Hired Partners with Fiddler to Pioneer Responsible AI for Hiring – PRNewswire

Posted on by

PALO ALTO, Calif., July 30, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --Today Hired announced a partnership with Fiddler to increase transparency and mitigate bias in its tech talent marketplace, which uses its proprietary AI Intelligent Job Matching technology to match candidates with relevant jobs at the world's most innovative companies. All of Hired's AI was built in-house, and the company is layering Fiddler's Explainable AI Platform on top of its proprietary models to generate deeper insights into how its algorithms make decisions.

"At Hired, our mission is to match people with a job they love, and doing that at scale requires advanced technology like AI. Fiddler helps enhance our understanding of the AI algorithms at the heart of this candidate matching process by comparing these insights and explanations with our internally developed solutions to empower our data science and curation teams," said Mehul Patel, CEO of Hired. "With Explainability, our team can build trust with our algorithms and further our commitment to building a truly equitable future. I am excited about Fiddler making AI decisions more explainable across the industry."

One of the biggest promises of AI is its ability to make objective, data-driven decisions, but without visibility into how these algorithms work, businesses run the risk of using sub-par models that could actually increase bias. Fiddler's Explainable AI Platform monitors, explains, and analyzes model performance to provide businesses with rich explanations of exactly why a model generated a particular output, and immediately flag any potential bias.

Fiddler's technology integrates seamlessly with Hired's user interfaces to provide real-time reporting on how their AI models are working. It's specifically used for the following purposes:

"We're excited to partner with Hired to continue our mission of building trustworthy and reliable AI, which was a key driver in this partnership," said Krishna Gade, founder & CEO of Fiddler. "The ability for explainable AI and ML monitoring, and specifically Fiddler's solution to add value to Hired's team to build trust is something that our team is very passionate about. We will continue our efforts to ensure the Hired team is successful in their mission to responsibly and reliably match people to jobs they love."

As AI is more broadly adopted within the hiring and human resources industry, it's critical for every organization to focus on building fair, transparent, and accountable AI systems. Hired is leading the way for the rest of the industry.

About Fiddler Founded in October 2018, Fiddler's mission is to enable businesses of all sizes to unlock the AI BlackBox and deliver trustworthy AI experiences to end-users. Fiddler's next-generation Explainable AI Platform enables data science, product, and business users to explain, monitor, and analyze their AI solutions, providing transparent and reliable experiences to customers. Fiddler works with pioneering Fortune 500 companies as well as emerging tech companies. For more information please visitwww.fiddler.aior follow us on Twitter@fiddlerlabs.

About HiredHired (hired.com) is a marketplace that matches tech talent with the world's most innovative companies. Hired combines intelligent job matching with unbiased career counseling to help people find a job they love. Through Hired, job candidates and companies have transparency into salary offers, competing opportunities and job details. This level of insight is unmatched, making the recruiting process quicker and more efficient than ever before. Hired was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in San Francisco, with offices in the United States, Canada, France, and the UK. The company is backed by Lumia Capital, Sierra Ventures and other leading investors.

Media Contact: [emailprotected]

SOURCE Fiddler Labs

See the original post here:

Hired Partners with Fiddler to Pioneer Responsible AI for Hiring - PRNewswire

Why Google, Ideo, And IBM Are Betting On AI To Make Us Better Storytellers – Fast Company

Posted on by

Sharing emotion-driven narratives that resonate with other people is something humans are quite good at. Weve been sitting around campfires telling stories for tens of thousands of years, and we still do it. One reason why is because it's an effective way to communicate: We remember stories.

But what makes for good storytelling? Mark Magellan, a writer and designer at Ideo U, puts it this way: "To tell a story that someone will remember, it helps to understand his or her needs. The art of storytelling requires creativity, critical-thinking skills, self-awareness, and empathy."

All those traits are fundamentally human, but as artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more commonplace, even experts whose jobs depend on them possessing those traitspeople like Magellanforesee it playing a bigger role in what they do.

Connecting with an audience has always been something of an art formit's part of the magic of a great storyteller. But AI is steadily converting it into a science. The AI-driven marketing platform Influential uses IBM's Watson to connect brands with audiences. It finds social media influencers who can help spread a brand's message to target demographics in a way that feels authentic and, well, human.

Ryan Detert, Influential's CEO and cofounder, says that the tool uses two of Watsons services, Personality Insights and AlchemyLanguage, to look at the content written by an influencer, analyzing that text, and scoring it across 52 personality traitslike "adventurousness," "achievement striving," and "openness to change." To date, says Detert, Influential has gathered these insights on 10,000 social media influencers with over 4 billion followers altogether.

Once a brand comes to Influential with their marketing goals, the platform uses Watson to identify the traits most strongly expressed by that brand, then matches influencers whose personalities, social media posts, and followers best reflect it. If a brand narrative wants to project adventurousness, Influential will find influencers who score highly on that characteristic and whose followers respond well to it.

Influential worked with Kia on a 2016 Super Bowl ad featuring Christopher Walken, and Detert notes, "We saw a 30% higher level of engagement on FTC posts, which are branded posts [flagged] with [a hashtag like] #Ad or #Sponsored. The more the brand and influencers' voices are aligned," he says, "the greater the engagement, sentiment, ad recall, virality, and clicks." The influencers that the AI technology pinpointed, says Detert, "outperformed their regular organic content with these branded posts." In other words, the machine learned how to connect with the influencers' fans even better than the influencers themselves did.

Influential's Watson-powered AI tool figured out how to get this Kia ad to resonate with influencers' followers more powerfully than those influencers' own posts did.

Influential also uses Watson's AI to analyze social buzz and tell brands how they're being perceived. Sometimes, says Detert, that means telling brands, "Youre not the brand you think you are," and going back to the drawing board to come up with a better story.

Somatic is a digital marketing company whose experiments with machine learning show the technology's potential in visually driven storytelling, too. One of its tools, called "Creative Storyteller," uses AI to scan photos and generate short text descriptions of what it seesbut not in generic prose.

The tool, says Somatic founder and CEO Jason Toy, can write about visual data in different styles or genres, even mimicking the prose styles of celebrities. As long as there's enough written content out there for Creative Storyteller to be trained on, Toy says it can do a pretty good impression.

Creative Storyteller has been used with major companies to turn an ordinary marketing campaign into an interactive one. In one case, says Toy, "We built an interactive ad where a user uploads a picture and a model talks to them in a style of someone else about that pic."

Such short-form stories work well, but longer text often fails because the AI lacks context, notes Toy. "These machines are able to learn the information you give them. It seems magical at first, but then cracks appear with longer text."

Google AI researcher Margaret Mitchell's work may eventually fill cracks like those. She hopes her research, which is geared toward "helping AI start to understand things about everyday human life," can start to push machines beyond just generating "literal content, like you get in image captioning," toward anticipating how those descriptions will make people feel.

Says Mitchell, "There is increasing interest in developing humanistic AI that can understand human behaviors and relations."

[Image: via Somatic]

Now for the inevitable question: Will this "humanistic AI" ever beat humans at their own game? Suzanne Gibbs Howard, a partner at Ideo and founder of Ideo U, believes collaboration between human storytellers and machines is more likely in the near term. Some of the questions she's considering include, "How might the worlds storytellers leverage knowledge and insights via AI to make their stories even more powerful, faster? Might AI be a prototyping tool?"

Magellan, Gibbs Howard's colleague at Ideo U, believes the answer is yes; AI as already shown its ability to "explore unmet or latent needs" in an audience that a human storyteller might miss. That could prove helpful for planning and refining a story. "It's not hard to imagine AI crowdsourcing story plots from the internet and identifying people's needs from social media," he muses.

Jason Toy also sees collaboration with AI as the model to strive toward. "I see them as systems that work with humans. They'll always need the human as high-level architect. Storytellers need to think about how the story will be felt, told, and the medium."

"It's all about practicing empathy," stresses Magellan. And for all the strides in AI research that he's seen, empathy just doesn't appear to be a skill machines will pick up too soon. "Theres a level of emotional intelligence you must possess as a storyteller," he says. "Until robots gain that, weve got a leg up on them!"

In fact, storytelling may be one way to future-proof your job. Spend some more time around the campfire, but dont be afraid if a robot turns up to help.

Darren Menabney lives in Tokyo, where he leads global employee engagement at Ricoh, teaches MBA students at GLOBIS University, coaches online for Ideo U, and supports the Japanese startup scene. Follow him on Twitter at @darmenab.

Originally posted here:

Why Google, Ideo, And IBM Are Betting On AI To Make Us Better Storytellers - Fast Company

Schools Are Installing Bathroom Surveillance Systems to Bust Vapers

Posted on by

AI Spies

The Food and Drug Administration has made a big push in recent months to crack down on the marketing of e-cigarettes to minors. It’s sent hundreds of warning letters to manufacturers, fined a handful, and even raided the headquarters of popular vape-maker Juul.

Now, schools across the U.S. and Canada are taking a different approach by using AI-powered surveillance devices to catch students vaping — where else? — in bathrooms.

Potty Mouth

According to a new story in IEEE Spectrum, more than 200 schools in the U.S. and Canada are currently using Fly Sense, an AI-powered vaping detection system. Since most underage school vaping takes place in bathrooms — where the schools aren’t legally allowed to install cameras — Fly Sense detects vaping using other types of sensors.

Fly Sense’s sensors detect the chemical signatures of vaping and send real-time text or email alerts to school officials. The school can program the vaping detection system to send these alerts to different staff members depending on the time of day.

Flawed but Effective

Fly Sense maker Soter Technologies claims the system is between 70 and 80 percent accurate at detecting vaping — no word on how the people receiving the alerts feel about every one in five being a false alarm.

According to Soter, even if it’s not 100 percent accurate, Fly Sense might scare students vape-free — locations with the system installed see an average decrease in vaping of 70 percent.

So, while installing any surveillance device in a bathroom isn’t exactly ideal, until we can find a way to keep e-cigarettes out of the hands of minors, Fly Sense can at least help us keep students from vaping when they’re supposed to be learning.

READ MORE: Schools Enlist AI to Detect Vaping and Bullies in Bathrooms [IEEE Spectrum]

More on vaping: The FDA Just Raided the Headquarters of E-Cigarette Maker Juul

See more here:

Schools Are Installing Bathroom Surveillance Systems to Bust Vapers

Salesforce brings Einstein AI to Service Cloud – ZDNet

Posted on by

Einstein Case Management. Via Salesforce.

Salesforce is giving its Service Cloud customer service platform the Einstein AI treatment.

The CRM giant on Monday rolled out Service Cloud Einstein, a souped up version of its customer service cloud designed to make work more intuitive for customer service agents and their managers. Of course, Einstein is Salesforce's artificial intelligence effort released during the company's Dreamforce conference last year.

For the customer service agent, Service Cloud Einstein helps optimize how calls are routed via a new feature called Einstein Case Management. Using machine learning, cases are automatically escalated and classified as they come in, and relevant information for case resolution is automatically surfaced. It also ensures that high priority cases are pushed through more quickly and to the best equipped agent.

The platform also works to automate much of the initial information gathering, mostly via chatbots, so agents are prepared with background information before they interact with the customer.

The second component of Service Cloud Einstein is for the customer service supervisor. Aptly named Einstein Supervisor, the platform uses a mix of AI-powered analytics (from the Analytics Cloud's Service Wave analytics app), real-time insights and smart data discovery to give managers a better sense of agent availability, queues and wait times.

"Customers today expect and demand great service experiences," said Adam Blitzer, EVP and GM for Service and Sales Clouds at Salesforce. "Service Cloud Einstein empowers companies to transform any customer service interaction into a smart conversation that drives brand loyalty and creates customers for life."

Einstein Supervisor is generally available today, but Einstein Case Management won't be available until a pilot period later this year.

SEE ALSO:

See the article here:

Salesforce brings Einstein AI to Service Cloud - ZDNet

Virtual Santa Uses Real AI to Talk to Children Around the World – GlobeNewswire

Posted on by

Consulting the Naughty or Nice List on AskSanta.com, the free, fully interactive virtual Santa powered by StoryFile AI. Available on any browser now.

Los Angeles, CA, Dec. 10, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The COVID-19 Pandemic was going to prevent many children from speaking with Santa Claus this year. But, AI startup StoryFile had other plans Christmas would not be cancelled. Today StoryFileannounced that AskSanta.com, the world's first artificially intelligent, virtual Santa Claus, has already been visited by children from over 170 countries. Today, the site allows children of all ages to interact with Santa in real time, for free, and with no time limits. Heather Smith, Co-Founder & CEO of StoryFile, developed the idea to use her companys conversational video technology to usher in the holiday spirit. StoryFile created AI powered Ask Santa as a gift to children everywhere.

While there are many virtual Santa experiences this year, Ask Santa is the only one that is free, interactive, and answers questions in real time. While some custom video experiences can cost as much as $58 for 8 minutes, Ask Santa has no time limit, or limit on the number of sessions per child or family. The idea was to create an experience for people to speak with Santa from the comfort and safety of their homesand have the opportunity to ask Santa (almost) anything! Ask Santa is even being visited by large groups using big screen TVs or monitors. Ask Santa is a webpage app that works on any browser on smartphones, tablets, desktops etc.

By far the most frequent thing kids bring up with Ask Santa is their concern for his safety during the pandemic. We are seeing through the interactions just how concerned children are and they are telling Santa they are hungry, or sharing that a relative passed away. It is heartbreaking at times, but we are comforted by the fact that Santa is offering an empathetic and comforting outlet, said StoryFile CEO Heather Smith. Ask Santa answers these questions and shows the spirit of the holiday is about compassion and community more than ever--not just gifts. That said, many children still ask Christmas specific questions, and Am I on the naughty or nice list? is still a top question!

What makes Ask Santa stand above the entire Santa business sector, is that when children ask Santa a question, they receive direct and immediate answers and responses. StoryFiles technology means that children can have face-to-face conversations that are very much needed in todays socially and physically distanced world. In addition, children are writing in letters to Santa and receiving responses from Santa and his team within 24 hours.

Top questions and subjects asked of Santa include:

When asking about COVID-19 specifically, Santa answers their questions by:

2020 has been really hard for so many people, but Christmas will still be awesome if we remember what it's all about, our Santa, also known as Santa Cortney, told ABC News. Thats why Im so happy that AskSanta.com is free and that children can talk to me for as long as they want. Ho Ho Ho!

In a partnership with the American Heart Association (AHA) and the Red Sled Foundation, Ask Santa is encouraging anyone that is able to make a holiday donation to help kids in need. 100% of donations made on the Ask Santa website will go directly to the AHA, inspiring kids and adults alike to be heart heroes this holiday season.

For more information or media/PR requests for AI Santa and StoryFiles Heather Smith, please contact alana@storyfile.com

About StoryFile:StoryFile is rapidly evolving the media and storytelling landscape through its proprietaryinnovative technology, creating new ways to interact and communicate with each other and the world through user-led, voice activated interactive conversational video technology. StoryFiles mobile native cloud-based automatic AI-driven interactive conversational video platform creates an individualized and curated historical and living narrative. StoryFile leverages AI to enhance a natural conversation with the video captured on any device. StoryFile offers in-studio and remote legacy capture experiences, a beta-version of the StoryFile App on the app store, and [soon] a StoryFile Life version for users to create their personal full length StoryFiles using their own devices. To learn more, visit http://www.StoryFile.com.

About the American Heart Association:Children are the future in a world where cardiovascular diseases claim more lives each year than all forms of cancer combined. The American Heart Association is a relentless force dedicated to saving and improving every childs life. Its vision is that all children, regardless of gender, race, location or economic status, should be able grow to their full potential. The American Heart Association is laser-focused on enabling our children to build a world free from heart disease and stroke, working to improve environments where kids live, learn and play, and arming them with information, advocating for healthy environments and encouraging healthy habits. To learn more, visit http://www.heart.org.

About Red Sled Santa Foundation: For many years, the Red Sled Santa Foundation has made the holidays special for children. The Foundation provides programs, services, fun and educational holiday gifts, and essential needs for low income, special needs, medically challenged and terminally ill children so they experience a memorable and meaningful loving holiday. The Foundation accomplishes this mission through fundraising efforts, gifts from generous donors, and support from local merchants for our annual Fill the Sleigh Toy Drive. To learn more, visit http://www.redsledfoundation.org.

Go here to see the original:

Virtual Santa Uses Real AI to Talk to Children Around the World - GlobeNewswire

Zencity raises $13.5 million to help cities aggregate community feedback with AI and big data – VentureBeat

Posted on by

Zencity, a platform that meshes AI with big data to give municipalities insights and aggregated feedback from local communities, has raised $13.5 million from a slew of notable backers, including lead investor TLV Partners, Microsofts VC arm M12, and Salesforce Ventures. Founded in 2015, Israel-based Zencity had previously raised around $8 million, including a $6 million tranche nearly two years ago. With its latest cash injection, the company will build out new strategic partnerships and expand its market presence.

Gathering data through traditional means, such as surveys or Town Hall meetings, can be a slow and time-consuming process and fails to factor in evolving sentiment. Zencity enables local governments and city planners to extract meaningful data from a range of unstructured data sources including social networks, news websites, and even telephone hotlines to figure out what topics and concerns are on local residents minds all in real time.

Zencity uses AI to sort and classify data from across channels to identify key topics and trends, from opinions on proposed traffic measures to complaints about sidewalk maintenance or pretty much anything else that impacts a community.

Above: Zencity platform in use

Zencity said it has seen an increase in demand during the pandemic, with 90% of its clients engaging on a weekly basis, and even on weekends.

Since COVID-19, not only have we seen an increase in usage but in demand as well, cofounder and CEO Eyal Feder-Levy told VentureBeat. Zencity has signed over 40 new local governments, reaffirming our role in supporting local governments crisis management and response efforts.

Among these new partnerships are government agencies in Austin, Texas; Long Beach, California; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. A number of municipalities also launched COVID-19 programs using the Zencity platform, including the city of Meriden in Connecticut, which used Zencity data to optimize communications around social distancing in local parks. Officials discovered negative sentiment around the use of drones to monitor crowds in parks and noticed that communications from the mayors official channels got the most engagement from residents.

Elsewhere, government officials in Fontana, California used Zencity to assess locals opinions on lockdown restrictions and regulations.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, providing real-time resident feedback for local governments was core to Zencitys AI-based solution, Feder-Levy continued. And now, as local governments continue to battle the pandemic and undertake the task of economic recovery, Zencitys platform has proven pivotal in their crisis response and management efforts.

Go here to read the rest:

Zencity raises $13.5 million to help cities aggregate community feedback with AI and big data - VentureBeat

Artificial intelligence reduces the user experience, and that’s a good thing – ZDNet

Posted on by

When it comes to designing user experiences with our systems, the less, the better. We're overwhelmed, to put it mildly, with demands and stimuli. There are millions of apps, applications and websites begging for our attention, and once we have a particular app, application and website up, we still are bombarded by links and choices. Every day, every hour, every minute, it's a firehose.

AI winnows a firehose of choices down to a gently flowing fountain

Artificial intelligence is offering relief on this front. User experience, driven by AI, may help winnow down a firehose of choices and information needed at the moment down to a gently flowing fountain. And application and systems designers are sitting up and taking notice.

That's the word from Jol van Bodegraven, product designer at Adyen, along with other UX design experts, authors of a series of ebooks that delve into how AI will impact UX design, and how to design meaningful experiences in an era with AI-driven products and services. "Surrounded by misconceptions and questions regarding its purpose and power, apart from its known ethical and philosophical challenges, AI can be the catalyst for great user experiences," he observes.

In the first work of the series, Bodegraven, along with Chris Duffey, head of AI strategy and innovation at Adobe, introduces how AI affects design processes and the importance of data in delivering meaningful user experiences. For example, AI can "function as an assistant," helping with research, collecting data or more creative tasks. AI also serves as a curator, absorbing data "to determine the best personal experience per individual." AI can help design systems, as it is adept at "uncovering patterns and creating new ones. More and more companies are trusting AI to take care of their design systems to keep them more consistent for users."

With this in mind, the authors make the following recommendations for making the most of AI in designing and delivering a superior UX:

Design for minimal input, maximum outcome. "We get bombarded with notifications, stimuli, and expectations which we all need to manage somehow," Bodegraven and Duffey state. "AI can solve this problem by doing the legwork for us. Think of delimited tasks which can be easily outsourced. Challenge yourself to solve significant user problems with minimal input expected from them."

Design for trust. "it is important that we design for trust by being transparent in what we know about the user and how we're going to use it. If possible, users should be in control and able to modify their data if needed."

Humanize experiences. "Looking at recent findings from Google who studied how people interacted with Google Home, one thing stood out. Users were interacting with it as if it were human. Users said for example 'thanks' or 'sorry' after a voice-command. People can relate more to devices if they have a character. "

Design for less choice.That's right, reduce user choices. "The current high performing, and overly noisy world leaves very little room for users to be in the moment," Bodegraven and Duffey state. "Design for less choice by removing unnecessary decisions. This creates headspace for users and can even result in the appearance of things we hadn't thought of."

The quality of UX will make or break the success of an application or system, regardless of how many advanced features and functions are built within. Simplicity is the path to success when it comes to application design, and AI can bring about that simpicity.

Read more:

Artificial intelligence reduces the user experience, and that's a good thing - ZDNet

Patra and expert.ai Announce Strategic Partnership to Improve Policy Review and Bring Advanced AI-based Natural Language Understanding Solutions to…

Posted on by

Patra and expert.ai are bringing a proven leader in AI to the insurance industry to solve real-world challenges.

Ensuring accurate language understanding at speed and scale,expert.ai enables global organizations to leverage its mature and proven AI-based natural language (NL) platform to automate the reading, understanding, and extraction of meaningful data from structured and unstructured text to augment and expand insights for every process that involves language. By integrating expert.ai's cutting edge AI capabilities, Patra improves quality, reduces friction, and drives out inefficiencies in the process of manually reviewing and cross-validating dozens to hundreds of pages of text for any given policy. These capabilities facilitate a deeper understanding of data, enabling previously out-of-reach insights due to the vast and complex nature of language semantics.

In working together, both companies are satisfying the growing demands in the insurance industry of leveraging advanced natural language and ML capabilities to address challenges in policy checking risk exposure. With close to 80% of the information within the insurance industry being unstructured data, intelligent automation based on human-like understanding is a critical factor for competitive advantage, as it increases capacity, reducing inefficiencies and high-risk vulnerabilities. By applying the power of artificial intelligence to policy checking, Patra is providing agencies, wholesalers, MGAs, and carriers a better understanding of their book of business and helping them understand pricing behaviors and coverage dynamics by risk appetite. These capabilities will unleash a new generation of opportunities, including proactive notifications versus reactive discoveries.

"With expert.ai, Patra is unlocking the ability for clients to be alerted of policy inaccuracies, reduce E&O exposures, drive cost savings, create additional value for our services, and push the limits of today's technology," said John Simpson, CEO and Founder of Patra. "Policy Checking has been one of the insurance industry's biggest challenges for decades. Now, with expert.ai and the formation of the InsureConneXtions Alliance, Patra has brought to market a proven leader in artificial intelligence, in addition to partnering with innovators in insurance industry to solve challenges that apply to every policy issued. Policy Checking is just the first of many services we are addressing."

"We're honored to join forces with Patra, an innovation leader in insurance services, in delivering the next generation of AI technology for policy checking and review.And we see this as just the first step in working together to power language understanding in any application or process across the insurance value chain," said Walt Mayo, CEO of expert.ai."The combination of expert.ai's long history of industry-best AI natural language understanding, and Patra's deep process expertise and customer focus creates an incredibly strong foundation for addressing real-world challenges in the insurance industry."

About PatraPatra is a leading provider of technology-enabled services to the insurance industry. Patra's global experts' team allows brokers, MGAs, wholesalers, and carriers to capture the Patra Advantage profitable growth and organizational value. Patra powers insurance processes by optimizing the application of people and technology, supporting insurance organizations as they sell, deliver, and manage policies and customers. Patra is also a founding member of the InsurConneXtions Alliance,representing leaders across insurance technology, brokerage, wholesale, and specialty insurance, representing over $50 Billion in Insurance premiums.

For more information, visitpatracorp.comor follow us @Patracorp onTwitterandLinkedIn.

About expert.aiExpert.ai is the premier artificial intelligence platform for language understanding. Its unique hybrid approach to NL combines symbolic human-like comprehension and machine learning to transform language-intensive processes into practical knowledge, providing the insight required to improve decision making throughout organizations. By offering a full range of on-premise, private, and public cloud offerings, expert.ai augments business operations, accelerates, and scales data science capabilities, and simplifies AI adoption across a vast range of industries, including Insurance, Banking & Finance, Publishing & Media, Defense & Intelligence, Life Science & Pharma, Oil Gas & Energy, and more. The expert.ai brand is owned by Expert System (EXSY:MIL), that has cemented itself at the forefront of natural language solutions, and serves global businesses such as AXA XL, Zurich Insurance Group, Generali, Bloomberg INDG, BNP Paribas, Rabobank, Dow Jones, Gannett, and EBSCO.

For more information visitwww.expert.aiand follow us onTwitterandLinkedIn.

SOURCE Patra Corporation; expert.ai

http://www.patracorp.com

Read more:

Patra and expert.ai Announce Strategic Partnership to Improve Policy Review and Bring Advanced AI-based Natural Language Understanding Solutions to...

Rev. William Barber: How loud is free speech permitted to be? – The Progressive Pulse

Posted on by

Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II

[Editors note: Recently the North Carolina Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of the national civil rights leader, the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, of his conviction for trespassing that resulted from a 2017 demonstration at the state Legislative Building. Today, in response to the courts decision, Rev. Barber returned to the Legislative Building to offer the following remarks.]

Even though the highest court wont hear us, we must continue to ask, What is the decibel level of free speech? And who determines whether the authorities are disturbed and protestors have to cease their protest in a public building?

On the day of our arrest, I asked the officer that question: How loud can we be? The basic answer was, Somebody says its disturbing them. The Constitution says freedom of speech and of the press are two of the great bulwarks of liberty and therefore shall never be restrained.

The officers that day said they did not know how loud free speech could be so we asked the court to decide. In essence, we were arrested because someone said our message bothered them. The answer to the question of what was allowable was never answered. None of the work of the General Assembly suffered that day, but the rights of the people did. The people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the General Assembly for redress of grievances; but secret political societies are dangerous to the liberties of a free people and shall not be tolerated, according to the Constitution.

Our aim was to remind our representatives that all political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

I wear arrest as a badge of honor.

If Im charged and convicted for nonviolently standing with the least of these, its an honor.

I, along with other people of faith, are required by the love espoused in our faith to challenge the governments of nations to care for the least of these. The prophets of old told us to say, Woe unto those who legislate evil and rob the poor of their rights and make women and children their prey. Even our Constitution calls us to remind those who hold political power that beneficent provision for the poor, the unfortunate, and the orphan is one of the first duties of a civilized and a Christian state.

If I am charged with using my preaching voice to demand Medicaid expansion for thousands of poor and low-wage workers while Republican legislators block it, or if Im charged for standing with others to speak out for poor and low wage people to make a minimum living of $15 an hour, I will always fight for the right to stand for voting rights, immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, womens rights, and even the free speech rights of my opponents. Im neither perfect nor always right, but as a gospel preacher and a bishop of the church, Im supposed to preach in season and out of season. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is good news to the poor.

The Bible tells me to raise my voice with others like a trumpet. If it means Im charged and eventually have to spend time with others in prison, its a small price to pay. I cannot remain silent while Gods children suffer for no reason other than the poor choices of our elected officials.

Read the original here:

Rev. William Barber: How loud is free speech permitted to be? - The Progressive Pulse

Weve not had free speech in 20 years. But thats changing… – The US Sun

Posted on by

MORE than three-fifths of UK women dont say what they are thinking on sensitive issues because they are scared they might get into trouble.

The figure for men is only slightly lower, at 52 per cent.

7

The majority of the population, then, holding its tongue. Watching its Ps and Qs.

The things they think they cant express without censure concern stuff like immigration.

But also suggesting that ethnic minority people have life just the same as the rest of us.

And that someone born with a whopping great todger is a man, end of story.

This poll, conducted by YouGov, came out towards the end of last year.

We pride ourselves in this country of having freedom of speech.

But that hasnt been true for at least two decades. Its a thing of the past, like Toast Toppers and the hula hoop.

When a bloke can receive a visit from the coppers and be told to watch his thinking for having retweeted a joke about transgendering, you know were in BIG trouble.

Likewise when the radical Left tries to silence brilliant speakers, such as the feminist Germaine Greer or the veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

Meanwhile, the students are busy cancelling our entire history on account of slavery.

Suggest that Islam has been implicated in one or two terrorist attacks and youll be accused of Islamophobia and may get a visit from Plod. Even though its demonstrably true.

Freedom of speech has been under sustained attack for a long while now. And the Government has done nothing about it.

I would like to think that is about to change, as a consequence of the Queens Speech this week.

A new Bill of Rights is due to be introduced in the next month or so to replace the Human Rights Act.

And the Government has promised that the right to voice your opinions, regardless of if they offend some melting snowflake, will supposedly be the crucial part of this bill.

The Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab said: I feel very strongly that the parameters of free speech and democratic debate are being whittled away, whether by the privacy issue or whether its wokery and political correctness.

I worry about those parameters of free speech being narrowed.Well, sure, Dom and about time too.

The Left argues that silencing people is simply a means of preventing minorities from feeling a bit upset.

But I think they are a little more resilient than the social justice warriors like to make out.

In fact, that is not the reason for our politically correct cancel culture.

The real reason is that the Left wants to close down debate on subjects where its policies simply dont add up.

They are terrified rightly that the vast majority of people in the country simply dont agree with them. Just as that YouGov opinion poll proved.

Punishing people who state uncomfortable truths means far fewer people actually say them. They keep schtum.

But the silencing of debate also breeds resentment and rancour: You cant say THAT any more!

And it attacks the entire basis of our democracy: The right to freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

I just hope this bill goes far enough. I hope it abolishes the concept of non-criminal hate crime, for a start.

I hope it forces universities to realise that a minority of the perpetually offended cannot stop outside speakers from addressing those who want to hear them.

Its been a long time coming, this bill.

But at least the Government recognises there is a real problem a very big problem.

And is committed to doing something about it.

YAY! The Social Democratic Partys Wayne Dixon swept into office on a landslide in Leeds last week.

Evicting Labour for the first time in history.

7

The dim-witted Labour candidate wouldnt even shake his hand.

Ha, who cares? It just goes to show that if people think the two main parties can be beaten, voters will turn out.

Were the party that knows what a woman is, and doesnt want all our statues thrown in the river.

Well done Wayne and if you get a chance, look at the YouTube video of his wife jumping for joy at the election result.

Its a hoot.

DO you remember the days when flying was...well, if not great fun, at least easy to do and efficient?

What the hell has happened?

7

We have queues a mile long at our airports.

Some of this is the consequence of Covid, of course.

Too many people are still taking weeks off work with this ineffectual illness.

But the threat of terrorism has also made taking a flight a real pain in the neck.

And then theres the exorbitant cost, occasioned by huge fuel prices.

And always the chance that some unwashed XR hippy div will try to shame you for going on an aeroplane at all.

Think Ill be spending the summer here in Blighty.

These days, foreign travel is just not worth the effort.

King Charles

WELL, he managed to open Parliament without cocking it up.

He walked in a kingly manner through the lobby without stopping to talk to any plants on the way.

He managed to read the Queens Speech.

Without inserting any mental bits about how we should all try homeopathy.

He didnt pass wind or do that annoying wringing of his hands thing he sometimes does.

Maybe Charlie will make a decent King, then.

The last King Charles we had was one of our better monarchs.

I KNOW hes a surfer dude vegan who likes sickly soft rock.

But theres something likeable about our Eurovision contestant Sam Ryder.

7

And hes got a decent voice and a decent tune.

I daresay well come last again, because everybody (except for Ukraine) hates us.

In fact, if Ukraine doesnt win by a mile Ill eat my own fingers.

But at least this time I wont have to hide behind the sofa in shame as usual when the UKs entrant is on.

AND so...Sir Keir Starmer is revealed as being even more weaselly and deceitful than the Prime Minister.

Which takes some doing, frankly.

7

This is the man who demanded more and more Covid restrictions.

Nothing was enough for him. Hed have had us all chained up in the garden shed if hed had his way.

And he demanded the Prime Minister MUST resign when it was revealed Boris Johnson was being investigated by the Old Bill.

But he will not resign himself when being investigated by the Old Bill.

Hell only resign if he gets a fixed penalty notice.

Which the Durham coppers have said they will not do retrospectively.

The nerve of the bloke is gobsmacking.

And never has a petard been hoisted higher.

WHATS wrong with a chipolata? You can get quite big chipolatas.

Id be delighted if some babe said my old fella resembled a tasty and satisfying sausage.

7

All I get instead is references to button mushrooms and, on one occasion, a Midget Gem.

You can hold your head up, Peter Andre.

At least it wasnt a Peperami.

Teacher assessment

THIS is a time of great and frantic worry in the Liddle household.

My daughter is doing her GCSEs. So shes a bit... yknow...STRESSY.

And she asked at one stage: What exactly is the point of these exams?

And do you know, I wonder the same myself.

Tony Blairs son, Euan, has just called for GCSEs to be scrapped. I think hes right.

At 16, the kids should be assessed by their teachers.

Leave the serious exams until A-levels come along.

It would certainly make for a happier house up here.

ISNT it kind of French president Emmanuel Macron to suggest we can join a European alliance?

This would be a politically integrated (his words) trading alliance of European countries.

7

Does the description remind you of anything? The man is deluded.

Whyja think we got out in the first place?

Try to govern your own basket-case country and mind your own business.

Oh, and leave our fish alone.

See the rest here:

Weve not had free speech in 20 years. But thats changing... - The US Sun

Saving Academic Freedom From Free Speech – The Chronicle of Higher Education

Posted on by

We expect a great deal of criticism of our new book, Its Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom, but we were taken aback by Jeffrey Aaron Snyders misconstrual of its main argument. If you go by Snyder, weve written a deeply flawed book attacking three racists that is bound to get attention because of its bold thesis. Snyder positions himself, in his essays in these pages, as a defender of free speech against left overreach and the excesses of diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, and he has also written a notable entry in the free speech is threatened by both sides subgenre. Articles like those can help fuel exaggerated perceptions of campus politics, but we do not begrudge him this territory. Its just not our territory. We are not interested in saving free speech: We are interested in saving academic freedom from free speech. Its Not Free Speech explains how academic freedom differs from free speech and why that difference is of great importance in the era of what Richard Hasen calls cheap speech.

At one point, Snyder invokes the authoritarian legislation sweeping the country and snarkily suggests that our time would have been better spent mobilizing resistance to that even though much of Chapter 4, Whos Afraid of Critical Race Theory Today?, is devoted to explaining those attacks and their origins. (As it happens, Jennifer does spend her time promoting the African American Policy Forums campaign against those bills.) But the real issue is that Snyder does not grasp the main point of the book. Its Not Free Speech is an argument against the bills and the right-wing movement behind them (calling them a perfect, and perfectly hideous, example of intellectual authoritarianism), precisely because it insists that academic freedom is the collective responsibility of faculty members in their disciplines. It is not something politicians can interfere with without destroying the role of the university in a democratic society (as Jennifer has argued in these pages). Central to the book is the belief that academic-freedom cases must be placed in the hands of faculty peers, not administrators vulnerable to outside political pressures or the courts with their wildly uneven record on academic freedom.

So the issue here is not just a misrepresentation here and a misconstrual there. There is something more important at stake: a real disagreement about the relation of academic freedom to free speech.

But as for those misrepresentations: the most serious concerns Snyders claim that we would rule out of bounds any debate about Brown v. Board of Education. This claim rests on a sloppy reading of two sentences in chapter four: Some things are not worthy of entertaining as if we could pretend they were bloodless. Whether Brown v. Board of Education should have happened is one. The phrase should have happened comes from a Princeton undergraduate, Brittani Telfair, who was arguing that some debates do not make symmetric asks. Black people who have to argue, again and again, against the premises of segregation and Jim Crow are not in a symmetric relation to people whose forebears never experienced segregation and Jim Crow. This is an important and, we hope, by now elementary point about the difference between free speech in theory and free speech in practice. Brittney Cooper made it brilliantly back in 2017 in these pages. Snyder implies that by the logic of our book the kinds of arguments made by Derrick Bell regarding how Black children might conceivably have been better off under Plessy v. Ferguson or by Gloria Ladson-Billings on the price paid for Brown v. Board would be off limits. This strikes us as absurd, and we think will strike careful readers of the book as absurd as well.

Snyder missed that point by focusing on the phrase not worthy of entertaining and ignoring as if we could pretend they were bloodless. He also ignores our citation of our Black colleagues Carolyn Rouse and Mark James, who, in the pages that lead up to those two sentences, explain that debating the virtues of segregation or the benefits of colonialism puts Black people in the position of having to take seriously the belief that racism is and always has been justified and having to pretend that the question is bloodless. Of course debate about Brown v. Board is legitimate. The only ideas were proposing to exclude or to put in the dustbin alongside phrenology and phlogiston are the white supremacist ones that provided the foundations for Jim Crow, for eugenics, and for the Holocaust.

But then, Snyder takes things out of context, while cleverly accusing us of taking things out of context. He writes: The authors refer to legions of racist professors and the entrenched, unshakeable beliefs of the white-supremacist professoriate. Snyder does not explain that the phrase refers to the historians of the Dunning School, who devoted their careers to arguing that Reconstruction failed because Black people are incapable of self-government, and that the second phrase was delivered in the context of a discussion of Gregory Christainsen, now retired from California State University-East Bay, a race realist who taught students that there are measurable differences in the intelligence of various races; that these differences are captured in IQ scores; and that they are attributable to genetics rather than to social variables. Anyone familiar with the legacy of pseudoscientific racism would know that these beliefs are indeed entrenched and unshakeable. (Christainsens field? Economics.) His university ignored student complaints about his courses, as readers of our book will learn. We do not think that the professoriate is packed with Klan members; we do think that there are some zombie ideas that keep making a comeback despite their being repeatedly discredited.

James Yang for The Chronicle

It is fitting, somehow, that when Snyder baselessly accuses us of taking a professors words out of context, the professor in question is the notorious Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania. Snyder objects to our calling Wax a white supremacist: The authors evidence consists of two excerpts, largely stripped of context, from a speech that Wax gave at the 2019 National Conservatism conference. In that speech, which we discuss in detail, Wax promoted a cultural distance nationalism whose premise is that we are better off if our country is dominated numerically, demographically, politically, at least in fact if not formally, by people from the First World, from the West, than by people from countries that had failed to advance or, more succinctly, our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites. Snyder writes, Without seeking additional information beyond what they have presented, I am not sure how many people would feel qualified to judge whether Wax is a white supremacist. I dont. But when someone says that white people are better (more civilized, more advanced) than nonwhite people, that is literally white supremacism. We cant imagine what else to call it. (Fortunately, The Chronicle provided a link to Waxs speech in Snyders essay, so curious readers can read her remarks for themselves.)

This disagreement about Wax brings us to another fundamental misrepresentation in Snyders review: the implication that we are the ones calling these shots or ruling anything out of court. We explicitly say that we are not. We are calling for what the American Association of University Professors has long considered best practice: a deliberative process, with authority distributed among a horizontal panel of peers in the relevant fields. Too many cases today, we argue, are decided without such a process and, importantly, this includes the adjunct instructor who can simply not be rehired to appease complaining students, parents, or donors. We think academic-freedom committees can do a better job adjudicating the controversies that pop up almost daily than can an individual provost, a series of tweets, or arguments made in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Free speech as a slogan once served dissenting voices and struggles (the Berkeley Free Speech Movement was about the right to protest the Vietnam War on campus), but thats not how it typically functions today. In the public sphere, it facilitates hate speech and conspiracy theories. Most important, the widespread conflation of free speech and academic freedom makes it incredibly difficult for universities to do their jobs, which is to discriminate between high-quality speech (which refers to disciplinary expertise and is protected by academic freedom) and low-quality speech (which refers to ungrounded opinion).

The First Amendment doesnt demand or expect that speech be responsible or informed in any way, but academic speech speech with a claim to expertise does. That distinction is critical. When commentators ritualistically frame every academic disagreement in terms of free speech, they blur an essential distinction and facilitate the movement by which self-interested and partisan forces actively undermine democracy.

The contribution of Its Not Free Speech is not so much to recognize that content-free ideals like free speech work differently at different times on playing fields that have never been even; many people understand this better than we do. (We turn to the philosopher Charles W. Mills for help with this). Our contribution is, we hope, to think about what these insights about content-free ideals, cheap speech, and who makes judgment calls in the academic arena now mean for how we realize academic freedom. Of course, we are not the only ones trying to think this through. A growing body of work analyzes the relationship of power to academic freedom: We are thinking, for example, of Steven Salaitas Uncivil Rites; Johnny E. Williamss article The Academic Freedom Double Standard: Freedom for Courtiers, Suppression for Critical Scholars in the AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom; and Reshmi-Dutt Ballerstadt and Kakali Bhattacharyas collection, Civility, Free Speech, and Academic Freedom in Higher Education.

We welcome spirited discussion of Its Not Free Speech. We hope, though, that it will be discussion aimed at addressing some of the serious problems we face in academe and in democracy.

Original post:

Saving Academic Freedom From Free Speech - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Missouri AG targets Biden, Big Tech in free speech lawsuit: Taking on the biggest, most corrupt institutions – Fox Business

Posted on by

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt argues the government's alleged collusion with Big Tech to violate the First Amendment 'needs to stop.'

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt slammed the Biden administration for allegedly colluding with Big Tech to censor free speech, arguing his lawsuit will take on big government and Big Tech, "two of the biggest, most corrupt institutions that are out there."

ERIC SCHMITT: The government can't violate the First Amendment by suppressing speech, and the government can't outsource that also to the Big Tech partners. And that's what we're alleging in this lawsuit. And we're taking on two of the biggest, most corrupt institutions that are out there, big government and Big Tech

FCC COMMISSIONER SAYS BIDENS 'DISINFORMATION BOARD' IS 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL'

First, they hold over these special protections that big tech has, principally section 230, which makes them immune from typical liability because they're not considered a publisher. So they hold that over, the left does, unless they censor more.

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt discusses the Biden administration's alleged collusion with Big Tech during "Varney & Co." on May 9, 2022. (Fox News)

MUSK HOPES TO BUILD BRAND TRUST THROUGH FREE SPEECH, TRANSPARENCY WHICH 'BIG TECH NEEDS': FMR PARLER CEO

The second way they do it is the direct collusion that we see now and Jen Psaki in press conferences has told us with her own words that they're working directly with Facebook to flag, quote unquote, disinformation. And this has played itself out on a number of different fronts, whether it was the laptop from hell, election integrity issues, certainly during COVID with the origins of COVID and then with the efficacy of masks. So those are just a few examples. But in this lawsuit, we're essentially alleging that they're violating the First Amendment, and they're doing it with their big tech partners, and it needs to stop.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW BELOW:

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt discusses his lawsuit against the Biden administration and top officials for allegedly colluding with Big Tech to censor free speech.

Go here to see the original:

Missouri AG targets Biden, Big Tech in free speech lawsuit: Taking on the biggest, most corrupt institutions - Fox Business

Twitter and free speech | Opinion | dailyitem.com – Sunbury Daily Item

Posted on by

Much is made of Elon Musk taking over complete control of the online platform Twitter in the next three to six months. Musk has made no secret of his disdain for some of Twitters moderation policies. Presently Twitters stated priorities are facilitating safe, inclusive, and authentic conversations and minimizing the distribution and reach of harmful or misleading information, especially when its intent is to disrupt a civic process or cause offline harm. Efforts to roll back Twitters recent policies could lead to an uptick in disinformation, extremist content, harassment, and hate speech that the company has tried to crack down on for years.

Many Republicans meaning Trump followers are happy because they see Musk opening Twitter to absolute freedom of speech. Also celebrating the takeover of Twitter are white supremacist groups and conspiracists that see a way to return to the platform. Twitter may also be reopened to Trump who was banned as a threat to democracy after Jan. 6. Trump says he wont return to Twitter and, of course, his followers know he always tells the truth. (Putin would be happy with the further deterioration of our democracy with the spread of hate and division that an unfettered Twitter would offer.)

All of us defend freedom of speech. But freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to restrictions. Categories of speech that the First Amendment does not protect include incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. That is the way the courts interpret free speech.

Companies like Twitter, however, set their own rules for speech as to what is acceptable. In a few months Musk will make those decisions. Hopefully he allows opinion based on truth and facts and wont allow it to be a platform to further spread more hate and division. We have too much of that already.

Jack Strausser,

Elysburg

Go here to read the rest:

Twitter and free speech | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

We need free speech on Florida campuses and critical thinking in the classroom | Column – Tampa Bay Times

Posted on by

Last month, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law HB 7, formally titled the Individual Freedom measure, which bans educators from teaching certain topics related to race and prevents them from making students feel guilt or shame about their race because of historical events. In addition, by April more than 1,500 books primarily dealing with race and LGBTQ issues had been banned in U.S. school districts over the previous nine months. These measures have been described as a rightwing censorship effort unparalleled in its intensity.

Behind these efforts to cancel progressive views lies the mistaken belief that campuses have become laboratories for political indoctrination. As DeSantis stated after signing the repressive legislation: We believe in education, not indoctrination. Yet, the governor and the Republican Party fail to provide significant evidence of such indoctrination.

Many commentators, for example, have noted that Critical Race Theory, a primary right-wing target for cancellation, is actually not taught in public schools and rarely mentioned in colleges. During my 30 years of college teaching, I personally never witnessed professors pushing political indoctrination from the left or the right in the classroom. The Republican Partys highly political attack on public and higher education in America creates confusion and discord and does not solve any actual problems.

It is crucial to clarify the distinction between the campus as a public space as different from the classroom as a space for teaching. Princeton Professor Wendy Brown notes that the classroom is a space where were not talking left wing or right wing but offering the learning that students need to be able to come to their own positions and judgments. In other words, the classroom is centered on academic freedom and the development of critical thinking. The professor through his or her selection of course materials and lesson plans establish the agenda and the direction of the discussion. All views are welcome that contribute to the topic, but the direction and objectives of the course are set by the teacher.

In contrast, the campus is a public space where free speech should be the norm. Neither governors, legislators, administrators or professors have the right to impose their political biases on the campus community. At all the colleges I have taught, speakers from the left and right were consistently encouraged to participate in the civic life of the campus.

The Republican Party attacks on public and college education have blurred this important distinction between academic freedom in the classroom and free speech on campus. Perhaps an example from my experience can demonstrate the importance of academic freedom in the classroom and the dangers of the current repressive political measures adopted by the state of Florida.

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Want more of our free, weekly newslettersinyourinbox? Letsgetstarted.

For many years at Eckerd College, I was honored to give the opening lecture on the liberal arts to all of our new first-year students. I consistently began this lecture with a reading of Langston Hughes brilliant poem Let America Be America Again. Through his poetry, Langston Hughes reminds us of the hope and dream of America. He cries out: O, let my land be a land where Liberty is crowned where equality is in the air we breathe. Let it be the dream it used to be.

While presenting pleasing patriotic images of America, Hughes makes us question these images. Hughes writes: There never has been equality for me, Nor freedom in this homeland of the free. I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart, I am the Negro bearing slaverys scars. I am the red man driven from the land.

These lines remind us of the atrocities, such as the violence of slavery, that are also America. And yet, Hughes ends on an optimistic truly American note, the idea of hope. He hopes that America can be all the things it was expected to be. He will not give up on the idea of the American Dream. He wants America to be better. I told the students that Langston Hughes represented the best of the liberal scholar seeking the truth, writing clearly, persuasively and movingly on the major ethical issues of his time racism and discrimination. Langston Hughes helps students more deeply appreciate the struggle for true freedom in America.

Unfortunately, a few right-wing alumni and parents posted angry notes on social media denouncing this lecture. In their eyes, Langston Hughes was desecrating America and my lecture was left-wing political indoctrination, which made white students feel bad. They sought to cancel one of the most celebrated African-American writers from the curriculum and destroy academic freedom in the classroom. The new Florida law will further empower these individuals with political agendas to more effectively pursue their dangerous goals.

It is also unfortunate that these critics didnt take the time to actually examine the content of this course. In addition to Langston Hughes, the students were also engaged with the works of conservative thinkers, including theologian C.S. Lewis and philosopher Ayn Rand. We were trying to get students to think critically about all of these important thinkers and decide for themselves what to think. This can only happen in an atmosphere of engagement, active learning and open discussion of all points of view the opposite of political indoctrination. The Republican Partys outrage machine is more interested in canceling leftist views, stoking controversy and scoring political points than in protecting free speech and academic freedom.

William F. Felice, professor emeritus of political science at Eckerd College, was the named the 2006 Florida Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. He can be reached via his website at williamfelice.com.

Read more from the original source:

We need free speech on Florida campuses and critical thinking in the classroom | Column - Tampa Bay Times

Bill Maher Rails on People and Media that Want to Censor Free Speech – TMZ

Posted on by

Bill Maher delivered a scorching attack on the movement in the U.S. to censor what we say ... and gotta say, it may be his best commentary in a long time.

The "Real Time" host declared his position from the jump -- "Sorting out lies from truth is your job," adding it's ridiculous we treat everyone like "helpless dumb blondes ready to believe everything ... like Donald Trump!"

He makes the point ... people living today aren't special -- as he says, every age is the misinformation age. He harkens back to 1858, when the New York Times worried Americans couldn't handle the transatlantic telegraph because it was "superficial and too fast for the truth."

Go back even further, Bill says, to 1487, when the Pope cautioned against the misuse of the printing press, saying it was the source of pernicious writing -- hmmm, sounds like fake news.

And, then there's radio ... in 1938, some listeners freaked out listening to Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds," believing the Martians invaded New Jersey.

As Bill says, lies are everywhere ... like germs. He says you can't germproof the world, so develop a better bull*** meter.

And, then he makes a brilliant point ... "Sometimes misinformation is history's first draft" -- like the stories that circulated about COVID -- that 50% of those who are unvaccinated become hospitalized when it's less than 1%.

To drive home the point, he notes lots of folks believe in "an imaginary best friend in the sky who they can talk to to help them with their problems." Bill asks if there should be a warning label on that.

He's all for banning things like child porn, calls for insurrection, personal threats, etc, but people should be able to express their opinions even if they are repugnant. And, deciding whether something is true, half-true, a quarter true or false ... well that's our job, not the job of some publisher.

In sum, Bill says people have the right to be assholes and express ridiculous opinions. That's called free speech. That's called democracy -- it's as messy as it is precious.

Read more:

Bill Maher Rails on People and Media that Want to Censor Free Speech - TMZ

Free speech and trivial lawsuits – The Whittier Daily News

Posted on by

Everyone knows that the Constitution protects free speech under the First Amendment.

But many may not realize that the First Amendment also protects commercial speech, such as advertisements. Even though the level of protection afforded to commercial speech is less than that given to other kinds of speech, especially political speech, businesses still have rights about what they say.

The First Amendment is also implicated when laws require labeling for commercial enterprises. For example, it is entirely legal for government to require fast food businesses to post the calorie count on the products they serve to the public. There are innumerable other examples of required disclosures, such as gas mileage and safety ratings for automobiles and whether a newly constructed home is subject to Mello-Roos taxes.

One infamous example of forced speech in California was imposed via Proposition 65, passed by voters in 1986. Commercial enterprises are required to post warning labels that their products or place of business may contain substances known to cause cancer. But Prop. 65 warnings are so ubiquitous in California that they have become meaningless. They are found on everything from bread to potato chips to chocolate chip cookies. In California, it appears, everything causes cancer.

But a recent court ruling over acrylamide, a naturally occurring substance that is formed in the process of baking goods, may have reined in the absurdity of Prop. 65 warnings just a bit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because scientific evidence couldnt come to a single conclusion over whether acrylamide in food and beverages can cause cancer in humans, the Prop. 65 warning signs for these products were likely misleading.

Turns out that government itself was violating truth in advertising laws.

But perhaps the greater benefit from the ruling has to do with inhibiting nuisance lawsuits that cost businesses millions of dollars. Thats because Prop. 65 has a private right of action provision allowing attorneys to sue businesses on behalf of the state. Prop. 65 essentially deputizes private trial lawyers to search for evidence of noncompliance.

The elimination of the misleading Prop. 65 warning for acrylamide might be a welcome step in reducing false or unproven claims that confuse consumers and cause adverse market effects. This not only would help businesses but also consumers who end up paying more for goods and services when businesses face shakedown lawsuits.

Lawsuit abuse is a huge problem for California and has resulted in the state having the worst rating in the nation from the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation as a Judicial Hellhole. Prop. 65 lawsuits are a major reason for that dubious designation since they can result in fines of up to $2,500 per day, not to mention the costs for their own attorneys as well as those of the plaintiff. Given that there are approximately 900 chemicals on the Proposition 65 list, the law presents a great temptation for unscrupulous lawyers looking to make a fast buck.

But Californians are waking up to the absurdity of Prop. 65.

A few years ago there was a push to put a Prop. 65 warning on coffee, again because of the presence of acrylamide. But the blowback from the public, as well as ridicule from late-night TV hosts, may have been a factor in a legal victory for sanity.

Were all for transparency. But Prop. 65 has long outlived its usefulness in providing consumers with reliable information. In fact, it has done just the opposite.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Read the rest here:

Free speech and trivial lawsuits - The Whittier Daily News

OPINION: Shutting Down Free Speech and Alternate Views – News Of The Area

Posted on by

DEAR News Of The Area,

I WOULD like to comment about things to do with the coming election.

I have been getting together with a small group and making banners to save koalas.

We put banners up last Saturday and they were gone shortly after dark.

One banner took three people many hours to paint, then hand stitch the loop for the bamboo rod top and bottom.

They have also taken many A4 posters off community notice boards and three Climate Action Now posters were removed.

Talking with a ranger he advised they had a call from the Greens as twenty roadside posters had been removed.

The loss is one thing but for us it is more disappointing that we have people in our community that do not want free speech and want to stop alternate views.

These are people who do not want action on climate change, do not want an ethical Government and a fair, decent and democratic Australia.

Regards,Colin HUTTON,Thora.

Read the rest here:

OPINION: Shutting Down Free Speech and Alternate Views - News Of The Area

At a Time when Voting Rights, Reproductive Rights, and Free Speech are Threatened, DR. RITA FIERRO Ph.D. Evaluates History and Explores the Systems…

Posted on by

Dr. Rita began writing just before George Floyd was killed; its publication date, 5/24/2022, falls on the eve of the second anniversary of his death

The book is designed to rewire our understanding of systemic racism and offer a practical approach to dismantling oppression

LOS ANGELES, May 11, 2022 /PRNewswire/ --Dr. Rita Sinorita Fierro, Ph.D. is a white woman with dual Italian/American citizenship who has studied systemic racism for 30 years, across four continents. Dr. Rita channels this wealth of experience and academics into her powerful new book, Digging Up the Seeds of white Supremacy (Collective Power Media), to be released May 24, 2022 the eve of the second anniversary of George Floyd's death.

A coach and healing professional, she interweaves memoir with a robust discourse on race and culture to bridge the gap between the construct of racism and the practice of self-healing. Dr. Rita's narrative is grounded in historical fact; she adds illustrations to visualize her message, personal practice notes, and "How To" guidelines to help readers embody antiracism.

Created via iPad, Dr. Rita's drawingswere conceptualized as graphic recordings to assist readers in digesting complex issues, further support visual learners, and pictorialize 500+ years of history across 10 systems. The tree image "The Whole System: Roots to Branches" functions as an infographic for the book's thematic flow: the System with a capital "S," which brings all the single systems with a lower-case "s" together.

Dr. Rita says that when we act from fear, we're upholding "the System." The progressive, liberal side of our culture continues to accumulate evidence of injustices but we have not found our way to diffuse them. Analysis has led to paralysis. How do we use such evidence not to confirm what we already know, but to transform the racist systems that drive society to change the world for the better, for everyone?

In the "Personal Practice" section of the chapter "Building Collective Power," she writes,

Later, she writes, "We must stop accepting that inequality, inequity, and injustice are normal and inevitable. We must engage in collective intellectual imagination about what it looks like to meet the needs of all."

At a time when misinformation is rampant, distrust of "the other" is epidemic, and rights are threatened daily, this book could not be timelier. Dr. Rita hopes that by following its lead, people can build collective power and co-create new seeds together "an exercise in replacing fear with love."

About the author:Dr. Rita Fierro Ph.D. is an intellectual artist, author, speaker, and radio host. For 30 years, she has studied systemic racism. Combining a coaching approach with evaluative thinking, she leads a consulting firm that assesses projects, social inequities, and provides processes that illuminate complexity for businesses, foundations, non-profits, NGOs, and the United Nations. Dr. Rita has a Ph.D. in African-American studies from Temple University in Philadelphia, PA, and a masters in Sociology from the University of Rome, Italy. She co-founded Home for Good Coalition so as to transform systemic racism by placing the voices of people who were traumatized by systems at the center of its work. Born in New York City, she lived in her family's ancestral town in Italy from age 10 until her college years. Dr. Rita comes from a long line of traditional healers, and she is both a Reiki and family constellation practitioner.

Dropbox: images, excerpts, illustrations, etc: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r01yt4fa62ki8es/AAACXujVS2Avf9F-aT0Npaaia?dl=0

Dr. Rita interviewed for Life Her podcasthttps://youtu.be/PK0JnCDncTA - Discussing:The Bridge Between Systematic Racism and Healing

Medium articles by Dr. Rita:https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/being-white-in-racial-healing-work-7057d4024ad7https://medium.com/@ritasfierro/white-people-aint-free-7ac633c875a9

Digging up the Seeds of white SupremacyISBN 978-0-5783786-3-3 (Hardcover)ISBN 979-8-9858796-0-5 (Kindle)ISBN 979-8-9858796-2-9 (Audio book)ISBN 979-8-9858796-3-6 (Large-print hardcover)ISBN 979-8-9858796-1-2 (paperback)https://www.amazon.com/Rita-Sinorita-Fierro/e/B09ZXT9FFWhttps://www.drritawrites.com/

Contact: Laura Grover: [emailprotected] or 310-994-1690

SOURCE Dr. Rita Sinorita Fierro, Ph.D.

See the original post here:

At a Time when Voting Rights, Reproductive Rights, and Free Speech are Threatened, DR. RITA FIERRO Ph.D. Evaluates History and Explores the Systems...

Helping Amber Heard Was Just the Start of the ACLU’s Problems – The Atlantic

Posted on by

Updated at 2:40 p.m. ET on May 11, 2022

The lurid spectacle that is Johnny Depps $50 million defamation lawsuit against his ex-wife Amber Heard hasnt just tarnished his star and hers with allegations that he beat her and violated her with a bottle or that she severed part of his finger and emptied her bowels in the marital bed. (Both deny wrongdoing, and Heard has countersued for $100 million.) Amid this grotesquerie, it might be possible to overlook the bizarre involvement of the ACLU. But the civil-rights organizations cringeworthy role deserves closer scrutiny because of its centrality to the case, and because it exemplifies the degree to which the ACLU has lost its way in recent years.

The heart of Depps claim is that Heard ruined his acting career when she published a 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post describing herself as a public figure representing domestic abusea thinly veiled reference to much-publicized accusations of assault she made against Depp in court filings toward the end of their short-lived marriage. But Heard hadnt pitched the idea to the Postthe ACLU had. Terence Dougherty, the organizations general counsel, testified via video deposition that after Heard promised to donate $3.5 million to the organization, the ACLU named her an ambassador on womens rights with a focus on gender-based violence. The ACLU had also spearheaded the effort to place the op-ed, and served as Heards ghostwriter. When Heard failed to pay up, Dougherty said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce. (The ACLU denies that it would ever request or solicit donations in exchange for ambassadorships or op-eds.)

The ACLUs bestowal of an ambassadorship and scribe-for-hire services upon a scandal-plagued actor willing to pay seven figures to transform herself into a victims advocate and advance her acting careerHeard pushed for a publication date that coincided with the release of her film Aquamanis part of the groups continuing decline. Once a bastion of free speech and high-minded ideals, the ACLU has become in many respects a caricature of its former self.

Conor Friedersdorf: The ACLU declines to defend civil rights

Over the organizations 100-year history, the ACLUs unique value has been its apolitical willingness to stand up for all speech, regardless of the speakers identity, and to stand up for those accused, no matter what the accusation. This content-neutral, take-all-comers stance is based on the premise that the silencing of one side will inevitably lead to a collective hush irreconcilable with the free marketplace of ideas and the commitment to due process that are the hallmarks of our democracy. Doing this often-unpopular work turns on the belief that having an informed and independent-minded citizenry requires the ability to countenance, analyze, and, yes, at times defend opposing points of view.

In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a community populated by Holocaust survivors. But in 2018, following the ACLUs successful litigation to obtain a permit for white supremacists to march in Charlottesville, Virginia, which ended in death and disaster, the ACLU issued new guidelines. Citing concerns about limited resources and the potential effect on marginalized groups, the organization cautioned its lawyers to take special care when considering whether to represent groups whose values are contrary to our values.

By our values, the ACLU was referring to the progressive causes it has championed with fervor and great fundraising success since the election of Donald Trump: immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and racial justice. Should its lawyers decide to take on a client espousing opposing views, the organization instructed them to engage in a public campaign denouncing those views in press statements, op-eds, social media, and other available fora, and participating in counter-protests. How, exactly, loudly disavowing their clients is consistent with lawyers duty to zealously represent them was not explained. Speaking as a criminal-defense lawyer, I dont think it can be.

I dont look to the ACLU to affirm my beliefs or those of my allies. On the contrary, I look to the ACLU to defend everyone, including my ideological enemies. To do that work, it cannot be beholden to any political party or ideology. Yet in 2018, the ACLU spent $800,000 on a campaign ad for Stacey Abrams during her run for governor in Georgia and $1 million in an attack-ad campaign against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. When the Trump administration proposed in 2018 a new regulatory scheme for schools to follow in Title IX campus-sexual-assault cases that offered more protections to students defending themselves against these allegations, the ACLU responded in an angry tweet thread: It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused. (The following year, the ACLU declared its support for new Title IX regulations fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, [and] access to all the evidence, but it has never taken down the tweets or walked them back.)

Conor Friedersdorf: The ACLU should keep representing deplorables

The ACLU now seems largely unable or unwilling to uphold its core values. To be fair, the organization still goes to bat for some causes that are associated with conservatives and free-speech absolutists, including the right to bear arms, of anti-Semites to protest, and of parochial schools to discriminate in hiring based on religion. And yet since Trumps election, according to The New York Times, the organizations annual budget has grown threefold and its lawyer staff has doubledbut only four of its attorneys specialize in free-speech issues, a number that has not changed in a decade. Instead, the ACLU has expanded its servicesand filled its coffersas it takes partisan stances or embraces dubious causes. Meanwhile, when it comes to the red-hot culture-war issues squarely within its wheelhouse, such as the right to free, albeit hateful, speech on campus, the ACLU has stayed largely on the sidelines.

Progressive causes are near and dear to my heart. I am a feminist and staunch Democrat. As a federal public defender turned law professor, I have spent my career trying to make change in a criminal legal system that is riven with racism and fundamentally unfair to those without status and financial resources. Yet, as someone who understands firsthand that the fundamental rights to free speech and due process exist only as long as competent lawyers are willing to vigorously defend extreme positions and people, I view the ACLUs hard-left turn with alarm. It smacks of intolerance and choosing sides, precisely what a civil-liberties organization designed to defend the Bill of Rights is meant to oppose.

I used to be a proud card-carrying member of the ACLU. Today, when its fundraising mailers and pleas to reenroll arrive in my mailbox, I toss them in the recycling.

This article has been updated to clarify the details of Terence Dougherty's testimony.

More:

Helping Amber Heard Was Just the Start of the ACLU's Problems - The Atlantic

It’s time to recommit to civil discourse and free speech – University of Denver Magazine

Posted on by

Were living, learning and teaching in a time when our relationship with discourse and debate is increasingly fraught. Everywhere, including in higher education, there is increased hesitancy and, sometimes, a complete inability to engage with perspectives, opinions or ideas different from our own. At the same time, a flood of disinformation causes widespread confusion and distrust. Together, these challenges undermine our future. This isnt only higher educations problem, but it is incumbent on us to help solve it, as it threatens our democracy, communities and well-being.

Unfettered, evidence-based intellectual inquiry is at the very heart of what we do as a university. Our highest goals are to prepare our students to thrive and to expand humanitys knowledge of itself and our universe. And that universe is not getting any simpler. We fail our students if we dont help them hone the skills to successfully encounter complexity, difference and thorny, complicated problems.

Free speech, civil discourse, civil education, diversity of ideas, pluralism, engaged listeninga wealth of terminology describes these issues, but terminology should not be our focus. What is most urgent is that we actively engage in respectful discussion and learning with complex, different and diverse ideas. At the University of Denver, we are taking on this work by being explicit about what we hope to achieve.

Most important, we want everyone in our community to feel free to express themselvesand to uphold that same freedom for others. Discussions, no matter how divided or tense, must remain respectful, evidence-based and guided by the shared goal of seeking greater understanding. In our classrooms and everywhere on campus, we seek to model the myriad skills needed for civil discourse: respect, empathy, inclusivity, kindness, and an openness to learn and engage across difference. And we provide opportunities for our students to sharpen those skills. Our biggest challenge, but one to which we are fervently committed, is to provide balance and symmetry, considering voices from all walks of life, including those with very different experiences, because doing so adds to the richness of our community and gives our students the deepest education possible.

As we work to provide and affirm these values, we avoid pitfalls that undermine or distort our mission. By engaging in diverse ideas and perspectives, the University as an institution does not elevate or favor a particular way of thinking or ideology. We welcome respectful protests and disagreements. Indeed, they are important forms of expression. As the community encourages engagement with difference, the goal is not agreement or consensus, but learning and understanding. Disagreement is important and perhaps even essential.

This work is rife with nuance, but that is why it is vital that we commit to it wholly. Our students need these skills if they are going to be the leaders, thinkers, doers and creators that society needs. Difference is inevitable. Its also important. Education itself is based on encountering new information, new ideas and being powerfully changed by it.

We have work to do, but no one is better able to do it than we are.

See the original post:

It's time to recommit to civil discourse and free speech - University of Denver Magazine