government, but there has been absolutely no transparency by the platforms.

Original post:
COVID-19 Is Devastating India. Its Government Is Trying To Censor Social Media. - BuzzFeed News

The next time someone smugly tells you there is no legitimate use case for cryptocurrency, or asserts that it has no redeeming social value, shove this story in his or her face:

Meduza, a Russian news outlet, is soliciting donations in cryptocurrency (along with traditional payment methods) after the government labeled it a foreign agent, CoinDesks on-the-ground correspondent, Anna Baydakova, reported Thursday.

This article is excerpted fromThe Node, CoinDesk's daily roundup of the most pivotal stories on cryptocurrency and the future of money. You can subscribe to get the fullnewsletter here.

Meduza is now required by law to post a notice of its foreign agent status in a typeface bigger than the text of its articles. As a result of this scarlet letter, Meduza lost many of its advertisers and is running out of money, the team behind the publication said. Apparently, it hasnt been deplatformed by traditional financial institutions because it is also taking donations by bank card and PayPal. But the reasons Meduza gave for including the crypto option were telling.

If people are afraid to send us money from their bank accounts, and they might well be, they can send us crypto, said Meduzas editor-in-chief, Ivan Kolpakov.

A skeptic might note that donors who send bitcoin (BTC), ether (ETH), or BNB to Meduza would leave a permanent record of their actions on the blockchains, or public ledgers, of these assets. But such a record would show only the address, a random-seeming string of numbers and letters, that sent the money, not the person behind it. An address may or may not be tied to donors real-world identity, depending on how they acquired the crypto and what steps they took to protect their privacy, whereas their bank and PayPal accounts definitely are.

The age of weaponized banking

Further, if recent history teaches us anything, it is that financial intermediaries cannot be relied upon to stand with dissident or unpopular voices.

We saw this more than a decade ago with the blockade of WikiLeaks by PayPal and other large financial institutions that caved to extra-legal pressure from U.S. politicians.

We see it today whenpayment processorsandcrowdfunding sitesbootcontent creators,fundraisersorpariah-friendlyinternet platforms, not because they are breaking any laws but because their speech offends activists. I, too, find the content in many of these cases unsavory. But I dont mind that it exists, and I dont want to prevent those who want to read, watch or hear it from doing so. Thats a basic small-l liberal principle. Orwas.

To quote a locked Twitter account, whom I will not name out of respect for the persons privacy: If I cover my ears because I dont want to hear from you, its not censorship. If I cover your mouth or someone elses ears because people want to hear you, its censorship.

I can already hear the bien pensants say, Its only censorship when the government does it. But even if you accept only that narrow legal definition of the word, it surely describes what the Russian government the very regime whose influence in the U.S. many of those same bien pensants spent the last four years hyperventilating about is trying to do to Meduza.

Crypto might thwart that attempt, or at least hinder it, by enabling individuals to transfer money to a publisher without permission from third parties that can be strong-armed or politicized.

Downsides

By all means, lets talk about the copious amounts of electricity required to secure Bitcoin and other proof-of-stake networks although describing this intensive computation as wasteful is a subjective value judgment. (TikTok and hair dryers are wasteful in my book. Should those things be banned?)

By all means, lets acknowledge that cryptocurrencys openness to all comers makes it attractive to criminals although the blockchains trail of crumbs also helps law enforcement catch the crooks who use these systems.

See also: Daniel Kuhn Bitcoin, Warts and All

By all means, lets pay attention to how terrorists, foreign or now, were told, domestic, might take advantage of this technology. But if were going to blame anyone or anything other than the terrorists for their actions, remember it was not Satoshi Nakamoto who destabilized the Middle East or hollowed out Middle America.

When tallying the social costs of censorship-resistant money, do not ignore the benefits for the Meduzas of the world.

See more here:
Financial Censorship Is a Thing. Bitcoin Fixes It - CoinDesk - CoinDesk

EDMONTON A lawyer for an Alberta pastor accused of violating COVID-19 rules says the province's health agency decided to penalize the church leader as a way to censor him.

EDMONTON A lawyer for an Alberta pastor accused of violating COVID-19 rules says the province's health agency decided to penalize the church leader as a way to censor him.

James Kitchen told the trial of James Coates that his client was charged the same day he preached a sermon criticizing Alberta's leadership on the pandemic.

Coates was ticketed Dec. 20 under the Public Health Act after health inspectors said he held services at GraceLife Church in Spruce Grove that ignored capacity limits, physical distancing and masking.

Kitchen argued it's not a coincidence that the same day Coates had preached a sermon critical of how Premier Jason Kenney's government was handling the COVID-19 crisis.

"He (had) just preached a sermon that's critical of the government, which is different than the other Sundays that RCMP and (Alberta Health Services) has shown up," Kitchen told the trial in Edmonton on Tuesday.

"The best explanation for why that ticket was issued that particular Sunday after the sermon was preached because it's meant to impose a chilling effect on pastor Coates. It was to send a message ...'You better stop criticizing the government for what they're doing.'"

Provincial court Judge Robert Shaigec said he needs a few weeks to reach a decision and adjourned the case until June 7.

He said he needs to determine whether the pastor's rights were infringed upon and, if so, whether the government's health restrictions are reasonable.

Shaigec heard that health inspectors monitored at least three GraceLife services before Dec. 20 and noted violations of COVID-19 regulations in their reports.

Kitchen told the court that inspectors were also at the church on the morning of Dec. 20, before Coates gave his sermon, but it wasn't until after he was done preaching that RCMP returned to ticket him.

The lawyer called the ticket a form of censorship. He added that health orders meant to curb the spread of COVID-19 violate other charter rights in relation to freedom of expression, assembly and worship.

"We know how important this is to Christians as soon as you look at any history in the Middle Ages or Roman times when the church was born ... gathering in person was fundamental."

By forcing the pastor to remove 85 per cent of his congregants from services, Kitchen added that churchgoers are unable to express themselves the way they would in person.

A Crown prosecutor, whose identity is protected under a publication ban, argued that no one stopped Coates or his congregants from worshipping. She said the church previously livestreamed services when two members tested positive for COVID-19.

"By Mr. Coates being allowed to operate with 15 per cent capacity, he was still able to practise all of those broad protected Charter of Rights. He still was able to practise his religion. He's still able to have multiple services. He's still able to go online," the Crown said.

On the first day of the trial Monday, the health inspector who issued the ticket to Coates testified she observed many "risky" behaviours at the church during four inspections in November and December.

Janine Hanrahan said during one service about 200 congregants were seen cheering, clapping and standing shoulder to shoulder. Typically, the church can fit more than 600 people in its building, but a 15 per cent capacity limit allows 92 inside.

Coates, 41, also testified that the church had 37 Sunday services without any positive cases before health officials closed it and fenced it off in early April.

In February, Coates was also held in custody for violating a bail condition not to hold services. He was released 35 days later, after pleading guilty, and was fined $1,500.

Lawyer Lieghton Grey, who is also representing Coates, said the time the pastor spent in jail was unjust as he lost 10 pounds. He said harassment Coates has faced has also taken a toll on his mental well-being.

"Thats time he can't get back and also the psychological harm is irreparable."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 4, 2021.

----

This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Facebook and Canadian Press News Fellowship.

Fakiha Baig, The Canadian Press

Originally posted here:
'A chilling effect:' Lawyer argues Alberta government wanted to censor church pastor - North Shore News

EDMONTON - A lawyer for an Alberta pastor accused of violating COVID-19 rules says the provinces health agency decided to penalize the church leader as a way to censor him.

James Kitchen told the trial of James Coates that his client was charged the same day he preached a sermon criticizing Albertas leadership on the pandemic.

Coates was ticketed Dec. 20 under the Public Health Act after health inspectors said he held services at GraceLife Church in Spruce Grove that ignored capacity limits, physical distancing and masking.

Kitchen argued its not a coincidence that the same day Coates had preached a sermon critical of how Premier Jason Kenneys government was handling the COVID-19 crisis.

He (had) just preached a sermon thats critical of the government, which is different than the other Sundays that RCMP and (Alberta Health Services) has shown up, Kitchen told the trial in Edmonton on Tuesday.

The best explanation for why that ticket was issued that particular Sunday after the sermon was preached because its meant to impose a chilling effect on pastor Coates. It was to send a message ...You better stop criticizing the government for what theyre doing.

Provincial court Judge Robert Shaigec said he needs a few weeks to reach a decision and adjourned the case until June 7.

He said he needs to determine whether the pastors rights were infringed upon and, if so, whether the governments health restrictions are reasonable.

Shaigec heard that health inspectors monitored at least three GraceLife services before Dec. 20 and noted violations of COVID-19 regulations in their reports.

Kitchen told the court that inspectors were also at the church on the morning of Dec. 20, before Coates gave his sermon, but it wasnt until after he was done preaching that RCMP returned to ticket him.

The lawyer called the ticket a form of censorship. He added that health orders meant to curb the spread of COVID-19 violate other charter rights in relation to freedom of expression, assembly and worship.

We know how important this is to Christians as soon as you look at any history in the Middle Ages or Roman times when the church was born ... gathering in person was fundamental.

By forcing the pastor to remove 85 per cent of his congregants from services, Kitchen added that churchgoers are unable to express themselves the way they would in person.

A Crown prosecutor, whose identity is protected under a publication ban, argued that no one stopped Coates or his congregants from worshipping. She said the church previously livestreamed services when two members tested positive for COVID-19.

By Mr. Coates being allowed to operate with 15 per cent capacity, he was still able to practise all of those broad protected Charter of Rights. He still was able to practise his religion. Hes still able to have multiple services. Hes still able to go online, the Crown said.

On the first day of the trial Monday, the health inspector who issued the ticket to Coates testified she observed many risky behaviours at the church during four inspections in November and December.

Janine Hanrahan said during one service about 200 congregants were seen cheering, clapping and standing shoulder to shoulder. Typically, the church can fit more than 600 people in its building, but a 15 per cent capacity limit allows 92 inside.

Coates, 41, also testified that the church had 37 Sunday services without any positive cases before health officials closed it and fenced it off in early April.

In February, Coates was also held in custody for violating a bail condition not to hold services. He was released 35 days later, after pleading guilty, and was fined $1,500.

Lawyer Lieghton Grey, who is also representing Coates, said the time the pastor spent in jail was unjust as he lost 10 pounds. He said harassment Coates has faced has also taken a toll on his mental well-being.

Thats time he cant get back and also the psychological harm is irreparable.

Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 4, 2021.

----

This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Facebook and Canadian Press News Fellowship.

More here:
Alberta government wanted to censor church pastor on trial: lawyer - TheRecord.com