How wonderful is Trumps budget for the US? Amazing, if you believe Grover Norquist. Cuts to social security, Medicare and so much more. Needless to say, Trumps budget is a disaster for us all, except the 1% of course. Grover Norquist, Founder & President Americans For Tax Reform, joins Thom Hartmann to defend and praise it, and explain what poor people are doing wrong .

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them.

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out TH on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Americans for Tax Reform Budget Donald Trump Grover Norquist The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann Trump's Budget

See the article here:

The Thom Hartmann Program Trump's Budget Is Great For The Rich Trump's Budget Is Great For - Free Speech TV

On May 20, 2017, Rann Bar-On, a mathematics professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, joined a group of counter-protesters in nearby Graham to oppose a Confederate Memorial Day Celebration, held on the steps of the historic Alamance County courthouse.

The event, which drew roughly 100 supporters, was planned by Alamance County Taking Back Alamance Countyan organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center once labeled a neo-Confederate hate group.

Prior to the start of the event, Bar-On climbed the courthouse steps where organizers had raised flags bearing Confederate and Dominionist symbols, he said.

I went in and detached the zip ties that connected the poles to the courthouse steps, Bar-On recalled. I picked up a flagpole and began to remove a Confederate flag from it. And at that point I heard, Thats enough now!

Sheriff Terry Johnson then attempted to wrestle the flagpole from Bar-Ons grip, according to news reports. Amid the scuffle, Johnson alleged, Bar-On swung the pole and struck the sheriff in the shin, breaking the skin and leaving a bruise. Bar-On maintains he did not swing the pole at Johnson. A deputy arrested and booked Bar-On into the county jail.

The Alamance County district attorneys office charged Bar-On with misdemeanor injury to personal property and felony assault on a law enforcement officer. He was released on bail on the day of the incident and pleaded not guilty in court two days later.

Last fall, just before the case was set to go to trial, the DAs office approached Bar-Ons attorney with an offer: If he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault on a law enforcement officera downgraded offensehe would receive 15 days in jail, pay a fine, and serve two years on supervised probation. But during the probation, Bar-On would also be prohibited from attending or participating in protests or rallies in Alamance County.

A felony conviction for Bar-On, who is from Israel, would have jeopardized his status as a noncitizen legal resident, and thus his job and livelihood. ICE could have grounds to detain him for deportation, Bar-On said.

A felony conviction for an American citizen is bad, but its not life-ending, Bar-On told The Appeal. But for an immigrant, it could upend your life.

He officially took the deal on Nov. 4. Presiding Judge Andrew Hanford agreed to delay Bar-Ons incarceration until he finished teaching his Duke courses for the fall semester, according to Bar-On. On Dec. 18, Bar-On returned to Alamance County for the 15-day jail sentence, which stretched over the Christmas and New Year holidays.

In an email to The Appeal, Johnson wrote that Bar-On did not have to enter a plea to this deal and, believe me, it was a deal.

Pat Nadolski, who was Alamance County DA when Bar-On was indicted, told The Appeal he left the office before the plea deal was negotiated. Sean Boone, the current DA whose office brokered the deal, did not respond to requests for comment.

The probation condition prohibiting Bar-On from protests and rallies in Alamance County for two years is unusualand it appears to restrict his First Amendment rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble.

I think its suspicious that they would insist on that as part of the probation, said Scott Holmes, Bar-Ons attorney. Its kind of instinctually problematic because they shouldnt have a problem with the lawful exercise of your First Amendment rights, he said.

Imposing such a condition is rare but not illegal under a plea bargain, said Charlotte-based criminal defense attorney Mark Simmons.

I understand that this case had some unique facts but, if the state were to regularly make plea offers prohibiting the right to protest, wed be entering a scary time, he said.

Jillian Johnson, Durhams mayor pro tempore, was among more than a dozen colleagues and elected officials who submitted letters of support before Bar-Ons November hearing.

The fact that a sheriff, who is a known racist, spent the amount of public resources that he did pursuing these completely ludicrous, excessive charges against an anti-racist activist I think is a strong cautionary tale, said Johnson. In places like North Carolina, we are still, in a lot of ways, back in the pre-Civil War era with regards to the power and the attitudes that local sheriffs have.

In 2012, the Department of Justices Civil Rights Division under the Obama administration sued Johnsons office, after an investigation concluded that the sheriff and his deputies had engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing against Latinos.

Sheriff Johnson has directed his supervisory officers to tell their subordinates, If you see a Mexican, dont write a citation, arrest him, the Justice Departments report states. Johnson also allegedly blamed Latinx people, who were 11 percent of the county population in 2010, for the local illegal drug trade, and referred to them as taco eaters in conversations with staff. Johnsons deputies were between four and 10 times more likely to stop Latinx drivers than non-Latinx drivers, according to the report.

The department agreed to settle its lawsuit in 2016, after Johnson promised to institute reforms like a bias-free policing policy.

In 2012, the Obama administration canceled its contract with Alamance County under ICEs 287(g) programwhich allows state and local law enforcement agencies to act as immigration enforcement agentsafter it discovered that the sheriff had justified holding immigrants in the county jail for immigration status checks on the false pretense that ICE had ordered arrestees detained. In 2017, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions invited Alamance County back into the 287(g) program, but Johnson decided against doing so, amid protests from immigrant rights groups in North Carolina.

Nadolski, the former Alamance County DA, drew criticism in 2018 from the areas Black civil rights advocates after he prosecuted a dozen, mostly Black formerly incarcerated residents who voted in the 2016 presidential election. They were barred from casting ballots until they completed their terms of parole or probation. Nadolski has denied the cases were motivated by race.

In a 2018 interview with Mic, Johnson, when asked whether he is biased against Latinx people, declared, Terry Johnson aint got a racist bone in his body! Johnson and Nadolski were pictured together on a campaign billboard, when the two sought re-election in 2018, raising a concern about impartial justice for Bar-On, his attorney said.

Theres a law enforcement bias, in general, Holmes, the attorney, told The Appeal, but in particular in Graham, for protecting those kinds of [pro-Confederate] demonstrators and a prejudice against anti-racism.

Bar-On, whose wife gave birth to their child after his arrest, told The Appeal he was grateful to have resolved the case, despite the ban from protesting.

This is the first time since my kid was born that we dont have this potential incarceration and even more severe consequences hanging over our head, he said.

Go here to see the original:

A North Carolina Professor Gave Up His Free Speech Rights To Resolve a Case Involving a Controversial Sheriff - The Appeal

Privacy campaigners have labelled the Governments planned online harms regulation a threat to free speech.

Organisations including the Open Rights Group and Article 19 have criticised plans to introduce a statutory duty of care for internet companies, enforced by a regulator.

They argue that the increased monitoring of content posted online will lead to greater surveillance and censorship.

The Governments proposals said the regulator set to be Ofcom would have the responsibility of making sure online companies have the systems and processes in place to fulfil the duty of care to keep people using their platforms safe.

Platforms will need to ensure that illegal content is removed quickly and minimise the risk of it appearing, with particularly strong action needed on terrorist content and online child sexual abuse, and will be required to explicitly state what content and behaviour is acceptable on their sites and enforce those rules.

However, Quinn McKew, acting executive director of Article 19, said the plans would hand censorship tools to firms who want to protect themselves from punishment.

The Governments proposals to impose a duty of care on social media companies will delegate censorship powers to private companies, and could require the bulk surveillance of our communications through upload filers, she said.

While its still unclear what a duty of care will actually mean in practice, it will almost inevitably result in the removal of legitimate expression.

In the face of possible fines and personal prosecutions, companies will err on the side of caution and use algorithms to remove content at scale.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, agreed that the current proposals did not protect free speech.

This is a dangerous proposal that could cause vast restrictions on free speech, he said.

Private companies would be deciding what is legal or illegal, and will always remove more than they need, rather than less.

Instead, the Government should seek to ensure that companies have sufficient independent scrutiny of their actions. This is known as co-regulation, and could be supervised by Ofcom.

The Open Rights Group also said it felt that the duty of care concept remained too vague and needed clearer definition.

The Governments full response to the online harms consultation is due to be published in the spring.

The rest is here:

Privacy groups warn of threat to free speech from online harms regulation - The Irish News

Jill Scheyk was an Edmonton Public Library trustee, but has resigned after she says she was forced out by the board over tweets on February 12, 2020. Shaughn Butts / Postmedia

An Edmonton Public Library trustee who resigned this week says she was forced out because of a dispute over tweets and what she deemed a transphobic article shared by the CEO.

Jill Scheyk stepped down Monday, after receiving a letter last month from an EPL board committee asking her to resign. It said she publicly presented a negative and biased opinion on the EPLs stance on hosting controversial speakers, for sharing an internal memo of talking points, and for representing the board without permission.

While Scheyk understands the library is limited in how it can restrict groups using its space, she said the EPL needs to find a way to support marginalized groups and free speech.

What I really want to see going forward is just an acknowledgment that it can be a fulsome approach, and that it doesnt have to be one or the other, like you get free speech or you get a welcoming environment, and its a zero sum game, she said on Wednesday.

Scheyks November 2019 tweets that raised concerns with the board followed online backlash directed at EPL CEO Pilar Martinez in October. In a tweet, Martinez praised Torontos head librarian for allowing a Meghan Murphy event to go ahead despiteprotests,and shareda National Post column that called the demonstrations a nauseating spectacle.

Murphy, an activist, has criticized transgender rights. She gave a talk at a Toronto library titled Gender Identity: What Does It Mean For Society, The Law and Women?

My attempts to highlight the issue of transphobia in that language went unheeded by leadership, Scheyk wrote in her open resignation letter posted on Twitter Monday. The trans community is actively fighting for their lives and human rights, and for the head of a public institution to degrade them casually is a slap in the face to people who are still in clear and present danger.

The tweets also led to an exchange of letters and meetings between Scheyk and trustees from November to January.

Scheyk, who was an EPL board member since May 2015, maintains Martinez needs to apologize for sharing the article that sparked the dispute.

Martinez told Postmedia on Wednesday she shared that article because it showed how libraries have a history of supporting freedom of speech, as well as for supporting LGBTQ rights, and the EPL is committed to both.

Censorship is not the answer to our social problems, in fact, traditionally and historically it has hurt minority groups more than any other groups, she said. We are a public library, key word being public. We are for everyone. We cant pick and choose, because today it could be Meghan Murphy, tomorrow it could be you.

She said there have been more complaints for their LGBTQ programming than for any other type of programming.

If we were not to uphold that fundamental value of public space and intellectual freedom, than we would be cancelling those programs as well.

The EPL held a round table discussion about their meeting room policy on Tuesday. Fern Snart, chair of the EPL board of trustees, wouldnt say what the 14 participants talked about or whether the library was planning on changing any of its policies or programs, but she said the discussion was productive.

People left smiling, not that everyone agreed or was pleased I think people left feeling heard, she said. Were continuing to look ahead, were continuing to ask how can we respond to the appropriate mandate of freedom of speech and absolutely desired mandate of welcome and meaningful inclusion and care for all of the communities we serve.

lboothby@postmedia.com

Excerpt from:

Edmonton library trustee says she was forced to resign in dispute over free speech, tweets - Edmonton Journal

Over 200 years ago the first amendment was ratified, allowing everyone to speaktheir mind freely, regardless of what beliefs they hold. As a student newspaper,we have a deep respect for the first amendment it allows us to do our job.

The first amendment is as important today as it was before it was ratified. Weneed to protect all speech regardless if its far-right or far-left.

This week conservative Christ Church Pastor Doug Wilson lectured on campus for an event called The Lost Virtue of Sexism. Many believe that Wilson and groups who hold the same beliefs should not be allowed to lecture on our campus due to their controversial rhetoric towards women and the LGBTQA community.

As a public institution, UI should not take a stance on what a particular organization can or cannot say. Although these beliefs are controversial, CRFs right to speak and choose to bring controversial speakers such as Wilson should not be taken from them.

Regulating one organizations right to speech opens up a door that needs to remain closed, giving the possibility of regulating any group deemed too far left or right.

But the most important part of free speech is that the other side also has it, protestors and those who do not agree with Christ Church can vocalize their feelings back. Which students made sure to do at Tuesdays event.

Dont forget that the first amendment while tricky is important because no matter your beliefs you can always speak up for them and defend your side.

And while Wilsons lectures and appearances on campus are extremely offensive to many different groups the university cannot and should not silence him. Instead of fighting to force Wilson off campus we should put efforts into supporting the groups affected by this controversial rhetoric.

*This editorial has been edited to reflect particular UI student groups correct stance on Christ Church and CRF.

The rest is here:

OPINION: The importance of free speech - Argonaut

Every generation, and individual, has to rediscover the arguments for free speech for themselves.Some people learn from major incidents.Some when the censors come for someone close to them, or an opinion that they hold.Others come to believe in free speech because they realise that while being offended on occasion might be terrible, it is nowhere near as terrible as any system designed to make being offended impossible.

Fortunately there are short-cuts to finding the best defences of free speech.The English language provides an especially rich tradition on which to draw.From many centuries of literature allow me to list just four works: two classic, two modern.

The first John Miltons Areopagitica (1644) is really an argument for the freedom of the printing press.Miltons argument was unsuccessful at the time, but became one of the foundation arguments for free speech.Apart from the beauty of the language, Miltons work is remarkable for conceding that those intent on censorship do have a legitimate fear.For Books are not absolutely dead things, but doe contain a potencie of life in them.Yet, As good almost kill a man as kill a good book; who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, Gods image; but he who destroys a good Book, kills reason itself.

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill appeared two centuries later (in 1859) and yet the sentiments are remarkably close to Milton.Mills work remains the classic defence not just of the right of free speech but the necessity of it: the right from which every other right flows.Mill says:

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

Mill goes on to outline four reasons why a society must allow itself to hear contrary opinions.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt convictions, from reason or personal experience.

In every age there have been those who cannot cope with this: some who feel the temptation to silence what they dont like; others who become lacklustre in their arguments.

Few people have done more in recent times to force people to relearn the fundamentals than the Ayatollah Khomeini did when he issued his fatwa in 1989 against the British author Salman Rushdie for the crime of writing a novel.That episode in which some members of the British government, among others, failed to rise to the challenge sparked a number of re-runs and updates of the classic arguments.Most succinct and comprehensive is Jonathan Rauchs Kindly Inquisitors: the new attacks on free thought (1993) which began to think through the question of how an increasingly pluralistic society might navigate these waters.Rauch is admirably clear and unflinching: No one who demands centrally enforced equal time or preferential treatment for his beliefs should be accommodated in the slightest, no matter how strong his political grievance.The fact that youre oppressed doesnt mean you know anything.

A decade later and the liberal democracies had to go through the argument again, this time sparked by cartoons rather than a novel.The man who was at the centre of one of those controversies the Danish journalist Flemming Rose also wrote the best recent work on free speech The Tyranny of Silence[2014].Roses book makes some historical points that should be a warning.Not least his survey of how post-World War One Germanys hate-speech laws helped rather than hindered the Nazi rise to power.But Rose makes another point which is even more sorely needed today.Which is that an increasingly diverse society basically only has two choices before it.Either we agree that increasing diversity of people means we need to restrict diversity of speech and thought in order to keep the peace.Or and this is his recommendation we realise that as a society grows more diverse so you have to get used to hearing more and more things including things you might not want to hear.

Well have to grow up, in other words.Lets see if we do.

Read more here:

Four defences of free speech that everyone should read - Spectator.co.uk

AS regular readers of this column will probably have gleaned, I am not a big fan of the Tory government. But that doesnt mean I wont say when it gets something right, hence my applause for Gavin Williamsons recent commitment to protecting free speech at universities.

In a recent newspaper article the UK Education Secretary was impressively straightforward about his intentions: if universities in England dont do more to defend and safeguard free speech, the Government will.

It seems strange and discombobulating that such a fundamental right, which is already etched in law, needs to be restated or protected, especially in our institutions of learning and research. After all, what are universities for if not to debate, scrutinise and test old, current and new ways of thinking?

READ MORE:Ian McConnell: Brexiters antics miss the point as reality tells a different story

But the chilling frequency and virulence of recent campaigns by students and activists seeking to completely shut down conversations around certain issues highlights the pressing need for action.

And were not just talking any more about the no-platforming of offensive thinkers and speakers at university union events. Over the last months around the UK weve seen increasing numbers of protests and petitions against members of teaching staff who are accused of holding offensive, upsetting and inappropriate views, accompanied by calls for them to be silenced or even sacked.

There have also been calls for entire areas of teaching and academic research to be withdrawn or have funding removed, for conferences to be cancelled, all because students deem them too upsetting and offensive. University managers have sometimes been too quick to bow to pressure, highlighting societys increasing confusion and lack of confidence in dealing with issues of free speech.

Granted, the debates at the centre of current brouhahas are complex and controversial: Israel and Palestine, gender identity and womens rights. They are also very important. But not as important as the wider need to protect our right to talk about them. Even if you couldnt give a monkeys about the Gender Recognition Act, the things you care passionately about could be next on the list of views deemed offensive. You, too, could be cancelled.

How could it have come to this? How could folk, especially younger folk, be so easily and willingly prepared to give away their own freedoms? Why dont they relish countering arguments they disagree with rather than silencing them?

Social media has much to answer for, of course, not least the silos and bubbles many of us spend our digital lives in, the echo chambers that reflect our own views right back, the need for every issue to be black or white. When opposing views appear, they immediately seem shocking. Frustration ensues. Then anger. Then offence. Then hysteria.

READ MORE:Letters: Getting the EU out of the way will aid independence

Such behaviour all too easily carries dangerously into real life. How long before its wired into our DNA?

Its interesting that the Tories that have taken up the cause of free speech at universities. Has there been a swing towards right-wing libertarianism? Could it be to take the pressure off Boris Johnson over racist, sexist and homophobic comments he has made in the past? Both seem plausible.

Regardless of the reasoning, I welcome the action, which serves us all well in the end, especially with Labour and the SNP tied in knots over anti-semitism and trans rights, rather than focusing on the wider implications of these debates for free speech.

Mr Williamson is being clear and sensible. If universities dont adopt strong codes of conduct that champion academic freedom and free speech while explicitly recognising that this may sometimes cause offence, the Government will change the legal framework to strengthen free speech and clarify the duties of institutions such as student unions.

I would like to see the Scottish Government follow this lead. Guidance currently exists for Scottish universities, produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but recent events - not least the extreme reaction to discussion of gender identity and its impact on womens rights - suggest it is not working.

Any focus on free speech is a reminder to all that while feeling offended is real and unpleasant, it is merely that: a feeling. Yes, feelings matter. But they dont give anyone an automatic legal right to silence someone else.

If maturity means agreeing with something that is said, even when you dont particularly like the person saying it, it also means accepting that the world is full of views you disagree with. Especially if you spend most of your life on social media. Some of it will be abhorrent and horrible, insulting and offensive. But that doesnt mean it cannot be said at all.

Read more:

Marianne Taylor: Why the Tories are right about free speech - HeraldScotland

A Congressman from the Western and Central Southern Tier is making a visit to Broome County to weigh in on the November protests and confrontations that riled Binghamton University and resulted in a couple of arrests.

23rdDistrict Republican Tom Reed is scheduled to meet today with the Binghamton University College Republicans and B.U. President Dr. Harvey Stenger to discuss the restriction of free speech on campus.

The former Mayor of Corning says he recently sent a letter to SUNY Chancellor Kristina Johnson and Dr. Stenger requesting more information about the incident that unplugged a speech by conservative economist Art Laffer and resulted in the detention of a couple students.

That confrontation followed a clash between students protesting two tables that had been set up on the campus, one promoting Laffers speech and the other supporting gun rights.

The events also sparked comments from President Donald Trump at a Republican student action rally last month. The President claimed radicals swinging clubs, bats "and everything" and wearing masks and red arm bands mobbed Laffers talk.

Follow this link:

Congressman Reed to Talk Free Speech at BU - wnbf.com

Last week, Facebook reaffirmed its hands-off approach to political ads, saying it wont ban them, wont fact-check them, and wont limit how granularly they can be targeted. Under siege, Facebook has continued to defend this stance by trying to position the tech giant is a bastion of free speech.

Whether in his testimony to Congress last October or his 2020 resolutions post last week, Zuckerberg has sought to frame the question of advertising as one of free expression. And in what was positioned as a landmark address at Georgetown, Zuckerberg cloaked himself in the constitution, invoking the First Amendment no fewer than eight times. He even cited the Fifteenth Amendment for good measure.

Curious, though, that Facebook never mentions the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures interpreted by the Supreme Court in Carpenter v. United States to encompass digital privacy.

The inconvenient truth for Facebook is that these rights are inextricably linked. We cannot be truly free to speak our mind when we know that our every word and action is being tracked and logged by corporations and governments. The erosion of privacy threatens our freedom of expression, and it is hypocritical for Facebook to play at free speech champion while also being at the forefront of surveillance capitalism.

According to the new Freedom on the Net 2019 report by Freedom House, free speech and privacy on the internet also declined globally for the ninth consecutive year. And one of the main reasons cited by the reports authors for the decline? Increased surveillance on social media platforms.

Facebook has been central to the rise of a world where it is taken for granted that our personal lives are public by default and our private data is extracted and processed as a commodity, and as such, it is a direct threat to our freedom of speech. This digital panopticon creates a chilling effect, where people are hesitant or afraid about exercising their rights because of the potential negative ramifications that may result from their speech and actions being used against them.

Its not just theoretical: Following the Cambridge Analytica expos, The Atlantic surveyed its readers and found that 41.9 percent of the respondents said they changed their behavior on Facebook as a result of learning about the news, mostly by being more careful about what they posted. Over four in five (82.2 percent) said they self-censor on social media. The chilling effect even extended beyond Facebook to elsewhere on the internet, with 25.6 percent reporting that the Cambridge Analytica incident changed their behavior on other social media.

Theres a clear connection between Facebooks privacy failings and negative ramifications on open expression. So perhaps its time for Zuckerberg to stop being so pious and take user privacy seriously if hes genuine about his commitment to freedom of speech.

If Facebook intends to be a platform for people to express themselves, it needs to give people more visibility into and control over who gets to see what they express. Facebook should follow through on its commitment to full and clear disclosure of the data it collects, the people and organizations that have access to it, and what is done with this data. It has claimed it will do so in the past, but was caught again less than a year ago secretly sharing data in violation of stated privacy protections.

Facebooks control over what almost three billion people in the world can see, share, and express is unparalleled in human history. Without fundamental privacy protections and full transparency on its practices, that kind of power cant be good for freedom of expression.

The chilling effect of surveillance isnt complicated. Sitting before Congress a few months ago, with dozens of cameras pointed at him, Zuckerberg surely acted in a far more constrained manner than he wouldve in the privacy of his own bedroom. How does he expect Facebook to be the champion of free expression when it wont stop pointing evermore figurative cameras at us?

Published January 18, 2020 17:00 UTC

See the article here:

Facebook and Zuckerberg keep getting freedom of expression wrong - The Next Web

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

January 17, 2020

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

This is the editor's letter in the current issue of The Week magazine.

A sack of money, the Supreme Court has decreed, is just another form of speech, which is why Mike Bloomberg will have vastly more to say about the 2020 presidential race than almost every other American. Bloomberg intends to shell out $1 billion for his "free" speech about why President Trump must be defeated (and why Bloomberg is the Democrat best suited to beat him). That's about 10 times what any individual has ever spent to influence a presidential race and Bloomberg promises to keep spending even if another Democrat gets the nomination. The former New York City mayor, 77, is worth about $58 billion, so he can easily afford this indulgence.

With no sane limits on political spending, it was inevitable that attempts to buy the White House and Congress would escalate. In the 1976 Buckley ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Watergate-inspired caps on the amount of money wealthy individuals could spend to influence a race or donate to their own campaigns. The 2010 Citizens United ruling, which removed limits on political spending by "outside" groups, unleashed a tsunami of contributions from the superwealthy, including Charles and David Koch, George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, and Tom Steyer. In 2010, the top individual contribution was $7.5 million; by 2018, it had soared to $122 million (by Adelson, mostly in Trump's behalf). Now Bloomberg is raising the ante into the billions. Money alone, of course, does not win elections. But the blizzard of ads, get-out-the-vote operations, and skilled campaign staff that only money can buy can make a crucial difference. In the majority opinion in Citizens United, Justice Anthony Kennedy insisted that "the appearance of influence or access" that donors get for massive contributions "will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy." Ordinary citizens, after all, still have the same constitutional right to free speech as any billionaire. Just a lot less of it.

Powered By ZergNet

See the rest here:

All the free speech money can buy - The Week

It seems like everyones talking about bribery these days but I, and anyone else who works for the federal government, have to limit what we can say about what does or does not constitute an ethical or illegal lapse.

I am an ethicist who teaches leadership, ethics and law, and I believe a recent bribery case in the U.S. military offers an interesting and distinctive perspective through which to consider these issues.

Unfortunately, due to current restrictions on what federal employees can and cant say about political matters, I cant discuss all the ways that case might apply to a broader debate.

Nonetheless, there is one thing I can say without caveat or equivocation. Bribery laws for government officials have a powerful ethical principle at their core: If you work for the government, your actions in office are meant to serve the public interest not your own.

Trouble in the 7th Fleet

The so-called Fat Leonard scandal is the largest bribery and corruption case in U.S. Navy history.

The key player is Leonard Glenn Francis, a Malaysian-born businessman based in Singapore who was commonly referred to as Fat Leonard because of his 350-pound weight. He ran a company called Glenn Defense Marine Asia that had U.S. government contracts to provide various services to Navy ships in Asian ports docking, refueling, sewage removal and shore transportation for both cargo and personnel.

Don't miss the top Navy stories, delivered each afternoon

(please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Subscribe

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Navy Times Daily News Roundup.

In 2015, Francis pleaded guilty to plying Navy officers with cash and favors in exchange for their efforts to steer the Navys Pacific fleet to ports where his company could provide services. Then, the company would fabricate bids by nonexistent companies to make its own charges look competitive, overbill the Navy for services and even draw up fake invoices to collect money for goods and services it never provided to the ships and crews.

The case is perhaps best known for the fact that one of the most common favors Francis provided were paid sexual partners: He even kept meticulous notes about the peccadilloes of different officers.

More significant for U.S. taxpayers is the fact that the decade-long scam ultimately bilked the Navy out of more than $35 million.

Whistleblowers and corruption

In some ways the Fat Leonard scandal is a textbook bribery scheme, with clandestine meetings, envelopes full of cash, and explicit arrangements to perform clearly illegal acts. In fact, one of the biggest questions raised when Leonard was finally arrested in 2013 was how his company had been able to get away with the scheme for almost a decade.

There were, in fact, several whistleblowers along the way, but as is often the case when corruption is widespread, those in on the scheme were notified of the complaints before word got to those who would hold them responsible.

So rather than being lauded, whistleblowers were instead widely vilified.

Nonetheless, the truth was eventually brought to light. To date, more than 20 people have pleaded guilty to federal crimes, including the first-ever conviction of an admiral for a felony.

Significantly, however, the scope of the scandal is even more far-reaching. Dozens of officers, including several admirals, have been reprimanded and removed from office for more minor related violations, without going to jail.

Reciprocity and bribery

These last cases are particularly interesting, because they help demonstrate not only the high standards of military, but also the ways that bribery schemes often dont conform to common, stereotypical, preconceived notions.

Many of the officers charged didnt accept cash payments, but rather the kind of favors that they couldnt or wouldnt be able to obtain for themselves: travel, champagne, scotch, luxury hotel rooms, ornamental swords, handmade ship models, spa treatments, Cuban cigars, Kobe beef, Spanish suckling pigs, concert tickets and even a culinary internship.

Ultimately, it shouldnt be surprising that bribery often begins with small favors rather than thick envelopes of cash. Human beings are social creatures; favors strengthen peoples social bonds and make them more likely to reciprocate in turn.

Thats why federal ethics rules regarding favors are generally so strict, prohibiting government employees from accepting all but the most minimal gifts (even modest meals) from contractors and foreign agents.

Those prohibitions have obvious exceptions, but the principle behind the general rules is all the more important in their exceptions: Official actions are meant to serve public, rather than private, interests.

In the Fat Leonard cases, the evidence is clear: Even in the cases in which leaders have been merely reprimanded and removed from office, the kinds of favors the officers accepted demonstrate they were acting for their own benefits not those of the nation.

Why I cant say more

There may well be lessons the Fat Leonard saga has for other cases in which the alleged exchange of official acts for something of personal value is a key element of the crime.

Those considerations might seem even more relevant given that in 1998, Mississippi Republican lawmaker Roger Wicker took to the House floor and declared the rule of law means that the commander-in-chief of our armed forces could not be held to a lower standard than are his subordinates.

More than two decades later Wicker, now a senator, has recently reaffirmed that standard.

However, I am a federal employee, and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel has issued unusually broad guidance about the Hatch Acts limits on federal workers partisan political activities.

The law generally bars federal employees from advocating in favor of or against the election of a particular candidate, as well from participating in other partisan political activities in an election. Yet the current guidance which itself has been criticized for taking sides on a political divide has been taken by some to apply to any analysis of any aspects of the presidents impeachment and trial.

Limiting public discourse

This is a free-speech problem, but its more than that. When federal and state governments hire experts and researchers as, in effect, public servants, I believe that expertise should be welcome in the public sphere, helping to inform the people we work for.

I work at a federally run university, which is why I come under these particular government rules. There are relatively few institutions like mine, so it might seem a minor issue.

However, numerous states have laws similar to the Hatch Act, at least some of which apply to employees of those statespublic universities. If the current federal rules stand, public state university employees may well find themselves facing similar, or even more problematic, limits in the future, especially if analysis is taken to be a form of advocacy.

Regardless of those concerns, the Office of Special Counsels current guidance remains, for better or worse, the rule for federal employees.

Given that fact, there very may well be another reason to follow it: Doing so can help further differentiate those who attempt to respect the significant distinction between campaigning and governing from those who seek to minimize, or even eliminate altogether, the difference between the two.

As a result, I leave any lessons of how the Fat Leonard scandal might apply to any other case as an exercise for the reader.

A former major in the U.S. Air Force, Dr. Marcus Hedahl is an associate professor of Philosophy in the Department of Leadership, Ethics and Law at the United States Naval Academy and a faculty affiliate at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University. His views, which he cant fully express, dont necessarily reflect those of Navy Times or its staffers.

Go here to see the original:

Op-ed: A Navy bribery scandal and the limits of free speech - NavyTimes.com

The Federal Reserve pours money into banks to support the economy, but where does that cash come from? More importantly, is that money ever repaid?

Richard Wolff joins Thom Hartmann to explain it all.

Richard D. Wolff is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst where he taught economics from 1973 to 2008. He is currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University, New York City.

Earlier he taught economics at Yale University (1967-1969) and at the City College of the City University of New York (1969-1973)

The Thom Hartmann Programcovers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch theTH programthan any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them.

The Thom Hartmann Programis onFree Speech TV every weekday from 12-3pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out TH on FSTV VOD anytime or visit theshow pagefor the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTVis one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change. As the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments, and corporations, our network amplifies underrepresented voices and those working on the front lines of social, economic and environmental justice.

#FSTV is available onDish,DirectTV, AppleTV,Roku,Slingand online atfreespeech.org.

economics Economy Fed Federal Reserve Richard Wolff The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann

See the original post here:

Where Does the Federal Reserve's Money Come From? - Free Speech TV

The impeachment trial begins its proceedings in the Senate today amid accusations of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell attempting to rush the impeachment process.

Senators will have 16 hours for questions and four hours for debate, after 24 hours for opening arguments on each side.

Democracy Now! speaks with Rick Perlstein, historian and author, and Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Clarke says that thanks to the rules set by McConnell, Trumps impeachment trial could be over within a week, with much of the debate taking place in the evening. The process is designed to keep the Senate and the public in the dark, she says.

Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzlez.

Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the worlds most pressing issues.

On DN!, youll hear a diversity of voices speaking for themselves, providing a unique and sometimes provocative perspective on global events.

Missed an episode? Check out DN on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

As the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments, and corporations, our network amplifies underrepresented voices and those working on the front lines of social, economic and environmental justice.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org.

Amy Goodman Civil Rights Under Law Democracy Now! Donald Trump Free Speech TV impeachment Impeachment Trial Kristen Clarke Mitch McConnell Rick Perlstein United States

Originally posted here:

The Impeachment of Trump is Needed to Protect US Democracy - Free Speech TV

GILBERT, AZ "If I didn't love this community, I wouldn't be fighting this fight," said Ashley Nardecchia.

Nardecchia lives in the Val Vista Lakes (VVL) community off Greenfield and Baseline Road.

Since 2019, she's been the admin of a private community Facebook page called Residents at VVL.

"It's all about bringing that community together," said Nardecchia.

It's your usual neighborhood page, full of events, lost dogs and safety updates. But when board elections kicked off last year, the debate over who should be seated got heated.

"It was disagreements about how certain members of the board run the board, where they're spending our money, things of that nature," said Nardecchia recalling the posts on the page during that time. Those disagreements played out in the comments on the page.

Following elections, the board proposed a social media policy restricting opinions about the board on Facebook. It was vehemently opposed by the community and quickly tabled.

Then a letter from a law office representing the board showed up at Nardecchia's home.

"They are threatening if I don't remove any content that frames certain members of the board in a negative light," said Nardecchia.

Threatening her with $250 daily fines as well as taking away her access to community amenities.

The letter was sent from a law firm paid for by HOA fee's to at least eleven residents.

"They are asking me to basically censor the speech of the 650 members that belong to that page," said Nardecchia.

"Clearly it's an overreach by the board," said Keith Faber.

Faber, a ten year resident of the community and former board member, received a letter too. He says the board has no right to restrict free speech on a private Facebook page.

"It's improper and they need to address, and maybe there should be some resignations," said Faber.

The letter demands posts that are disparaging, speculative or defaming to board members be removed immediately. It also cites past incidents including posts that said that board members altered or manipulated votes in annual elections and that board members purposefully retaliated against members in the association. Opinions that now come with consequences.

"I really do believe in that freedom of speech. We are a diverse community with diverse opinions and views, and we should be able to share that and have a discussion about that." said Nardecchia.

ABC15 spoke to a board member over the phone who said he would speak with others on the board and get back to us with a statement or comment regarding our story. They never called us back.

At least two attorneys focused on constitutional law, told ABC15 the board is over stepping their authority and may want to take a closer look at the protection found under the first amendment.

Link:

Gilbert HOA threatening to fine residents over critical social media posts - ABC15 Arizona

Over the past few days, a Christian Ministry group known as Campus Ministry USA has been coming to LSU in Free Speech Alley to preach their religious beliefs to anyone who will listen. This has been drawing a large crowd, sparking interest from students who disagree with the groups confrontational approach.

The group, which has been preaching at college campuses since 1984, uses strong language informing students that they are going to hell for their sins. Some students consider it hate speech.

A heated debate sparked in Free Speech Plaza on Tuesday between students and an evangelizing

They say theyre out here to preach but its justa show," political science senior Jenna Gibbs said. "Its just a stage act to get views on YouTube and get a rise out of people."

Gibbs also said that the group has been visiting the University since her freshman year and has been escorted off campus before.

Psychology senior Sierra Roberson believes their purpose is not to debate, but to disagree with students.

People will come out here and say logical things against them and then itll turn into actual fighting back and forth, Roberson said.

For many passersby, the whole event seemed to be an unintelligible screaming match filled with vulgar terms.

Some fellow Christians also thought this ministry groups message wasnt the proper representation of their religion.

They keep hating on everyone here, and I dont think they came here to spread the word but to tell us how they are more holy than we are, pre-nursing freshman and self-professed Christian Meredith Davis said.

Davis said that her beliefs reflect Gods love and forgiveness rather than judgement.

The group themselves said they want to save those who are continuing to live in sin. Founder and President of Campus USA Jed Smock spoke most of the day at the center of the controversy.

We want to preach the death and resurrection of Christ," Smock said. "Sin is evil and they [students] can be forgiven, but if they dont ask for Gods forgiveness they are going to hell."

Smock said the group would be on campus all week.

See the article here:

Campus Ministry USA preaches in Free Speech Alley this week, sparks arguments - The Reveille, LSU's student newspaper

Sonali Kolhatkar speaks with David Marples, a Distinguished University Professor at the University of Alberta in Canada, specializing in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus.

Parnas is a Russian born US citizen who was arrested last year along with another colleague Igor Fruman as they attempted to leave the country on one-way tickets.

Parnas says he along with Giuliani carried out much of the sordid plan to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden in exchange for US military aid.

That plan and the attempt to cover it up is at the heart of the two articles of impeachment against Trump that the House passed.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has yet to complete his first year in office is plagued by more political problems than the Trump scandal.

Ukraines Prime Minister Oleksiy Honcharuk offered to resign on Friday after his private criticism of the president became public. Zelensky has reportedly refused to accept the resignation.

Rising Up with Sonali is a radio and television show that brings progressive news coverage rooted in gender and racial justice to a wide audience.

Rising Up With Sonali was built on the foundation of Sonali Kolhatkar's earlier show, Uprising, which became the longest-running drive-time radio show on KPFK in Los Angeles hosted by a woman. RUS airs on Free Speech TV every weekday.

Missed an episode? Check outRising Upon FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

As the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments, and corporations, our network amplifies underrepresented voices and those working on the front lines of social, economic and environmental justice.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

David Marples Donald Trump Free Speech TV impeachment Impeachment Trial Joe Biden Lev Parnas Military Aid Oleksi Honcharuk Rising Up with Sonali Rudy Giuliani Sonali Kolhatkar Ukraine United States University of Alberta Volodymyr Zelensky

Read the original:

The Ukraine Scandal and the Donald Trump Impeachment Trial - Free Speech TV

How does the First Amendment right to free speech apply to speakers who have been invited by student groups to speak on campus?

As a public institution of higher education, NC State is committed to fostering free speech and the open debate of ideas. NC State is prohibited from banning or punishing an invited speaker based on the content or viewpoint of his or her speech. University policy permits student groups to invite speakers to campus, and the university provides access to certain campus venues for that purpose. NC State cannot take away that right or withdraw those resources based on the views of the invited speaker. Only under extraordinary circumstances, as described on this page, can an event featuring an invited speaker be canceled.

Once a student group has invited a speaker to campus, NC State will act reasonably to ensure that the speaker is able to safely and effectively address his or her audience, free from violence or disruption.

Although NC State cannot restrict or cancel the speech based on the content or viewpoint of the speech, the university is allowed to place certain content- and viewpoint-neutral limits on how the speech can take place. These limits can be based on the time, place and manner of the speech.

What are time, place and manner restrictions?

Courts have long recognized that public educational institutions have the right to impose certain restrictions on the use of their campuses for free-speech purposes. Content- and viewpoint-neutral restrictions on the times and modes of communication, often referred to as time-place-manner restrictions, are common features universities implement to ensure that they can continue to fulfill their mission while allowing free expression to occur. Simply put, this means that the when, where and how of free-speech activity may be reasonably regulated if such regulation (1) is scrupulously neutral (in other words, it must apply to all speech, no matter how favored or disfavored) and (2) leaves ample opportunity for speech in alternative areas or forums. The right to speak on campus is not a right to speak at any time, at any place and in any manner that a person wishes. The university can regulate where, when and how speech occurs to ensure the functioning of the campus and to achieve important goals, such as protecting public safety.

Examples of acceptable time-place-manner restrictions include permit requirements for outside speakers, notice periods, sponsorship requirements for outside speakers, limiting the duration and frequency of the speech and restricting speech during final-exam periods.

The need to consider time, place and manner regulations is the reason the university requires students to work with the administration when setting up certain events, as opposed to students scheduling and creating the events on their own without university input.

Can NC State cancel a student-sponsored event if the administration or the campus community disagrees with the speakers views?

No, NC State is prohibited from canceling an event based on the viewpoint of the speaker.

If it is known that an event with a speaker may lead to physical violence, is that legal grounds for the university to cancel the event?

In general, NC State cannot prevent speech on the grounds that it is likely to provoke a hostile response. Stopping speech before it occurs due to the potential reaction to the speech is often referred to by courts as the hecklers veto and is a form of prior restraint. Prior restraints of speech are almost never allowed.

The university is required to do what it can to protect speakers and prevent disruption or violence. Although the university is committed to fulfilling these obligations, if despite all efforts by the university there is a serious threat to public safety and no other alternative, an event can be canceled. NC States primary concern is to protect the safety of its students, faculty and staff. NC States Police Department makes security assessments with input from federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

How does NC State respond to hate speech?

NC State is dedicated to fostering free speech in an environment where members of our community can learn from one another and where all are treated with dignity and respect. The university vigorously opposes and denounces all forms of hateful speech. The university encourages faculty, staff and students to use their free-speech rights, consistent with federal and state laws, to condemn hateful speech and to help create opportunities for the campus community to understand and learn from these actions. Students who encounter hurtful or offensive speech are encouraged to reach out to university administrators, including the Office for Institutional Equity and Diversity (OIED), or to make a report to the universitys Bias Impact Response Team (BIRT). More information about responding to acts of intolerance may be found at the OIED and BIRT websites.

How does NC State ensure the safety of the campus community in light of freedom of speech?

NC State balances its commitment to free speech with a commitment to safety. Individuals who threaten or commit acts of violence or other violations of law may be subject to arrest and prosecution by law enforcement, as well as disciplinary sanctions imposed by the university.

See the original post:

Free Speech | NC State University

An expert in human rights who spent more than a decade at Google and directed its international diplomacy says the tech giant pushed him out last year because it no longer takes human rights seriously.

Ross LaJeunesse, who is now a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in his native Maine, said in a blog post Thursday that Google abandoned its former, famous motto Dont be evil as potential business in countries such as China and Saudi Arabia became too enticing.

Just when Google needed to double down on a commitment to human rights, it decided to instead chase bigger profits and an even higher stock price, he said in the post.

Google said in a statement that the company has an unwavering commitment to human rights organizations and efforts.

We wish Ross all the best with his political ambitions, the company said.

The criticism from LaJeunesse adds to a rising backlash against Google and other large tech firms from privacy advocates, regulators and current and former employees and executives.

Byers Market Newsletter

Get breaking news and insider analysis on the rapidly changing world of media and technology right to your inbox.

Google has been embroiled in turmoil after outside critics and its own employees attacked it for its handling of sexual misconduct cases in which it paid multimillion-dollar exit packages to executives involved, as well as its business plans in China and its contracts with the U.S. military.

LaJeunesse said that, while still at Google, he pushed for the adoption of a company-wide human rights program that would review new products as they were developed and assess the human rights impact of all major product launches and market entries.

But each time I recommended a Human Rights Program, senior executives came up with an excuse to say no, he wrote.

LaJeunesse also talked about his decision to leave Google in a video posted to Twitter.

Google, which stopped cooperating with Chinese censorship demands in 2010 and has since been banned there, was planning a way to reenter the search-engine market under the codename Dragonfly. But it abandoned the project after protests and congressional inquiries.

After the fight over Dragonfly, LaJeunesse said he realized that the company had never intended to incorporate human rights principles into its business and product decisions. The motto Dont be evil had become just another corporate marketing tool, he said.

LaJeunesse said his job was eliminated as part of a reorganization of Googles policy team, and that after he hired a lawyer, Google offered him a small role in exchange for my acquiescence and silence. He said he decided to leave.

Google, in its statement on Thursday, said he was offered a position at the same level and compensation.

Other big American tech companies are also grappling with how to do business internationally in an ethical way. Last year, Facebook ramped up hiring for a new team with the goal of avoiding contributing to genocide, as the company was accused of doing in Myanmar.

LaJeunesse becomes the lastest former Google employee to speak out publicly against the company. Last month, four engineers fired by Google just before Thanksgiving asked for an investigation by the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that the company was unlawfully trying to quash organizing by workers.

David Ingram covers tech for NBC News.

Read the original post:

Google pursued profits over free speech in China, former head of international relations says - NBC News

Amazon user experience designer Emily Cunningham speaks at a rally outside of the companys shareholders meeting in May 2019. Employees in support of the climate resolution wore white to the event. (Amazon Employees for Climate Justice Photo)

After Amazon employees publicly pressured their employer to take aggressive action on climate change, the company has warned two workers that they could be fired if they continue to violate Amazons external communications policy.

Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, an organization leading worker action on climate change, is pushing back, alleging that the company is trying to silence workers and vowing to continue calling for stronger leadership in reducing climate damage.

Now is a time when we need to have communications policies that let us speak honestly about our companys role in the climate crisis, said Maren Costa, a user experience principal designer at Amazon, and one of those threatened with termination, in a prepared statement.

This is not the time to shoot the messengers, she said. This is not the time to silence those who are speaking out.

In a news release issued today, a half-dozen employees went on record to share their concerns about the rules, and long-time environmental activist Bill McKibben tweeted in response: the world is on fire. Climate leaders dont silence employees who are sounding the alarm. This is sick behavior

Amazon in September updated its communications policy and notified employees in a message that states: As a general rule, external communication by employees about Amazons business, products, services, technology, or customers must be approved in advance by public relations.

The company said this is a standard approach to regulating company-related speech.

Our policy regarding external communications is not new and we believe is similar to other large companies. We recently updated the policy and related approval process to make it easier for employees to participate in external activities such as speeches, media interviews, and use of the companys logo, said Amazon spokesperson Jaci Anderson by email.

Anderson added that the company is working to make it easier for employees and approvers to navigate the pre-approval process, including building an intranet page for approvals to streamline the process and reduce the number and seniority of managers required to green-light communication.

University of Washington political science professor Aseem Prakash was surprised and disappointed by the news. In raising concerns about Amazons efforts to address climate change, workers are not disclosing any confidential information, he said. There is no breach.

Prakash, who is the founding director of the UW Center for Environmental Politics, noted that the employees Amazon wants to recruit and retain are quite concerned about climate change.

Over the course of more than a year, Amazon employees have been taking steps to pressure the cloud computing and retail juggernaut to improve its transparency regarding its climate impacts and to promise to reduce its carbon footprint. Those steps include:

And Amazon, one the the most valuable companies in the world, has in recent months taken steps to respond to what many call a climate crisis.

With great fanfare, Bezos in September one day before the planned walk out announced new climate actions, including the creation of a Climate Pledge that sets ambitious greenhouse gas emission goals for the tech giant and urges other companies to do the same.

Were done being in the middle of the herd on this issue weve decided to use our size and scale to make a difference, said Bezos in a prepared statement shared for the announcement.

The initiative included launching a sustainability website to bring previously lacking transparency to Amazons actions. The company disclosed details of its carbon footprint: 44.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent released in 2018. (The U.S. emitted roughly 5,000 million metric tons of CO2e in 2015 while the UK, for example, emitted 389 million metric tons of CO2e.) The company also pledged to reach 80% renewable energy for its global infrastructure within five years, and use entirely renewable power by 2030.

But while Bezos is expressing enthusiasm for these environmental efforts, the squeaky-wheel tactics of employees is clearly still rankling leadership.

The Amazon employee group shared a statement critical of the companys partnership with fossil fuel companies for a Washington Post article published in October. The statement was attributed to Costa and Jamie Kowalski, an Amazon software development engineer (Bezos coincidentally owns the Washington Post).

After Amazon officials investigated the matter, the employees were given an email warning in November sent from a principal of employee relations. Costa was cautioned to abide by company policy requiring that she get pre-approval from the company before speaking out, or face formal corrective action.

Emily Cunningham, a user experience designer for Amazon, has been an active employee leader on climate issues. She noted that the communications policy was updated one day after Amazon Employees for Climate Justice announced that it would participate in the September climate strike. Anderson, the company spokesperson, said the process to update the policy began in the spring.

Its no surprise that Amazon rolled out this change to the communication policy the day after we announced the walkout, Cunningham said today by email. We know that the change in the policy was a result of how successful we have been by publicly speaking out about the climate crisis.

Amazon isnt alone in clamping down on employee speech. Google recently fired workers for alleged violations of its data security policies and code of conduct, though employees claim the real cause was their decision speak out against Google on issues including pay disparity and government contracts with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and others.

Workers have two options if they dont like their employers actions: quit or exercise their voices and fight the system from within, Prakash said.

I hope some senior managers who have more clout will say that this is wrong, Prakash said of the Amazon stance.

Even if they silence the employees, he said. When it comes to climate change, the problem will not go away.

Follow this link:

Climate activism vs. free speech: Amazon warns employees that they could be fired for speaking publicly without approval - GeekWire

Thank you, Mr. Zeidman, for responding exactly as I expect you would. It is so typical of the liberal to respond to opinion with insult and denigration, neither of which was present in my letter.

Apparently, even this newspaper is not immune to your insults despite the fact that they still print even your letters of condemnation that chastise them for presenting diverse opinions, especially those with which you so vehemently disagree.

Secondly, after the spate of articles and fake news that has been printed in the New York Times, I am distrustful of most anything they see fit to print in the last three years, possibly more. And your references to CAIR and SPLC are far from truthful- CAIR is as close as one can come to being the mouthpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood, and SPLC has gone so far to the left that their opinions are antithetical to the values we used to hold dear in this country.

As for Peter King, I have not always been a fan of his, but he was elected to office by the people and has sought our countrys best interests and national security.

His has not always been an easy job, and I trust that his intentions were to protect us after 9/11, and not all tactics are practical or fair, but sometimes are necessary. My issue is not with his thoughts or feelings, and what he said or did before does not concern me now.

Finally, having met Brigitte Gabriel, and having listened to her for several years in the media, I have never heard her say anything that is anti-Muslim, but only comments directed against radical terrorists and those who would destroy our constitutional republic.

I will not be characterized, either, as anti-Muslim, and have several friends and co-workers who are Muslim, and I cherish their friendship.

I recommend that you switch your attention away from Wikipedia and CNN, and get the facts before you descend to the level of insult. I know that you and I will never agree, but I guess thats why we have elections, and letters to the editor.

Thankfully, there are many readers who prefer to see all sides of an issue, and they are willing to avoid blind decisions.

Despite our apparent disagreement, I still wish you a happy and peaceful new year.

Eric Spinner

New Hyde Park

Read more:

Readers Write: In defense of free speech, free press - Opinions - The Island Now