We tend to think of freedom as an emancipatory idealand with good reason. Throughout history, the desire to be free inspired countless marginalized groups to challenge the rule of political and economic elites. Liberty was the watchword of the Atlantic revolutionaries who, at the end of the 18th century, toppled autocratic kings, arrogant elites and (in Haiti) slaveholders, thus putting an end to the Old Regime. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Black civil rights activists and feminists fought for the expansion of democracy in the name of freedom, while populists and progressives struggled to put an end to the economic domination of workers.

While these groups had different objectives and ambitions, sometimes putting them at odds with one another, they all agreed that their main goalfreedomrequired enhancing the peoples voice in government. When the late Rep. John Lewis called on Americans to let freedom ring, he was drawing on this tradition.

But there is another side to the story of freedom as well. Over the past 250 years, the cry for liberty has also been used by conservatives to defend elite interests. In their view, true freedom is not about collective control over government; it consists in the private enjoyment of ones life and goods. From this perspective, preserving freedom has little to do with making government accountable to the people. Democratically elected majorities, conservatives point out, pose just as much, or even more of a threat to personal security and individual rightespecially the right to propertyas rapacious kings or greedy elites. This means that freedom can best be preserved by institutions that curb the power of those majorities, or simply by shrinking the sphere of government as much as possible.

This particular way of thinking about freedom was pioneered in the late 18th century by the defenders of the Old Regime. From the 1770s onward, as revolutionaries on both sides of the Atlantic rebelled in the name of liberty, a flood of pamphlets, treatises and newspaper articles appeared with titles such as Some Observations On Liberty, Civil Liberty Asserted or On the Liberty of the Citizen. Their authors vehemently denied that the Atlantic Revolutions would bring greater freedom. As, for instance, the Scottish philosopher Adam Fergusona staunch opponent of the American Revolutionexplained, liberty consisted in the security of our rights. And from that perspective, the American colonists already were free, even though they lacked control over the way in which they were governed. As British subjects, they enjoyed more security than was ever before enjoyed by any people. This meant that the colonists liberty was best preserved by maintaining the status quo; their attempts to govern themselves could only end in anarchy and mob rule.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

In the course of the 19th century this view became widespread among European elites, who continued to vehemently oppose the advent of democracy. Benjamin Constant, one of Europes most celebrated political thinkers, rejected the example of the French revolutionaries, arguing that they had confused liberty with participation in collective power. Instead, freedom-lovers should look to the British constitution, where hierarchies were firmly entrenched. Here, Constant claimed, freedom, understood as peaceful enjoyment and private independence, was perfectly secureeven though less than five percent of British adults could vote. The Hungarian politician Jzseph Etvs, among many others, agreed. Writing in the wake of the brutally suppressed revolutions that rose against several European monarchies in 1848, he complained that the insurgents, battling for manhood suffrage, had confused liberty with the principle of the peoples supremacy. But such confusion could only lead to democratic despotism. True libertydefined by Etvs as respect for well-earned rightscould best be achieved by limiting state power as much as possible, not by democratization.

In the U.S., conservatives were likewise eager to claim that they, and they alone, were the true defenders of freedom. In the 1790s, some of the more extreme Federalists tried to counter the democratic gains of the preceding decade in the name of liberty. In the view of the staunch Federalist Noah Webster, for instance, it was a mistake to think that to obtain liberty, and establish a free government, nothing was necessary but to get rid of kings, nobles, and priests. To preserve true freedomwhich Webster defined as the peaceful enjoyment of ones life and propertypopular power instead needed to be curbed, preferably by reserving the Senate for the wealthy. Yet such views were slower to gain traction in the United States than in Europe. To Websters dismay, overall, his contemporaries believed that freedom could best be preserved by extending democracy rather than by restricting popular control over government.

But by the end of the 19th century, conservative attempts to reclaim the concept of freedom did catch on. The abolition of slavery, rapid industrialization and mass migration from Europe expanded the agricultural and industrial working classes exponentially, as well as giving them greater political agency. This fueled increasing anxiety about popular government among American elites, who now began to claim that mass democracy posed a major threat to liberty, notably the right to property. Francis Parkman, scion of a powerful Boston family, was just one of a growing number of statesmen who raised doubts about the wisdom of universal suffrage, as the masses of the nation want equality more than they want liberty.

William Graham Sumner, an influential Yale professor, likewise spoke for many when he warned of the advent of a new, democratic kind of despotisma danger that could best be avoided by restricting the sphere of government as much as possible. Laissez faire, or, in blunt English, mind your own business, Sumner concluded, was the doctrine of liberty.

Being alert to this history can help us to understand why, today, people can use the same wordfreedomto mean two very different things. When conservative politicians like Rand Paul and advocacy groups FreedomWorks or the Federalist Society talk about their love of liberty, they usually mean something very different from civil rights activists like John Lewisand from the revolutionaries, abolitionists and feminists in whose footsteps Lewis walked. Instead, they are channeling 19th century conservatives like Francis Parkman and William Graham Sumner, who believed that freedom is about protecting property rightsif need be, by obstructing democracy. Hundreds of years later, those two competing views of freedom remain largely unreconcilable.

Annelien de Dijn is the author of Freedom: An Unruly History, available now from Harvard University Press.

For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder.

Contact us at editors@time.com.

Here is the original post:

Freedom Means Something Different to Liberals and Conservatives. Heres How the Definition SplitAnd Why That Still Matters - TIME

Food and beverage brands are routinely listed among the most famous and valuable brands in the world.1 With fame, however, comes the increased chance that a brand will be a target for trademark parodists. A March 2020 appellate court decision in a case involving the famous whiskey brand JACK DANIELS illustrates the difficulties brands face when pursuing claims against trademark parodies in the U.S.2

U.S. law does not provide for strict liability preventing the unauthorized use of anothers trademark. Instead, the parodists use must trigger liability under trademark laws prohibiting infringement or dilution or through common law unfair competition claims:

An infringement or unfair competition claim requires proof that the parodists use is likely to cause confusion.

A dilution claim requires proof that the parodists use is likely to blur or tarnish the brand owners famous mark.

There is also no automatic parody defense to an infringement claim. Common sense suggests it may be difficult to prove likelihood of confusion sufficient to meet the test for trademark infringement when faced with a successful parody, i.e., one that immediately communicates that the parodist is making a commentary about a brand through humor or criticism. If the humor or criticism is recognized and obvious making the parody successful why would consumers be confused? On the other hand, if it is difficult to detect the commentary and instead only the brand attributes are readily apparent in the parodists product making the attempt at parody unsuccessful the brand owner is more readily able to prove that confusion is likely.

In contrast to infringement claims, there is a parody defense under the fair use exclusion to federal dilution claims for at least some parodies. The Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA) excludes from its coverage both parodies involving fair use of a famous mark other than as a designation of source for the parodists own goods or services and any noncommercial use of a mark.3 The fair use defense does not apply when the parodist uses the parody as its own trademark. Still, the brand owner must prove that the parody is likely to dilute the distinctiveness of the brand owners mark either by blurring or by tarnishment, with proof that the association of the parody with the brand is likely to impair or harm the brand. Such proof may not be obvious or readily available as to a parody that is perceived as a mere joke in the form of a noncompetitive product like a dog toy using as its brand name a play on words to mimic the brand of a luxury product, together with trade dress copied from the luxury product.4

On the other hand, a competitors advertisement that uses alterations to mock and belittle a brands mascot, even if amusing, crosses the line.5

In addition to the potential difficulties with proving the elements of the underlying claims, free speech considerations may come into play and override the brand owners trademark rights. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.6 Parody has been recognized as a form of artistic expression, and, where artistic expression is involved, the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion must be balanced against the public interest in free speech.7 Thus, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech can conflict with the consumer and brand owner protection goals of trademark laws. When an expressive work protected by the First Amendment is involved, courts apply the Rogers v. Grimaldi test and the brand owner must show that defendants use of the mark is either (1) not artistically relevant to the underlying work or (2) explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or content of the work.8

Historically, this test comes into play in cases involving works that are clearly artistic and expressive at their very core, such as movies, songs, opinion pieces and articles appearing on websites.9 The recent JACK DANIELS case extended the test to a novelty commercial product, namely dog chew toys, leaving brand owners to wonder just how far Rogers v. Grimaldi will be taken by the courts.10

In response to VIP Products suit for a declaratory judgment, Jack Daniels challenged VIP Products use of JACK DANIELS trade dress in connection with its dog chew toy shown below,11 which features the name BAD SPANIELS and various scatological references:

The district court found in favor of Jack Daniels on both infringement and dilution grounds.12 On the infringement claim, the court found that confusion was likely, with the factors that favored Jack Daniels including actual confusion demonstrated through a survey, VIPs intent to capitalize on the brands goodwill, the strength of the JACK DANIELS marks, the proximity of the goods (due to the Jack Daniels licensing program, which included dog products), the similarity of the marks and the marketing channels, and the low degree of care exercised by the buyer when purchasing the inexpensive dog toy novelty products. The district court also found that Jack Daniels established at the bench trial all the requisite elements for dilution by tarnishment: fame, similarity, and reputational harm.13 The lower court concluded that the claim of parody should be disregarded where the parodist seeks to capitalize on a famous marks popularity for the parodists own commercial use.14

As part of its trial evidence, Jack Daniels submitted testimony from an expert in consumer behavior, who relied on general consumer psychology research to opine that the association of any food or beverage with defecation creates disgust in the mind of the consumer with respect to that food or beverage. The court described this as [w]ell documented empirical research support[ing] that the negative associations of Old No. 2 defecation and poo by weight [on the parody product label] creates disgust in the mind of the consumer when the consumer is evaluating [the brand owners] Jack Daniels whiskey.15 The court accepted this testimony to support a finding of reputational harm to Jack Daniels, because the parodying products references to defecation would creat[e] negative associations, either consciously or unconsciously, and undermin[e] the pre-existing positive associations with its whiskey that would be particularly harmful for a brand selling goods for human consumption: human consumption and canine excrement do not mix.16

The court also found tarnishment based on associating the whiskey brand with toys, particularly the kinds of toys that might appeal to children, because Jack Daniels, as a seller of alcoholic beverages, has a policy that it does not market to children, does not license goods for children, and does not license goods that might appeal to children.17

While the First Amendment was not addressed in the final district court decision, the court had held earlier in the litigation that the First Amendment does not establish protection for the adaptation of the JACK DANIELS trademark and trade dress for the commercial selling of a noncompeting product, distinguishing the dog toy from the expressive works to which the Rogers test had been applied in the Ninth Circuit.18

In a somewhat surprising decision in March 2020, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court regarding whether the dog chew toy is an expressive work. The circuit court held that VIPs Bad Spaniels dog toy is an expressive work entitled to First Amendment protection, reversed the district courts judgment on the dilution claim on the grounds that the noncommercial use defense applied, vacated the judgment on trademark infringement, and remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings on the infringement claim. The appeals court acknowledged that the dog toy was surely not the equivalent of the Mona Lisa but held that the humorous message was sufficient expressive content and that such expressive content is not rendered non-expressive simply because [the product] is sold commercially.19

Jack Daniels sought rehearing en banc by the full appeals court, arguing that the Ninth Circuits designation of a commercial novelty product as an expressive work:

erroneously reaches ordinary commercial products creatively marketed by their manufacturers, thus producing an exception that swallows the traditional rules governing trademark infringement. It also unnecessarily injects constitutional issues into routine cases and threatens the publics ability to avoid confusion, as well as trademark owners ability to protect their marks.20

The Ninth Circuit denied the request for rehearing en banc on June 3, 2020.

Now back at the district court, in order to succeed, Jack Daniels will be required to first satisfy at least one of the two prongs of the Rogers v. Grimaldi test: that the use of the JACK DANIELS marks by VIP was either not artistically relevant or explicitly misleading. Artistic relevance is usually found, giving a parodist broad artistic license, so to speak. Similarly, for a reference to be explicitly misleading, the abuse of the brand owners mark must be particularly compelling. The upshot is that only rarely has a brand owner been able to avoid a swift loss once Rogers is applied, reflecting the difficulty of meeting this test.21

It remains to be seen whether the Ninth Circuits application of the Rogers test to a novelty product will be accepted in other circuits or will be further challenged through a petition for review by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, brand owners wishing to bring action to stop novelty parody products may wish to avoid the Ninth Circuit.

1 See, e.g., The Worlds Most Valuable Brands 2020, available at https://www.forbes.com/the-worlds-most-valuable-brands/#1c950ba8119c (last accessed Aug. 2, 2020), listing McDonalds, Budweiser, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nescafe, Starbucks and Frito-Lay among the first 50 such brands.

2 VIP Prods., LLC v. Jack Daniels Props., Inc., 953 F. 3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2020).

3 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(3).

4 See, e.g., Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A.v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252, 252 (4th Cir. 2007). But see Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. VIP Prods., LLC, 666 F. Supp. 2d 974 (E.D. Mo. 2008), where a dog chew toy offered by VIP Products using BUDWEISER trade dress and the BUTTWIPER name was enjoined. For images from these and other parody cases, as well as a check list of pertinent factual considerations, see the authors article, Free Ride or Free Speech? Predicting Results and Providing Advice for Trademark Disputes Involving Parody, 109 The Trademark Reporter 691 (July-Aug. 2019).

5 Deere & Co. v. MTD Prods., Inc., 41 F.3d 39, 46 (2d Cir. 1994).

6 U.S. Const. amend. I.

7 Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Nature Labs, LLC, 221 F. Supp. 2d 410, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

8 Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989).

9 Id. at 999 (movie title); Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002) (song title); Radiance Found., Inc. v. NAACP, 786 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2015) (website and opinion piece).

10 See Amicus Brief of the International Trademark Association submitted in support of Jack Daniels Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc, arguing that the appellate court holding has the potential to exempt from trademark infringement liability any product that employs a modicum of creative expression on packaging or on the products themselves. Available at https://www.inta.org/wp-content/uploads/public-files/advocacy/amicus-briefs/INTA-Amicus-Brief-VIP-v-JDPI.pdf (last accessed Aug. 2, 2020).

11 Images from VIPs Opening Brief on Appeal, filed Nov. 9, 2018, available at Dkt. No. 16, p. 20-21, in VIP Prods., LLC v. Jack Daniels Props., Inc., Appeal No. 18-16012 (9th Cir.).

12 VIP Prods., LLC v. Jack Daniels Props., Inc., 291 F. Supp. 3d 891 (D. Ariz. 2018).

13 Id. at 905.

14 Id. at 908. To support this proposition, the court cited Grey v. Campbell Soup Co., 650 F. Supp. 1166, 1175 (C.D. Cal. 1986), where DOGIVA dog biscuits were enjoined based on likely confusion and/or dilution with GODIVA chocolates. In the Grey case, the parodists testimony regarding development of the parody products and permission allegedly received from a former GODIVA business person was found to be internally inconsistent and contradicted in significant part by the testimony of others and documentary evidence. In other words, the court found that the parodist was a liar and that finding permeates the opinion and likely influenced the outcome.

15 Id. at 903.

16 Id. at 904.

17 Id.

18 Decision on Summary Judgment, VIP Prods., LLC v. Jack Daniels Props., Inc., No. CV-14-2057-PHX-SMM (D. Ariz. Sept. 27, 2016).

19 953 F. 3d at 1175.

20 Jack Daniels Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc, VIP Prods., LLC v. Jack Daniels Props., Inc., No. 18-16012 (9th Cir. Apr. 14, 2020 (Dkt 63-1 at 6)).

21 In Parks v. LaFace Records, for example, plaintiff was able to convince an appeals court that a triable issue of fact was presented as to whether defendants use of Rosa Parks as the title of the song was artistically relevant to the song content, where the song was not about Ms. Parks but did use the refrain Everybody move to the back of the bus. 329 F.3d 437, 451-452 (6th Cir. 2003), rehg and suggestion for rehg en banc denied (July 2, 2003), and cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1074 (2003). In Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc., 909 F.3d 257, 270271 (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit found there was a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants simple use of Gordons mark Honey Badger dont care on greeting cards with minimal artistic expression of their own in the same way that Gordon was using the mark was explicitly misleading.

Read the original:

Trademark Parody and Freedom of Speech in the U.S. - JD Supra

Hi there, so all the soccer is sad again I take it?

Recaps of D.C. Uniteds 4-1 loss to the Philadelphia Union by us, WaPo and MLS. Brotherly Game has the Chester angles.

Earl Edwards Jr., D.C. United at the forefront as MLS grapples with racial injustice (us): In more important things, this is encouraging. WaPo with more along with ESPN and the Tennessean ($).

D.C. Uniteds Edison Flores to miss 4-6 weeks with facial injuries (WaPo): Between this and deaths in his family, a pretty rough month or so for Flores.

TISPIKKUSES | Selgus Eesti jalgpallikoondise koosseis aasta esimesteks mngudeks: Georgi Tunjov pses nimekirja, Erik Sorga jb eemale (Delfi Sport): So Estonia was naming their UEFA Nations League squad, and Erik Sorga is not on it; D.C. United were not obligated to let him go as he would have to self-quarantine. So Sorgas Instagram posted this before Saturdays game:

What will Weston McKennie bring to Juventus? A Q&A with Stars and Stripes FC (B&W&RAO): This continues to be surreal. More from SSFC and even more with Black and White and Read All Over.

DLH Out: Dell Loy Hansen will sell Real Salt Lake, Utah Royals FC, says Garber (RSL Soapbox): Matt has put in a ton of work over at SBNs Real Salt Lake/Utah Royals site, do check it out.

Lyon vs. Wolfsburg score: French club wins Womens Champions League for fifth consecutive season (CBS): Lyon is a WoSo dynasty, cut and dry.

Be more than an athlete: NJ soccer duo launches podcast challenge to inspire players (Daily Record): Remember D.C. draft pick Eric Klenofsky? Hes with Toronto FC II now, but hes also doing a podcast to discuss challenges and mental preparations. Hes had a few former D.C. players on (Ian Harkes, Rob Vincent) and its a decent pod, worth checking out.

On the road in pandemic USL (Pittsburgh Soccer Now): This is worth checking out to see how Loudoun is traveling, and occasionally how D.C. is doing it for drivable games.

Speaking of Loudoun, they lost 3-2 to the New York Red Bulls II (missed a chunk of this while doing a family dinner), but in more important matters:

Anyway, Ive been watching Toast of London on Netflix, starring Matt Berry (whom many would see in What We Do in the Shadows), and when its going, it goes great. Anyway, this cut of Toast in the voiceover studio cracks me up every time it comes on (and its a bit sweary, so FYI):

View post:

D.C., Loudoun lose, Weston to Juve done & more: Freedom Kicks for 8/31/20 - Black And Red United

By Ruth Bass

RICHMOND "Live free or die." That's the motto on New Hampshire's license plates, undoubtedly the best known of the 49 states where cars carry a state slogan. The blander words on other states include "The last frontier" for Alaska, "The spirit of America" for Massachusetts, "The first state" for Delaware. (Wyoming takes a pass on this whole idea.)

At President Trump's campaign rally last Friday in New Hampshire, at least a thousand people crowded together with, apparently, a total embrace of the four words. They were living free, which seemed to mean doing what they pleased about the threat of coronavirus little social distancing as they came to hear the president and a loud booing when the public address system advised wearing masks, which were available. So, if one man can set off the epidemic that shut down New Rochelle, N.Y., Friday's fans were also accepting the "die" part of the motto.

A selfish attitude toward the health of the community wasn't really the intent of that motto.

It harks back to New Hampshire-born General John Stark, a hero of the American Revolution. When he could not attend a reunion of Battle of Bennington veterans in 1809, he sent a letter, closing with a toast he wanted made to the vets: "Live free or die. Death is not the greatest of evils." It was also a popular phrase during the French Revolution.

Article Continues After Advertisement

Various analysts over the years have pointed out that it was not meant to set all residents of New Hampshire free to do what they pleased, just to assert their independent spirit and their willingness to die for freedom. That freedom includes the right to cover any part of the motto on their plates. We can only hope they do not die for a president who eschews masks and whose unwillingness to take responsibility has set a vicious virus on a rampage throughout the country.

It's easy to be lulled into a same-old, same-old response to the rhetoric of a political campaign. Sometimes it's far easier to quote television's clever commercials than its serious commentators. We remember, for instance, the mysterious role of the emu but can't accurately quote what a candidate actually said. We laugh as Big Foot protests that his name is Darrell. But we let the news slide in and out of our brains, inured to its dismal nature these days.

Article Continues After These Ads

Words matter. It struck a discordant note for instance, when Mike Pence's campaign manager dismissed the NBA's postponement of playoffs in the name of seeking justice. Mark Short said it was a "silly" thing to do. Previously, the president had called basketball's professionals "nasty" and "dumb." (Smart enough to be competent at their jobs, by the way, hardly silly.)The president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was similarly offensive when he remarked that the players were lucky to do so well (financially) that they could take a "day off from work."

Irony gets a prize almost daily for misuse. It was not ironic that the president said he had done more for Black people than any president since Abraham Lincoln. It was just wrong. No one in the White House apparently had the nerve to point out that African-Americans were among those thrilled when President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, considered a landmark achievement outlawing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, and racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations. Not ironic, just uninformed.

Article Continues After Advertisement

But that's not new. Some of us remember his words a couple of years ago about the long-dead Frederick Douglass ("who's done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice.") and are not surprised that he didn't realize pardoning Susan B. Anthony for her illegal voting would be met by outrage instead of the applause he craves.

What may possibly fall into the tricky character of irony is the president's accusation of Joe Biden being guilty of nepotism, presumably in connection with his son's appointment to a corporate board in Ukraine. Nevermind that Biden has been cleared of any illegal role in that incident. Let's see about nepotism, the business of giving jobs to relatives: Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., all in power because of their father or father-in-law.

What's silly is the president's attention to people's birthplaces and his scorn for the American right to protest ("live free" at its best). What's nasty is his encouragement of violence, expressed often in the 2016 campaign when he wanted police to let prisoners hit their heads when getting into the patrol car and advocated punching protesters at rallies. It's unsettling to hear his crowd cheer such statements like people reveling in a bullfight. All this from a man who seeks the votes of veterans, the long-suffering soldiers who went to Vietnam while he nursed his bone spurs. What's illogical is the president's campaign for create law and order while chaos crisscrosses the country on his watch. Ears must be open as we connect the dots.

Ruth Bass is an award-winning journalist. Her website is http://www.ruthbass.com.

If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.

Read more:

Bass: Exercising freedom to be exposed to COVID-19 - Berkshire Eagle

A gentle reminder to Americans who dont understand the true meaning of freedom, especially those who are rioting in the streets and a recent letter writer who said the American dream is not for everyone ("Letter to the Editor: For all the people," Aug. 25):

Opportunity is not a color.

Education is not a color.

Knowledge is not a color.

Preparation is not a color.

Hard work is not a color.

Persistence is not a color.

Sacrifice is not a color.

Success is also not a color, but it is an outcome that can be achieved by anyone of any color if they pursue these colorless things which are available to everyone in our great country. Those who demand that they be awarded the outcome with no personal effort because they think they are entitled to it should heed the words of P. J. ORourke who said, There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.

Wilbur W. Wells, Tehachapi

Originally posted here:

Letter to the Editor: The real meaning of freedom - The Bakersfield Californian

New York City is becoming land of the flee because people want some space and a little bit morefreedom, actor Dean Cain told Fox & Friends on Monday.

Cain made the comment afterthe New York Post reported on Sunday that moving companies can barely keep up with the New York City residents who are fleeing the city so fast because of the pandemic and deteriorating quality of life in the Big Apple.

Perry Chance of Show Up movers reportedly told The Post on Sunday that even though the company has four of its own trucks, they had to start using U-Haul trucks as well to meet the demand.

The volume has increased by at least 70 percent in the past few months, he reportedly added, noting that 25 percent of the companys customers are heading from New York City to states such as Connecticut and Pennsylvania.

Cain said he thinks Democratic leadership is to blame for the mass exodus.

CUOMO, UNDER FIRE FOR CORONVAIRUS RESPONSE, DECLARES NEW YORK 'CRUSHED' THE VIRUS

I'm not shockedat all to see this exodus fromNew York City, Cain said on Monday.

He noted that he lives in Malibu, Calif., and he is used tohaving outdoor space and having some area tomove about.

I always felt a little bitstrange in New York City, kind oflikeI don't mean to say it in anegative waybut like living inlittle rat boxes and everybodyon top of each other, Cain continued.

That and the combination of theCOVID-19 situation and thedraconian measures of literally theworst mayor in the historyof New York City has made it soit is the land of the flee andeverybody wants to get out andget some space and a little bit morefreedom.

Host Brian Kilmeade noted that people in Los Angeles are leaving that city as well.

He then asked Cain, Do you think this is a blip ordo you think people are leavingfor good?

In response, Cain, who went to school in New Jersey, noted that he has most recently lived inCalifornia and never in my lifetime did I everthink I would leave Malibu,Calif.

I, for the first time ever amconcerned, if this election goesthe wrong way, I'm concernedabout living here in Californiaand am actually considering leavingfor the first time in my lifetime, Cain continued.So I'd like to believe it's justa blip, however things havegotten so out of control here.

He went on to point out that interms of taxes, it's insane herein California and we're just doing such a poor jobof governing that.

When I go tovisit other states sometimes Igo, Wow itd be awful nice to live hereand save an additional hugeamount of money and have a lot morefreedoms and, hmm, maybe I wouldconsider that so I hope it's ablip, but I fear it's not, Cain said.

Residents in major U.S. cities like New York and San Francisco have been leaving in droves due to various factors, including the lack of jobs during thecoronavirus pandemic and a potentialincrease in violent crime, according to a column postedearlier this month.

Large cities were already hurting before the pandemic. Now, statistics from Indeed, an employment-related search engine, have shown that major U.S. metropolitan areas have seen a greater rise in unemployment and alarger percentage of job loss compared to smaller metros, according to a piece byNoah Smith, a columnist atBloomberg.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Apartment rent prices have already decreased significantly in certain areas. Data collected from Zumper determined thatrent prices have fallen by7.4 percent in Seattle, 11.1 percent in San Franciscoand 6.9 percent in New York City, since the same period last year.

Fox News David Aaro contributed to this report.

See the article here:

Dean Cain: NYC becoming land of the flee as people leave in search of more freedom - Fox News

August 31st 2020 by AD Amorosi

photo by Priscilla Jimenez

Since her thick 2006 debut, Olesi: Fragments of an Earth, singer-composer-player-producer Georgia Anne Muldrow has paged through the catalog of Black music with spirit, speed, and freedom as her guide. Muldrow is jazz, funk, blues, hip-hop, R&B, nu-R&B, space soul, and beyond. You could compare her to early Roberta Flack, latter-day Erykah Badu, or Nina Simone and Amina Claudia Myers at any point in their careersbut youd be wasting Muldrows time. Just groove to Georgia Anne and avoid comparisons.

One wildly mercurial element that allows you entry into the poetic depths of her soul is the free jazzgentle and incendiaryof her albums Ocotea and Denderah. Recorded under the pseudonym Jyoti, a name given to her by free spirit and free jazz giant Alice Coltrane, these albums drift and dart in a fashion connecting her to her own ancestors: Muldrows father is the late jazz guitarist Ronald Muldrow; her mother Rickie Byars-Beckwith co-founded the Sound of Agape and worked with fellow free people Pharoah Sanders and Roland Hanna. Muldrow and her husband, rapper Dudley Perkins, co-founded the SomeOthaShip Connect record label, and have recorded several albums together such as last years Black Love & War under the name G&D.

This year, as Jyoti, shes released Mama, You Can Bet!, what seems like her most fully free album yet, a record that finds the Spirit of Coltrane (both Alice and John) at its loftiest and most prayerful, while managing a few Monk-worthy laughs, several Mingus remixes (Bemoanable Lady Geemix Fonk, Fabus Foo Gemix), a jagged funk edge, and a love of experimental noise and synth soul thats richly undefinable and remarkably concise.

Considering the record label and homemade music which you share with Dudley, tell me what partnership means as a married couple, as business people, and as collaborative artists.

Oh my, its everything. Its being in somebodys world, and somebody being in your world, and having those merge into one world. Theres children being raised and music being made. At this point, its like fish describing waterits been fifteen years. Its the way we get down. I see it as one of my favorite things to do, making music with Dudley. We balance each other out. As far as the label goes, its an incredible feeling to have the ability to be embraced for my creativity and not feel pressure. I dont know where Id be without him.

How did making music with your husband last time out set you up for making this album which also touches on familythis time your mother on, at the very least, the title track?

Its all part of one lifemine. Its me living, experiencing all of my family. Especially now. Before all this COVID stuff, if I wasnt working out of town, I was doing something else. Family creates the atmosphere to make what I make. This segue, though, is happening as life is happeninglike what is going on with my mother and her transference, opening up. I wanted to celebrate that with a song. When your family is always there, its like having an artists favorite still life just being stuff around the house. The catalyst is simple. The situation is complex. Youre still painting an emotional landscape.

Whats your earliest memory of your mom making music?

Oh my god. Being very small, all I can recall is having my ear to her heart, or the times I would have my ears to her back and hearing her talkthe vibration was music to me. Very calming sound. The most calming sound.

When your family is always there, its like having an artists favorite still life just being stuff around the house. The catalyst is simple. The situation is complex. Youre still painting an emotional landscape.

Jyoti stands for light and flame. Do you know why Alice Coltrane saw that in you, enough so to name you that?

When it comes down to what she sees, its like E.T. phoning home. Youre talking about someone who had an extreme awareness of, and connection with, her highest self. She always strived to merge with the greatness and realness of creation. That was her goal. She told me that the name came from the spirit, but I dont even think shed take credit for naming me that, you know? Its the name that came through for me. Its my job to inform what it is. Its my journey to own it.

What is that name Jyoti to you? What does it signify?

The beginning of something beautiful. My life changed then, and that name marked that change. Me going within and figuring out whats in there. Healing myself. Thats whats most importantI think that she would want people to know such light, to have people meditate on who they are, and who theyre not. Im trying to live up to that name with the music Im making under it. Stay open, stay curious. Uncover everyday magic. I think thats why she charged me with that name.

Since this music is so deeply personal, how do you relay it to other musicians? What sort of players do you look for? Im thinking of Lakecia Benjamin, on Ras Noise.

Theres a motif thats there in that song, and that motif is strong; strong enough for her to get what I wanted out of her. I didnt want contemporary jazz coming out of her horn. It comes down to trust, and Im trusting a musician to impart what they can. If I dont trust you, I dont even call you to jam. She came with a complete parade, and a tribute to Sun Ra. She brought all the multi-colored silk scarves. Its a joyful noise.

You made Jyoti records in 2010, 2013, and 2020: could you say if there were any life events that pushed you to speak as or through Jyoti?

Absolutely. On Denderah, I have a song called Theodosia 3:23 and thats my auntie who passed away. On the first one, theres a song titled Turiyas Smile, which was me mourning Alice Coltrane and my father. Ocotea is unique in the sense that its a tribute to free everything, free jazz. A tribute to Alice. Theres a lot of her DNA in there.

This one has spirits who had passed. My mother, too, freed herself from a relationship that was overthats a certain kind of death, too. A song like This Walk talks of a death, the surety of remaining static, then speaking out. If youre not careful, you can become a very scripted person. Not me, I just want to be real. So theres a lot of things that happen to make a Jyoti record. Its the death of your family and friends, a metamorphosis of your character, a change in your heart to dig for deeper truths. Those are the things that bring a Jyoti record forward. Its the songs that I have to makethinking about nothing else, but getting this feeling out.

And musically, are there events and vibes you can speak to?

Well, theres those hard bop rhythms and the harmonics of a Jyoti record, toothat phrasingbut thats just me loving on my dad, too. I was raised with that, thats an ancestral call, an emotional call, an ever-changing call.

Whether through its writing or recording, how do you recognize if somethings Jyoti?

Its the songs that I dont need a click track to start. Its when Im going to the piano with an emotion in my heart that I cant name, and only my fingers can do the talking. Thats when I know its Jyoti. Its when Im coming with the most vulnerable Im praying. Its my subconscious mind. Im making music as if my life depended on it. FL

More:

In Conversation: Georgia Anne Muldrow on Finding Freedom as Jyoti - FLOOD Magazine

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who was found guilty of contempt by the Supreme Court, said that he will happily accept the judgement, but would file a review.

I propose to submit myself to this order and respectful pay the fine. But I reserve the right to seek the review of the conviction and sentencing, Bhushan said while reading from a statement at a press conference in New Delhi.

Bhushan was held guilty by the apex court for criminal contempt of court on August 14 over his tweets against the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India SABobde.

Here is the full statement by Prashant Bhushan on SCs verdict:

The Supreme Court of India has announced its verdict on the contempt case against me. It holds me guilty of contempt of court and has decided to impose a fine of Re 1, and failing that imprisonment of three months and debarring me from practicing for three years. I had already said in my first statement to the Court: I am here to cheerfully submit to any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the Court has determined to be an offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. Therefore, while I reserve the right to seek a review of the conviction and sentencing, by way of an appropriate legal remedy, I propose to submit myself to this order and will respectfully pay the fine, just as I would have submitted to any other lawful punishment.

I have had the greatest respect for the institution of the Supreme Court. I have always believed it to be the last bastion of hope, particularly for the weak and the oppressed who knock at its door for the protection of their rights, often against a powerful executive. My tweets were not intended in any way to disrespect the Supreme Court or the judiciary as a whole, but were merely meant to express my anguish, at what I felt, was a deviation from its sterling past record. This issue was never about me versus the Honble Judges, much less about me vs the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court of India wins, every Indian wins. Every Indian wants a strong and independent judiciary. Obviously if the courts get weakened, it weakens the republic and harms every citizen.

I am extremely grateful and humbled by the solidarity and support expressed by countless persons, ex-judges, lawyers, activists and fellow citizens who encouraged me to remain firm and true to my beliefs and conscience. They strengthen my hope that this trial may draw the countrys attention to the cause of freedom of speech and judicial accountability and reform. What is very heartening is that this case has become a watershed moment for freedom of speech and seems to have encouraged many people to stand up and speak out against the injustices in our society.

I would be failing in my duty if I do not thank my legal team, especially senior Advocates Dr Rajeev Dhawan and Shri Dushyant Dave. I am more confident now than ever before that truth shall prevail.

Long live democracy! Satyameva Jayate!

See more here:

Watershed moment for freedom of speech: Prashant Bhushan on SC verdict. Read full statement here - Hindustan Times

The Trump administrations recently announced bans on Chinese-owned social media platforms TikTok and WeChat could have unintended consequences.

The orders bar the apps from doing business in the U.S. or with U.S. persons or businesses after Sept. 20 and require divestiture of TikTok by Nov. 12.

The executive orders are based on national security grounds, though the threats cited are to citizens rather than the government. Foreign policy analysts see the move as part of the administrations ongoing wrestling match with the Chinese government for leverage in the global economy.

Whatever the motivation, as someone who researches both cybersecurity and technology policy, I am not convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs. The bans threaten Americans freedom of speech, and may harm foreign investment in the U.S. and American companies ability to sell software abroad, while delivering minimal privacy and cybersecurity benefits.

The threats posed by TikTok and WeChat, according to the executive orders, include the potential for the platforms to be used for disinformation campaigns by the Chinese government and to give the Chinese government access to Americans personal and proprietary information.

The U.S. is not the only country concerned about Chinese apps. The Australian military accused WeChat, a messaging, social media and mobile payment app, of acting as spyware, saying the app was caught sending data to Chinese Intelligence servers.

Disinformation campaigns may be of particular concern, due to the upcoming election and the impact of the alleged sweeping and systematic Russian interference in the 2016 elections. The potential for espionage is less pronounced, given that the apps access basic contact information and details about the videos Americans watch and the topics they search on, and not more sensitive data.

But banning the apps and requiring Chinese divestiture also has a national security downside. It damages the U.S.s moral authority to push for free speech and democracy abroad. Critics have frequently contended that Americas moral authority has been severely damaged during the Trump administration and this action could arguably add to the decline.

The administrations principal argument against TikTok is that it collects Americans personal data and could provide it to the Chinese government. The executive order states that this could allow China to track the locations of federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail and conduct corporate espionage.

Skeptics have argued that the government hasnt presented clear evidence of privacy issues and that the services practices are standard in the industry. TikToks terms of service do say that it can share information with its China-based corporate parent, ByteDance.

The order against WeChat is similar. It also mentions that the app captures the personal and proprietary information of Chinese nationals visiting the United States. However, some of these visiting Chinese nationals have expressed concern that banning WeChat may limit their ability to communicate with friends and family in China.

While TikTok and WeChat do raise cybersecurity concerns, they are not significantly different from those raised by other smart phone apps. In my view, these concerns could be better addressed by enacting national privacy legislation, similar to Europes GDPR and Californias CCPA, to dictate how data is collected and used and where it is stored. Another remedy is to have Alphabet (Google) GOOG, -0.62% GOOGL, -0.60%, Apple AAPL, +3.39% and others review the apps for cybersecurity concerns before allowing new versions to be made available in their app stores.

Perhaps the greatest concern raised by the bans are their impact on peoples ability to communicate, and whether they violate the First Amendment. Both TikTok and WeChat are communications channels and TikTok publishes and hosts content.

While the courts have allowed some regulation of speech, to withstand a legal challenge the restrictions must advance a legitimate government interest and be narrowly tailored to do so. National security is a legitimate governmental interest. However, in my opinion its questionable whether a real national security concern exists with these specific apps.

In the case of TikTok, banning an app that is being used for political commentary and activism would raise pronounced constitutional claims and likely be overturned by the courts.

Whether the bans hold up in court, the executive orders instituting them put the U.S. in uncomfortable territory: the list of countries that have banned social media platforms. These include Egypt, Hong Kong, Turkey, Turkmenistan, North Korea, Iran, Belarus, Russia and China.

Though the U.S. bans may not be aimed at curtailing dissent, they echo actions that harm free speech and democracy globally. Social media gives freedom fighters, protesters and dissidents all over the world a voice. It enables citizens to voice concerns and organize protests about monarchies, sexual and other human rights abuses, discriminatory laws and civil rights violations. When authoritarian governments clamp down on dissent, they frequently target social media.

The bans could also harm the U.S. economy because other countries could ban U.S. companies in retaliation. China and the U.S. have already gone through a cycle of reciprocal company banning, in addition to reciprocal consulate closures.

The U.S. has placed Chinese telecom firm Huawei on the Bureau of Industry Security Entity List, preventing U.S. firms from conducting business with it. While this has prevented Huawei from selling wireless hardware in the U.S., it has also prevented U.S. software sales to the telecom giant and caused it to use its own chips instead of buying them from U.S. firms.

Over a dozen U.S. companies urged the White House not to ban WeChat because it would hurt their business in China.

Other countries might use the U.S. bans of Chinese firms as justification for banning U.S. companies, even though the U.S. has not taken action against them or their companies directly. These trade restrictions harm the U.S.s moral authority, harm the global economy and stifle innovation. They also cut U.S. firms off from the high-growth Chinese market.

TikTok is in negotiations with Microsoft MSFT, -1.47% and Walmart WMT, -1.03% and a consortium led by Oracle ORCL, -1.14% about a possible acquisition that would leave the company with American ownership and negate the ban.

Though the TikTok and WeChat apps do raise some concerns, it is not apparent that cause exists to ban them. The issues could be solved through better oversight and the enactment of privacy laws that could otherwise benefit Americans.

Of course, the government could have other causes for concern that it hasnt yet made public. Given the consequences of banning an avenue of expression, if other concerns exist the government should share them with the American public. If not, Id argue less drastic action would be more appropriate and better serve the American people.

Jeremy Straub is an assistant professor in the Department of Computer Science at the North Dakota State University.

This article was published with the permission of The Conversation.

Visit link:

Trumps ban of TikTok and WeChat would reduce Americans freedom of speech and harm foreign investment in the U.S. - MarketWatch

The election season brings many issues to the forefront of voters minds: the economy, foreign policy, immigration, taxes, education, health care, the military, terrorism, the environment, energy and, of course, we cant escape the social issues of human rights.

Each of these issues is complex. Thats because our society is complex. There are thoughtful, insightful and honest people with positions on every side of each issue. Rarely are the issues black and white. On top of that, there are conflicting values within each issue. It can be overwhelmingly confusing!

This season is an opportunity to examine and prioritize our values. I would suggest that as we do this, the issue of freedom should rise to the very top of our list. We should look at every issue through the lens of freedom.

Freedom is what has made America great. America was founded by pioneers and patriots who deeply sought freedom. Every human being is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We pledge allegiance to the concept of liberty and justice for all. We live in and sing of the land of the free and the home of the brave. Regardless of our culture, religion, gender or social status, we all want freedom. This desire is not something that we just learn from our parents, teachers or society. It is something far deeper, embedded in the genetic code of each human being. Freedom is what every child wants from his or her parents. Freedom is why virtually every war is fought. Freedom is why Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. mobilized armies of protesters.

Freedom allows us to grow to our potential and pursue our dreams. But freedom never guarantees the realization of any dream. It only allows for the pursuit. It also allows for failure. If we are to be free to succeed we must also be free to fail. Unfortunately, freedom also allows us to sink to the lowest levels of depravity.

Thus, freedom requires responsibility. I cannot experience freedom unless you grant it to me. Nor can you realize your freedom unless I give it to you. Despite being an unalienable right, freedom is only granted to us by others. Our responsibility, then, is to ensure that we give it to all others and that we never abuse this gift from others, showing that we can use it in a responsible and uplifting manner. So I would suggest that as we analyze any issue, that we consider its impact on our personal and corporate freedom. Will it enhance our freedom and thus our potential for growth, or will it stifle our freedom and thus repress our spirit? It may be tempting to give up a small amount of freedom for some short term gain, but we will pay in the long term if we lose our freedom. Freedom is foundational for America if we are to remain leader of the free world.

Gordon Johns

Chehalis

Read the original post:

Letter to the Editor: It's All About Freedom - Centralia Chronicle

To mask or not to mask? That is the question.

And we've reported several times about the face mask meltdown.

Seemingly normal, full grown adults losing their minds over face mask mandates and or restrictions.

It's commonplace in today's world. And most stores have instituted a no mask no service policy.

But that hasn't stopped people from behaving badly and expressing their displeasure with what's going on in the world. Especially our friend here in Anchorage, Alaska at the Midtown Walmart location.

He goes from "godly man" to dropping all matter of f-bombs and getting in the face of an employee (several employees) asking him to leave.

Peep the meltdown that's gone viral here.Is this OK? Because you'd have to imagine if your kid reacted this way in public to something he didn't want to do you'd discipline him right? A time out?

Some folks think this was a full blown mental break down.

But while some people can't get over the oppression angle of this, does it mean that it's perfectly OK to go off on someone probably making minimum wage in a big box store who's just doing their job.

Some stores are following mandates put forth by local governments to stay open.

And if they don't they could get fined or shut down.

And it's weird because this brings to mind that whole "gay wedding cake" argument from a while back.

One argument the right-of-center mask dissenters frequently make has to do with private businesses supposedly violating the rights of the maskless by refusing to serve them. This is ironic, given there is a substantial overlap between that group of people and the folks who argued that bakeries should be able to say "no" to gay couples. (Inforum)

And now the CDC is saying businesses should avoid confrontations with clients when it comes to face masks.

Take a look at more adults behaving badly over face masks here.

Wear one or don't that is your decision. However, having a meltdown and putting some poor employee through it for following instructions from their boss is wrong.

Read More:VIDEOS: Adults Having Face Mask Meltdowns

See more here:

Tantrum Or Freedom Of Expression Over Face Masks? - wcrz.com

With an ox-drawn wagon, formerly enslaved people cross the Rappahannock River below Martins Mill at Rappahannock Station as Union soldiers watch on Aug. 19, 1862, four months before President Abraham Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation in this image captured by Timothy OSullivan. The war correspondents glass-plate negative cracked.

An observer holds one of Timothy OSullivans images at the spot where he recorded a very rare wartime scene of African Americans fleeing to freedom behind Union army lines.

Participants cross the Rappahannock River at Cows Ford below Remington in August 2012, for the Culpeper-area communitys 150th anniversary commemoration of self-emancipation scenes captured by Civil War photographer Timothy OSullivan.

Formerly enslaved people cross the Rappahannock River below Martins Mill (right) at Rappahannock Station, as Union soldiers watch. The river, separating Culpeper and Fauquier counties, divided Confederate and Union-held territory in the summer of 1862.

The most famous picture, arguably, to emerge from the American Civil War was taken 158 years ago in the middle of the Rappahannock River, separating Culpeper and Fauquier counties, on Aug. 19, 1862.

This compelling image does not depict soldiers at war, or in camp. No, this immortal picture reveals a group of former enslaved people fleeing Culpeper for the region north of the Rappahannock that most slaves simply called the Free State.

But before I continue, here is some background.

In 1860, Culpeper County boasted about 12,000 inhabitants, including 6,653 enslaved people. More than 700 individuals owned slaves; 84 planters owned 20 or more slaves. Culpeper farms averaged 260 acres, and the average holding was 10 enslaved people.

Wheat was the money crop, and the intensive labor that planted and harvested such crops was provided almost entirely by slaves that farmers owned or hired from other sources. And when a Culpeper slave was hired off from one farm to another, it goes without saying thatin many casestheir family was torn asunder for months, on end.

Quite often, once separated, family members were never reunited. It is a fact that the planter class cared only about sustaining an enslaved family if it was profitable to do so. As these farmers saw it, they were businessmen, and slaves, after all, were commodities to be bought, sold and abused, as they saw fit. Slaveholding was a business, pure and simple. Nothing sentimental about it.

Go here to see the original:

CLARK B. HALL: Rare images record freedom in the making - starexponent.com

What has happened to us? Our freedom of speech is not for all. There is much political correctness. We are divided. We must be united and stand together as a country. We have a choice to make. Are you ready?

We need to respect all life. If that is not paramount in our daily lives, we have no hope for the future of your and my children and grandchildren. Race, color and creed. We are all in this together. Dr. Matt always said, "Right is right and wrong is wrong no in between." He spent his life helping others. How disappointed he would be with all of us.

It is time for the silent American to stand tall. President Trump takes no salary and takes abuse beyond compare. In spite of this, he has done more for our country in his first term than any other president. It is a fact; check it out. Please give him some credit. He has faults, as we all do.

This election is the most important in my life and yours. I ask you to look at our future and support him if you can. If you think this virus has changed your life, just wait and see how it will change if the radical left takes over. Do your homework.

I wonder if I am wasting my time sharing my thoughts. Most of y'all feel as I do. The other folks who read this are so full of hate and bias and won't change. Maybe if all of us put more effort into being kind and caring we can make a change.

Lawrence Reed had a wonderful opinion piece in the NTH not too long ago about being lucky to be an American. It was just great. So from the bottom of my heart, please open your minds and your hearts; don't stick your head in the sand.

Make your vote count, plus a prayer or two.

Pat Lucky Burns

Newnan

See more here:

This is my freedom of speech - Newnan Times-Herald

June 23, 2020

To the Editor,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

To those upset that Mount Airy will be restricted to viewing fireworks in their cars this year, due to COVID-19, while protests happened recently, I implore you to look within the document you are celebrating and understand why the two events can not respectably be compared.

The following comes from the Declaration of Independence, stating that all humans have inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It states that when humans governments cause abuse and when they usurp humans inalienable rights, it is their right and duty to make change that government for the better. This is the document you are wanting to celebrate by the light of fireworks, it is the backbone of America as we think of it today.

So, no, I believe to compare the two events (fireworks vs. protesting) is frankly nonsense. If it isnt clear why at this point, let me try to draw connections for you so you may also have a change of perspective and embrace your fellow man, sympathize with their suffering, and hopefully join them in their efforts. If nothing else, maybe youll not feel the need to complain about having to sit in a car to watch fireworks during a pandemic.

These protests are fueled largely by the inhumane murder of George Floyd, backed by years of murder and brutality at the hands of many police officers. Lets focus solely on George Floyd, not to undermine the devastation of every soul that is no longer with us, but for simplicity sake while trying to make these connections for you. George Floyd, who had moved to Minneapolis in order to better his future, to provide for his family, in other words, to pursue happiness, was murdered (rights taken away: 1). Under the pressure of the cops knee, he lost his life (rights taken away: 2) as he needlessly had his liberty stripped from him (rights taken away: 3).

He had no opportunity for the due process of law (Bill of Rights, 5th amendment), as he was murdered before that could happen (rights taken away: 4). That inevitably led to being denied the right to a speedy and public trial (Bill of Rights, 6th amendment) (Rights taken away: 5). There are many other rights he had torn away from him, increasing with every moment of the 8 minutes and 15 seconds that officer crushed him.

He is not alone. Different sources I have seen show more than 700 lives lost by police brutality within the span of four years. As this is an issue of systemic racism, my points here dont even touch how the system deprives the population through the education, housing, healthcare, and so much more. This is what the document speaks of, when it says But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.

Protesting is the least we should expect and hope for, the Declaration calls for the entire government to be overthrown and made anew for a better future. So far, all I have heard is pained cries asking that we reevaluate the policies and laws that allow for this behavior to continue, not only for people of color but for everyone, and to bring suspected murders to face the justice system.

So, if you are truly wanting to celebrate the Fourth of July, do it from your vehicle or at home with your family. Because our country is cracking, and we want to fix it. Do not look down on the protesters or those in the government that defend their rights, because you would be defying the very document you claim to value so dearly.

We are entitled to these inalienable rights, but you are not entitled to spread spite and ignorance just because you are having to take precautions during a holiday in the middle of a pandemic. They are asking for justice, you are crying about temporary discomfort required to protect the vulnerable within the population.

Heather Verba

Mount Airy

See the original post:

There are limits to freedom - Mount Airy News