Charles Koch and Brian Hooks: Believe in People – Reason

Over the past 50-plus years, Charles Koch grew his family business, Koch Industries, into one of the largest privately held companies in America. At the same time, he played a leading role in creating or supporting the modern libertarian movement and some of its major institutions. Among them: The Cato Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Mercatus Center, and the Charles Koch Foundation, a nonprofit that supports many organizations, including Reason Foundation, which is the publisher of Reason magazine. Along with his brother David, a longtime trustee of the Reason Foundation who passed away last year at the age of 79, the 85-year-old billionaire became not only one of the most successful businessmen in the country but also one of the most controversial, with leftists blaming "the Koch brothers" for many of our contemporary problems.

Koch has just published Believe in People, a book that seeks to "offer a paradigm shift [that] calls for all of us to move away from the top-down approach to solving the really big problems" by instead "empowering people from the bottom up to act on their unique gifts and contribute to the lives of others."

In a conversation with Koch and his co-author, Brian Hooks, who is the chairman and CEO of Stand Together and the president of the Charles Koch Foundation, Reason's Nick Gillespie discusses the 2020 election, the successes and failures of the libertarian movement, and what Koch and Hooks see as the defining challenges and opportunities in the coming decade.

For a video version of this interview, go here.

Read more from the original source:

Charles Koch and Brian Hooks: Believe in People - Reason

Pennsylvania certifies Biden as winner of presidential vote – WXII The Triad

Video above: Giuliani argues to block Biden win in PennsylvaniaDemocrat Joe Biden was certified Tuesday as winner of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, culminating three weeks of vote counting and a string of failed legal challenges by President Donald Trump.Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf first disclosed in a tweet that the Department of State had certified the vote count for president and vice president.Wolf sent a certificate of ascertainment to the national archivist Washington with the slate of electors who support President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.Pennsylvania's 20 electors, a mix of elected Democrats, party activists and other staunch Biden backers, will meet in the state Capitol on Dec. 14.One of them, state Democratic Party chair Nancy Patton Mills, said she will also lead the Electoral Colleges meeting in Harrisburg next month.Patton Mills said she was gratified that Pennsylvania was the state that made it possible for Biden to win.Bidens win in the state, giving him its haul of 20 electoral votes, put him over the 270 needed and led The Associated Press to declare him the president-elect four days after Election Day. Biden has collected 306 overall electoral votes to Trump's 232.The Pennsylvania results show Biden and Harris with 3.46 million votes, Trump and Vice President Mike Pence with 3.38 million, and Libertarian Jo Jorgensen with 79,000.Democratic Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, in a news release, called the states election officials and poll workers the true heroes of our democracy.We are tremendously grateful to all 67 counties who have been working extremely long hours to ensure that every qualified voters vote is counted safely and securely, Boockvar said.Trump made Pennsylvania a centerpiece of his unsuccessful legal attempts to invalidate the election results, launching legal attacks on vote counting rules and county election procedures.A federal judge on Saturday dealt a serious blow to the Trump campaigns legal efforts by dismissing a lawsuit that he said lacked evidence and offered strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations.The federal government on Monday recognized Biden as the "apparent winner of the national presidential contest.

Video above: Giuliani argues to block Biden win in Pennsylvania

Democrat Joe Biden was certified Tuesday as winner of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, culminating three weeks of vote counting and a string of failed legal challenges by President Donald Trump.

Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf first disclosed in a tweet that the Department of State had certified the vote count for president and vice president.

Wolf sent a certificate of ascertainment to the national archivist Washington with the slate of electors who support President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.

Pennsylvania's 20 electors, a mix of elected Democrats, party activists and other staunch Biden backers, will meet in the state Capitol on Dec. 14.

One of them, state Democratic Party chair Nancy Patton Mills, said she will also lead the Electoral Colleges meeting in Harrisburg next month.

Patton Mills said she was gratified that Pennsylvania was the state that made it possible for Biden to win.

Bidens win in the state, giving him its haul of 20 electoral votes, put him over the 270 needed and led The Associated Press to declare him the president-elect four days after Election Day. Biden has collected 306 overall electoral votes to Trump's 232.

The Pennsylvania results show Biden and Harris with 3.46 million votes, Trump and Vice President Mike Pence with 3.38 million, and Libertarian Jo Jorgensen with 79,000.

Democratic Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, in a news release, called the states election officials and poll workers the true heroes of our democracy.

We are tremendously grateful to all 67 counties who have been working extremely long hours to ensure that every qualified voters vote is counted safely and securely, Boockvar said.

Trump made Pennsylvania a centerpiece of his unsuccessful legal attempts to invalidate the election results, launching legal attacks on vote counting rules and county election procedures.

A federal judge on Saturday dealt a serious blow to the Trump campaigns legal efforts by dismissing a lawsuit that he said lacked evidence and offered strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations.

The federal government on Monday recognized Biden as the "apparent winner of the national presidential contest.

Go here to read the rest:

Pennsylvania certifies Biden as winner of presidential vote - WXII The Triad

Elon Musk imagines Martian cities beneath glass domes, at least until the terraforming takes – SYFY WIRE

Tesla Motors CEO and SpaceX founder Elon Musk is mesmerized by Mars, and envisions mankind as a multi-planetary species whose ultimate future lies beyond theBig Blue Marble that we currently all call home.

SpaceX's Starship transportation system has been designed to eventuallylaunch each of its reusable Starship rockets on missions an average ofthree times per day, with everysleek shiploaded with a100-ton payload perflight.A fleet of1,000 Starships would forseeably be capable of sending up to 100,000 people to Mars every Earth-Mars orbital synch, or every 26 months.

In Musk's vision, food for aself-sustaining Martian city would be cultivatedon solar-powered hydroponic farms, bothunderground and inenclosed structures, and jobs would be plentifulin the settlement's"outdoorsy, fun atmosphere,"as heonce told Popular Mechanics.

To that end, he intends on blasting the first SpaceX rocket to Mars by 2022 on a cargo-only mission, before a crewed excursion is attempted sometime around the year 2024.

But before a true civilization can flourish under the harsh Red Planet's conditions, safe accommodations and protection for the initial round of scientists, biologists, and engineers must be installed well before Musk's ultimate goal of colonizing Mars with one million people by 2050.

In a series of Mars-related tweets this week, the visionary billionaire explained what early, baby steps would be needed to realize his dream, and it includes living within the relative comfort of giant glass domes.

The idea of a permanent, self-sustaining base of operations is essential for Musk's lofty plans to come to fruition generations from now.

Using a wild idea Musk tossed out back in 2015, the overwhelming notion of terraforming Mars would needthousands of nuclear warheads launched once a day for seven weeks straight. This would supposedly affect the polar caps and ultimately boost the planet's atmospheric pressure to levels that allow humans to breathe, melting Mars' ice to free carbon dioxide, which would be contained in the resulting greenhouses gases.

The problem, as calculated out by mathematician Robert Walker last year, is that those exploding minisuns would emit enough devastating radiation to make the Red Planet an uninhabitable,Fallout-like wasteland. Even if it succeeded, it would only raise Mars atmospheric pressure to seven percent of Earths.

Thank you, but let's just stick with a Martian landscape of glittering glass domes instead!

Read this article:

Elon Musk imagines Martian cities beneath glass domes, at least until the terraforming takes - SYFY WIRE

This AI-enabled Mars exploration rover is as adorable as WALL-E! – Yanko Design

Inhabitating a planet other than Earth is the next frontier for humankind, and were inching closer to that elusive dream, thanks to the rapid developments in science and technology. Already NASA has conducted unmanned missions on the Red Planet, and visionaries like Elon Musk already have their eyes set on colonizing Mars by 2050. This elusive dream has ignited the imagination of many who envision the future scenario, wherein, humans will rule the Red Planet.

This advanced rover christened Robonetica Explorer 1.0 is the culmination of the intuitive design thinkers AltSpace, Dmitry Lebedko, Dmitry Egorov, Oleg Butov, Yaroslav Goglev, Rashid Tagirov and Timur Mullya. The concept zeros-in on the importance of AI in the not so distant future. In fact, the Robonetica Explorer 1.0 is an AI and robotics platform envisioned by these young minds giving us a glimpse of what things could be like 4-5 decades in the future. Looking like an amalgam of the raw WALL-E robot and the sophisticated EVE (Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator) the swift robot will scout the planets surface for explorations missions. It has a fully movable head with advanced cameras and sensors presumably to look for signs of life. To conquer the harshest of terrains, Robonetica Explorer 1.0 has six robust wheels mounted on individual suspensions.

The rover is a window into the future for sure and the team has designed it to be more like an interactive being than an autonomous robot. Perhaps, an advanced AI-enabled being that has feelings just like WALL-E!

Designer: AltSpace for Robonetica

See the rest here:

This AI-enabled Mars exploration rover is as adorable as WALL-E! - Yanko Design

First Arab space probe set to reach Mars orbit on February 2021 – HeraldScotland

The Hope probe illustrates the United Arab Emiratess drive to become a major global space player

Today we announce the exact date of the arrival to Mars, tweeted Sheikh Mohammed, Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of Dubai, on November 8.

The ambitious Emirati leader was talking about the Hope probe, the first Arab interplanetary mission to Mars, now well on track to reach the Red Planets orbit on February 9, 2021 at 7.42pm (UAE time).

Click here

The fact that the UAE will be one of the very few nations to reach Marss orbit will probably come as a surprise to many. Indeed, despite its historical contributions to science (starting with algebra, trigonometry, and astronomy), the modern Middle East is not the part of the world most associated with scientific breakthroughs, let alone space exploration.

Yet, in barely six years, the small, oil-rich Gulf country has quietly put itself on the space exploration map, harnessing close collaborations with universities and space agencies around the world.

Historical passion for space

Although the UAE was founded less than 50 years ago, it quickly put its impressive financial resources to good use, developing massive infrastructure projects, diversifying its economy, and investing in groundbreaking technologies that allowed it to soon become one of the worlds innovation hubs.

Space, and Mars exploration in particular, plays a key in this innovation-centric strategy, but it also has a deeply-rooted emotional value for Emiratis. Early on, it fascinated the countrys beloved Founding Father, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, who met with astronauts from several Apollo missions in the 1970s and cherished the fragment of moon rock that American president Nixon offered him in 1973.

But if its no wonder, really, that this commitment to space carried on over the years, it actually started to materialize in 2006, when the UAE government initiated knowledge transfer programs via the newly-established Emirates Institution for Advanced Science and Technology (EIAST).

Thrusters on

EIAST, now the Mohammed bin Rashid Space Centre, developed a three-step approach intended to give the UAE the full capabilities, knowledge, and facilities it needed to develop advanced satellite missions by Emirati scientists and engineers on its own soil.

In less than ten years, it launched three ever more sophisticated Earth observationsatellites, the latest of which, dubbed KhalifaSat after the UAE President, left Earth in 2018 and was the first fully Emirati-designed, built, and tested spacecraft. Equipped with a state-of-the-art camera that captures and beams detailed imagery of the Earth, the remote sensingobservationsatellite should help tackle a range of global issues, from climate change and disaster relief to urban planning.

Meanwhile, the UAE Space Agency, founded in 2014 to develop the countrys very own space program, established a $27 million Space Research Centre that serves as an incubator for space research, development, and innovation. Most importantly, it also signed a flurry of cooperation agreements with, among others, theFrench Centre National d'tudes Spatiales, theUK Space Agency, and NASA.

These agreements are what allowed one of the countrys most symbolic achievements to materialize: sending a UAE national to space. In 2019, Hazzaa Al Mansoori made history by becoming the first Emirati to leave Earth a feat achieved by only two other Arab nationals, Prince Sultan Bin Salman Abdulaziz Al Saud from Saudi Arabia and Muhammed Faris from Syria, in the 1980s.

The then 35-year-old former pilot was chosen from the thousands of candidates who had answered Sheikh Mohammeds Twitter call for young Emiratis to join the UAE Astronaut Program in 2017. A whopping 4,000 people, including one third of women, had applied. Al Mansoori joined the International Space Station (ISS) on a short eight-day mission during which, among other things, he conducted experiments created by UAE school students.

Only getting started

Then, on June 20, 2020, the Hope probe launched from Japans Tanegashima Space Centre. Since, it has covered more than half of its seven-month, 480-million km journey to Mars. There, it will spend a Martian year (almost two Earth years) building the first holistic study of the Martian climate and trying to identify the reasons why the planets atmosphere erodes. This data will be shared freely with scientific and academic organizations around the world.

The fact that Hopes entry in Marss orbit will coincide with the countrys golden jubilee next year holds significant symbolic value for a country set on driving global innovation and scientific progress.

After all, the UAEs brand promise is Impossible is Possible and the Emirate has made significant investments to make these dreams come true: by end of 2017, it had poured more than $6 billion in its space sector and announced last September that more funds would be added, with an eye on moon exploration and the first fully Arab mission to space by 2024.

However, nothing illustrates better the UAEs space ambitions than its plan to establish the first self-sustaining habitable settlement on Mars by 2117. The country will even start researching space agriculture and how to grow climate-resistant palm trees on Mars in particular at the soon-to-be-established, $135 million Mars Science City. The center, covering 176,000 sqm in the desert outside of Dubai, will be fully dedicated to studying Mars colonization; architects of Bjarke Ingels Group have already designed an intriguing prototype.

See here

Clearly, no one can accuse the UAE of lacking vision, but a 2017 Sheikh Mohammed tweet summarizes the countrys posture perfectly: Mars 2117 is a seed we are sowing today to reap the fruit of new generations led by a passion for science and advancing human knowledge.

Continue reading here:

First Arab space probe set to reach Mars orbit on February 2021 - HeraldScotland

Mars mission: Elon Musk says first settlers on Red Planet will live in glass domes – EconoTimes

One of the goals when it comes to the upcoming Mars missions is to colonize the neighboring planet. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk recently stated that those who would become the first settlers on the red planet would have to live in glass domes.

Musk has already been planning for potential colonization of the neighboring planet as space agencies are already preparing for the upcoming Mars missions. Musk shared on Twitter that because of the lack of atmosphere on Mars, the first people who will settle there will be temporarily residing in glass domes. However, before the first settlers arrive on Mars, the red planet will have to be terraformed as soon as possible. Terraforming refers to transforming a planet to make its conditions similar to Earths which would make it habitable for humans.

Life in glass domes at first. Eventually, terraformed to support life, like Earth, tweeted Musk. Terraforming will be too slow to be relevant in our lifetime. However, we can establish a human base in our lifetime. At least a future spacefaring civilization -- discovering our ruins -- will be impressed humans got that far.

Musk previously shared that a way to terraform Mars is through the use of thermonuclear explosives in its polar regions. These regions are where the most carbon dioxide on the planet is stored. This would result in carbon dioxide getting released into the atmosphere to thicken it, and making the planet warm enough to sustain liquid water. However, the SpaceX CEO already warned of the dangers of being among the first people to set foot on Mars.

Musk previously stated that being able to make the trip to Mars, more so get to work on establishing a base on Mars is not for the faint of heart. Musk warned that the first travelers to Mars may die in the midst of an attempt to put up a base.

Meanwhile, NASAs Perseverance Rover is currently on its way to the Red Planet and will touch down on the Martian surface next year. But even as it is on its way at the moment, the agency has recorded the sounds of space as the Rover makes its way to Mars. The agency has since released the recordings of space sounds on its SoundCloud, where a faint humming noise could be heard.

Read the original post:

Mars mission: Elon Musk says first settlers on Red Planet will live in glass domes - EconoTimes

Japan Startup Aims to Colonize the Moon – AkihabaraNews

Akihabara News (Japan) The Tokyo-based start-up ispace Inc. is taking further steps in an attempt to realize its vision of beginning the human colonization of the Moon within just a few years.

In its latest move, ispace opened this month a new office in Denver, Colorado, utilizing part of the approximately US$125 million that it has so far been able to raise in investment in its decade-long history.

The Japanese firm recently announced the appointment of Kyle Acierno as the CEO of its US branch and hired Kursten ONeill, who had seven years experience at SpaceX, as its US lander program director.

Upon the opening of the Denver office, ONeill stated, I truly believe exploring the Moon, Mars, and beyond is our destiny as a human race; the uniting factor to further our presence among the stars. By joining ispace to lead our US lander mission to the Moon, Im excited to bring together the best and brightest to innovate, create, and inspire an even larger shift in aerospace advancement and exploration.

Company founder and CEO Takeshi Hakamada added, We are very pleased to begin active operations in the United States, which is spearheading the global momentum toward lunar exploration. We believe we can provide value to the United States by complementing the deep US-Japan collaboration on lunar exploration as a commercial services provider operating in both countries.

ispace has opened its office in Denver mainly to more closely cooperate with its US partners, especially the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and its Commercial Lunar Payload Services program.

That program aims to begin deliveries of cargo to the Moon, setting the stage for astronauts to start landing in 2024.

Currently, ispace is completing the lander design for its Mission 1 and expects to start assembling and testing it early next year.

Three years ago, ispace produced a video outlining its 2040 Vision of a Moon colony with a thousand inhabitants. It can be viewed below.

Read the original:

Japan Startup Aims to Colonize the Moon - AkihabaraNews

Partnership beyond the horizon – Kitsap Sun

Larry Little, Columnist Published 4:57 p.m. PT Nov. 20, 2020

As a teenager and young adult, I watched with dismay as rockets exploded one after another on the launch pads of Cape Canaveral, and then rejoiced with the successful launches of the Mercury through Apollo programs. Later, my wife and I cheered the first moon landing in July of 1969, watching on our black and white television, and after subsequent missions, the last moon landing, Apollo 17, in December of 1972.

However, my cheers were muted throughout the Space Shuttle years. I viewed the shuttle as a regressive choice, lacking a truly challenging objective to inspire the country with the notable, albeit limited, exception of the un-manned Mars probes.

Now I am cheering once again. Space Xs success with their Falcon 9 rocket launching four astronauts to the space station last Sunday was a triumph of private initiative and a private-public partnership. Congratulations Elon Musk for your success, and especially for your tenacity pushing through your own set of failures to todays potentially defining moment for the future exploration and colonization of space.

I have another early memory. After the national agony of seeing the Soviets place Yuri Gagarin in orbit in April of 1961 and the creation of the Berlin Wall beginning in August of 1961, a speech given by President Kennedy on September 12, 1962 began to change what was then our nations somber, and to some degree depressing cold-war tone a tone only slightly elevated by the three-orbit flight of John Glenn about seven month before that speech.

In that speech Kennedy spoke honestly. We have had our failures.To be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time. While his spoken words qualified his statement to only be referring to our being behind in manned flight, it is my memory that we got the broader message that the Soviets were then seemingly eating our lunch, and not just in space.

To a large degree today we are once again playing catch up to a rapidly emerging and hostile power. China, having likely given us the virus, is now on a path to proverbially eat our lunch economically and perhaps militarily. Luckily we are waking up to the threat, whether it be the significant strategic partnerships I saw nearly twenty years ago in West Africa, or those today a lot closer to home Latin America and the Caribbean most especially in Venezuela.

Nothing indirectly signals our upcoming threat more clearly than the comments of the head of a third countrys space organization especially if it is Russia. As reported in an article in CNBC on July 15, 2020, the head of the Russian space organization, Dmitry Rogozin, said in rejecting working with the United States on NASAs Artemis moon program that Russia and China intend to lead the development of a lunar scientific base. The article noted that Rogozin said that China is a deserving partner for his country. While there is likely much posturing involved, the essence is a signal of a broad shift in power towards China--not just in space. That should be of concern to all Americans.

Kennedys September 1962 speech gives us a pathway out of what could be our long-term demise.

Again, he is honest. We chose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills.

That sounds like the drive of Elon Musk in partnership with NASA; and another recent success, the Operation Warp Speed group of pharmaceutical companies in partnership with the federal government, under the leadership of Vice President Pence. The announcement of an above 90% Covid-19 success rate by two companies vaccine trials is obviously extremely welcomed.

Both partnerships have been successful so far, and are great models.

While I have multiple fingers crossed while I write this--perhaps such partnerships can be a model for unity in addressing future national and even international aspirationsin space and elsewhere.

Like Kennedy said long ago, it will not be easy. He noted that, William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.

While we have much that divides us, the best of our energies and skills, can unite us and meet the challenges.

Mars beckons!

Speaking of uniting us in a divided world, I want to thank all those who have expressed an interest in reestablishing the Independent Thinkers discussion group. Because of some particularly challenging personal issues at the moment, I will be in contact concerning that matter after the first of the year.

Happy Thanksgiving via Zoom!

Contact Larry Little at larrylittle46@gmail.com.

Larry Little(Photo: Kitsap Sun)

Read or Share this story: https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/columnists/2020/11/20/larry-little-partnership-beyond-horizon/6352213002/

Read this article:

Partnership beyond the horizon - Kitsap Sun

Conversation on Free Speech and Inequality Between Prof. Nelson Tebbe (Cornell) and Me – Reason

It's from last month, but I inadvertently neglected to blog it when it was first put up on YouTube. Here it is, brought to you be the University of Texas Law School's Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center:

Here's the UT summary:

Free Speech and Economic Justice: A Conversation with Law Professors Nelson Tebbe and Eugene Volokh

Join Professors Nelson Tebbe (Cornell Law) and Eugene Volokh (UCLA Law) for a conversation regarding how and whether current applications of free speech doctrines affect disparities in income, wealth, and other goods; whether those applications should be altered; and the disagreements and controversies arising from some of the proposed changes.

Moderated by Texas Law Professor Steven Collis, this promises to be a spiritedbut friendly!dive into one of the most important issues of our time.

It was indeed both spirited and friendly; I hope you find it to also be interesting!

View post:

Conversation on Free Speech and Inequality Between Prof. Nelson Tebbe (Cornell) and Me - Reason

TTUs Sumner named to new national task force on campus free speech expression – KLBK | KAMC | EverythingLubbock.com

by: News Release & Posted By Staff | newsweb@everythinglubbock.com

Carol Sumner(Photo provided by TTU)

LUBBOCK, Texas (NEWS RELEASE) The following is a news release from Texas Tech University:

Carol A. Sumner, chief diversity officer and vice president ofTexas Tech UniversitysDivision of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, has been named to a new national task force that will focus on free speech expression in higher education. TheAcademic Leaders Task Force on Campus Free Expressionhas been launched by theBipartisan Policy Center(BPC) to identify practices, programs and policies that foster robust campus cultures.

The task force led by former Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, CEO of Challenge Seattle, and former Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, Middlebury College executive in residence includes a diverse group of university presidents, professors, administrators and civic leaders with distinguished records of creating strategies to strengthen open exchange and tolerance at a wide range of higher education institutions.

Free speech is the hallmark, the bedrock of who we are in terms of culture; its the thought that we dont have to agree to share our perspective, Sumner said. It is through our ability to converse and share our perspectives that we truly learn. You cannot empathize with others if you are not exposed to experiences that are different from your own or you do not have the opportunity to share your own experiences.

Sumner said she first learned about the task force after her involvement in other BPC events on free speech and discourse on racial issues in higher education. Colleges and universities are searching for ways to create meaningful free-expression strategies that suit a changing higher education landscape while staying true to their institutions unique mission and their commitments to diversity and inclusion. Those who wish to create such an approach can lack a reliable roadmap for doing so.

One of the goals is to create a resource kit or manual that includes certain steps on ways to look at free speech and how to ensure it is a practice that continues on our campuses, Sumner said.

The task force will look at several issues including:

Higher education institutions have a special role in Americas democracy, preparing the next generation for civic leadership and principled debate, said BPC President Jason Grumet. Our democracy cannot succeed if we accept the false premise that free expression is somehow at odds with cultural diversity, inclusion and individual well-being.

The other members of the task force are:

This is going to bring together leaders from across education who have the scale and scope of experiences that allow us to see the topic of free speech from different perspectives, Sumner said. My goal is to contribute as much as I get out of the experience. It is through our shared knowledge that we can help create a set of resources that will benefit not just those on our campuses, but those who are in the communities where our institutions are located.

BPC will host thefirst panel event on the task forcefrom noon to 1 p.m. Dec. 1.Those interested in attending may RSVP online.

(News release from Texas Tech University)

Visit link:

TTUs Sumner named to new national task force on campus free speech expression - KLBK | KAMC | EverythingLubbock.com

Free speech stops at the boundary of giving offence to religion: Shanmugam – The Straits Times

We have all seen, and the spate of attacks in France and Austria tells us, that the threat of terrorism hasn't gone away.

French teacher Samuel Paty's head was cut off by an 18-year-old Chechen teenager. He had shown his classroom students, when they were discussing freedom of speech, cartoons that were put out by Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine.

French President Emmanuel Macron issued a statement paying tribute to Mr Paty and defending the right in France to publish such cartoons. He made a very strong speech, covering many different aspects.

That speech then got a very strong counter-reaction from Muslims around the world, and some described the actions of France as Islamophobic. Jihadists have jumped on it. They've called on followers to attack French interests, and to attack anyone who insults Islam and the way they define as insulting Islam.

As a result, there were follow-up attacks. There were attacks in Nice, Lyon and in Vienna, Austria. It shows that when jihadists make such calls, there are people who will follow, and a few others, and more terror.

We all have said, we all know, jihadists don't represent Islam. You have people like that in every religion who will resort to violence. It is not a problem with any particular religion, but you will always have people like this. The question is how we deal with them.

What has happened in France has restarted the debate on what freedom of expression means, how much you can say, and what is the boundary between free expression and your obligation not to offend someone's religion.

In France, secularism, the French call it laicite, means that the government will not intervene in religious matters or stop publications that attack religions.

Freedom of speech is quite absolute to the extent that it even includes the right to blaspheme, which means you can publish anything that is offensive to any religion.

This didn't happen overnight. If you go back some centuries... to the Middle Ages, the Church was extremely powerful. If a clergyman was walking on the streets and if you didn't kneel and pay homage, you could be whipped, you could be arrested.

But over the centuries, with the Renaissance, with the assertion of nationhood... the balance shifted. Along the way, but not before there were several religious wars between the Protestants and Catholics, and between the kings and the churches, and of course the French Revolution... the principles of separation of state and religion, and the secularity of the state, developed.

Post-World War, that became a stronger principle. At the same time, France, along with some other countries, faced greater immigration post-World War II.

There are two principles worth noting about the French experience. One, the French state, the establishment, assumed that new immigrants will accept the French way of looking at freedom of speech and that they will also accept the French approach to secularity, meaning you could say what you like about any religion and the state will not intervene. They expected that all the new immigrants will accept that.

The government and the state did not engage in any active efforts to integrate the new immigrants, to see how their values can be integrated with the French approach, nor did they look at whether the French approach needed to be reconsidered and recalibrated in the light of the changing population. The French simply assumed that everyone will accept their traditional values.

And laicite meant that the state couldn't actually intervene, or seriously interact with different religions. They left the religions to themselves and they couldn't help bring people together, mould a common viewpoint, while protecting freedom of religion. Something like MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) interacting with RRG (Religious Rehabilitation Group) to promote... unity, to promote a better understanding of religion, would not be acceptable in France, because that means the state is getting involved. But it's very difficult without the state getting involved. The state doesn't tell people what to believe in - that must be for religious leaders - but the state has resources that can be brought in to help, to assist.

What is the result when the state takes a hands-off approach and if we took a hands-off approach? You have publications like Charlie Hebdo, which publish repulsive, highly offensive cartoons and articles on religion, in the name of free speech. And the French expect all religions to accept this.

The French are shaped by their own tradition, their own history. For them, this is new, they don't realise it.

But looking at it as an outsider, some will say that if you insult my religion, I am not going to stand by and say this is your right to free speech. I'm not going to accept that free speech means that you can give offence to my religion.

So France will have to find a way to bridge this gulf between its principles of laicite and freedom, and the expectations and beliefs of its people who don't accept that their religion should be offensively caricatured.

Every now and then, we get debates in Singapore - why is the Government not allowing free speech, why is the Government so protective or so defensive when it comes to race and religion? This is why we are defensive when it comes to race and religion. Because if we take a hands-off approach, then people will say since the Government won't do something, I will do something, and people are going to be upset with one another.

National harmony will be affected and the majority of people will be affected. Some groups will be saying yes, free speech, it's okay, I don't get offended, you can say what you like about the Prophet, the Pope or God. But many other people would feel offended. So that is why we take a different approach.

We take a secular approach, so when the Government looks at policies, we are secular. We don't favour any particular religion and we guarantee freedom of religion. We are secular, France is secular; we guarantee freedom of religion, France guarantees freedom of religion. But how we achieve it is different. France says that it prefers to achieve it by taking a hands-off approach; we are interventionist, we intervene.

Because we take the position, that the right to speak freely goes with the duty to act responsibly, the two must go together.

And, as a secular government, we are neutral in the treatment of all religions. We also do not allow any religion to be attacked or insulted by anybody else, whether majority or minority. Same rules.

We guarantee freedom of religion, the right of every person to practise his or her religious beliefs, and we protect everyone, majority or minority, from any threats, hate speech or violence.

That is the assurance one gets in Singapore. It is also what we need to do to make sure that we preserve racial and religious harmony in Singapore.

Therefore, the Charlie Hebdo types of cartoons will not be allowed in Singapore, whether they are about Catholicism or Protestants or Islam or Hindus. Free speech for us stops at the boundary of giving offence to religion. There is a fence, and that fence protects religious sensitivities.

The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, if they were here, they would have been told to stop. If they didn't stop, ISD (Internal Security Department) would visit them, and they would have been arrested.

We believe that we can build a multi-religious, multiracial society based on trust, and only by taking a firm stance against hate speech, and dealing with all communities equally and fairly.

We have laws designed to ensure racial and religious harmony in Singapore. We update them regularly to make sure that they are relevant and effective as times change.

Many of you might know that we amended the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) last year. One key amendment is that the minister can issue restraining orders to take effect immediately, removing the requirement for a 14-day notice period, because when it was introduced several decades ago, you had to give 14 days' notice. But today, if you give 14 days' notice, it goes around the world several times before 14 minutes are up. With social media and the Internet, a 14-day notice period doesn't work any more.

We've been noticing foreign groups intervening, using religion, not just in Singapore, but in many other countries. We didn't want to wait until that happened here, so we made amendments to the MRHA to say that foreign actors should not be exploiting our religious groups, imposing their values here.

Let Singapore Muslims, Singapore Christians, Singapore Hindus decide for themselves.

You can adapt the religiousbeliefs, but foreigners shouldn't intervene actively in the way wedo it.

Religious groups are now required to report all donations they receive from overseas, and we have rules. It doesn't prevent foreign leadership of our organisations, but we have rules restricting the number of foreigners who can be in committees in charge of religious institutions.

The Government can also issue a restraining order against religious groups to prohibit donations, or change the leadership, if we assess that foreigners are heavily influencing those groups.

In contrast to France, we maintain secularity, we guarantee freedom of religion by putting a limit to free speech. We'll say it cannot be used to attack religion, and actively intervene to put in policies which promote religious harmony.

I'm sharing this because France has been in the news, the French approach has been in the news, and in Singapore, the constant debate is about freedom of speech and the limits. So, we understand why 40 to 50 years ago, our first generation of leaders decided on these principles which are still valid.

Follow this link:

Free speech stops at the boundary of giving offence to religion: Shanmugam - The Straits Times

Cruz ’92 conversation ranges from lighthearted Princeton memories to free speech, the ‘shrill’ left – The Daily Princetonian

In a wide-ranging discussion earlier this week, Senator Ted Cruz 92 (RTX) discussed the 2020 Presidential Election, free speech on college campuses, and his own memories of Princeton.

Afterwards, his remarks drew both praise and rebuke from listeners. While some students criticized what they felt were softball questions, various organizers and attendees who spoke to The Daily Princetonian said they enjoyed the event.

Over 200 students attended the Wednesday-night event, which was hosted by Whig-Clio, College Republicans, and The Princeton Tory, a right-leaning campus publication. It was organized and moderated by Adam Hoffman 23, editor-in-chief of the Tory, president of College Republicans, and a former intern for Cruzs 2016 presidential campaign.

A prevailing topic of discussion was the state of free speech at Princeton and other college campuses.

There was a sense that we could disagree without hating each other, Cruz said of his time as an undergrad at Princeton. I worry at college campuses thats going away that people are afraid to speak out.

When the left tries to silence dissenting views, we should recognize that is a statement of weakness, Cruz continued. The censors are the ones who dont want to engage on the merits or substance.

This was in response to Hoffmans question of whether universities will be a place for open discussion and a hub of debate, or re-education camps of the soft totalitarian left. Hoffman prefaced this by claiming that classics professor Joshua Katz had been canceled by University administration after an op-ed regarding the Black Justice League, a Black student activist organization. He said that the University had shown in their response that unpopular opinions are to be met with top-down consequences.

While University President Christopher Eisgruber 83 told the Prince that he personally and strongly objected to Katzs characterization of the Black Justice League as a terrorist organization, Katz was not disciplined by the University for his comments.

Characterizing the political left as angry and shrill, Cruz encouraged listeners to defend free speech with a smile.

Hearing the questions framing and Cruzs response, Texas resident Kesavan Srivilliputhur 23 disagreed with Cruz and Hoffmans assessment of the left.

I voted for someone more liberal than Joe Biden [in the Democratic primary], Srivilliputhur said. But Im still willing to come to the table to talk. A lot of liberals were at this event to watch and to learn. I think thats something both Adam Hoffman and Ted Cruz ignored.

Rebekah Adams 21, a chemical and biological engineering concentrator who describes herself as openly conservative, found herself reassured after the advice Ted Cruz shared.

I think hes trying to say that you dont have to feel embarrassed about sharing your [opinions] and to have a sense of conviction behind them, she said.

Cruzs discussion was bookended with reflections on the election. Asked about the Democratic partys loss of House seats, Cruz felt the results showed a repudiation of the agenda of the radical left, and an indication that this country is fundamentally a center right country.

Later in the night, policy school concentrator Carson Maconga 22 asked Cruz when and under what conditions should Republicans acknowledge publicly that Biden had won the presidential election. Cruz has been criticized referring to a Trump concession as premature well after all major media outlets had called the election in Bidens favor.

Cruz answered by describing the moment he, as a 29-year old attorney working for the 2000 George W. Bush presidential campaign, had been the first to read and relay the implications of the Gore v. Bush Supreme Court decision to Bushs Chief Legal Advisor James Baker, who then informed Bush of his win.

The legal proceedings need to be over, there needs to be a clear, undisputed winner, he said. When the matter was decided, when the matter was concluded, thats when [Bush] became president elect.

I think he didnt want to answer the question so he started talking about Al Gore and Bush, commented Emily Dale 23, a sophomore majoring in computer science who attended the event.

He does have a point in saying wait until the lawsuits are over, wait until youre 100 percent confident. But [the 2020 election] is simply not the same as 500 votes in Florida, Dale added. Its now multiple states that the legal challenge would have to win.

Republicans, as of Nov. 19, have filed 30 legal challenges to contest the results of the election. Nineteen have been withdrawn, settled, dismissed, or denied.

In between discussion of the election, Matthew Wilson 24, publicity chair of Whig-Clio and author for the Tory, felt that Cruzs points on the influence that the Chinese Communist Party had on American universities stood out.

Cruz labeled this influence as from a nation-state with billions or even trillions of dollars behind it engaged in the systematic effort to steal intellectual property, to steal technology, to engage in global espionage.

Many universities have been hopelessly naive, Cruz summarized. Theyre not used to being targeted by a nation state for systematic infiltration and theft.

One student, granted anonymity by The Prince, questioned the Senators characterization of espionage.

I have a hard time believing the magnitude of the problem that Ted Cruz has said, the student explained. If its just based on specific examples or assumptions, I dont think that Chinese students, especially if theyre the same Princeton students we are, should have no less of an equal access to education as we do.

However, Wilson, who has written on the topic, felt Cruzs framing of the issue was fair, noting that when discussing China, you have to differentiate the Chinese people from the Chinese Communist government.

I think Senator Cruz did that quite well, he said. As a person of Chinese descent, I feel thats very important.

Cruzs conversation was also punctuated with lighter moments.

Abraham Waserstein 21, a Residential College Advisor in Butler Colleges 1915 hall where Cruz lived as an undergraduate asked Cruz if he remembered his room number. Cruz did not, but promised to text his former roommate, David Panton 92, and ask.

Jane Mentzinger 22, president of the Princeton Debate Panel (PDP), asked Cruz what his favorite debate topic was and how his understanding of those topics changed. During his time at Princeton, Cruz was the education director of PDP and was ranked as the top speaker at the North American Debating Championship.

Cruz responded to the question by recounting his time in collegiate debate. Coming from a high school that didnt offer debate, Cruz spent the next four years virtually every single weekend debating, and loved it.

Cruz then spent eight minutes breaking down the debate strategies hed formulated with his debate partner, Panton strategies which were later applied to litigating in front of the Supreme Court and political arguments.

Rebecca Han 22, current treasurer of PDP, remarked that being able to recognize his references was a very cool experience.

It was quite surreal to hear someone of his name recognition speak about these very mundane concepts like a Prime Minister Rebuttal Speech or a Leader of Opposition Constructive Speech that you imagine are limited to a quite niche college community, she said.

Han is a senior news writer for the Prince.

Offering advice to conservative students who were eyeing a political career, Cruz stressed the importance of being truthful.

Weve all seen too many politicians that lie, that just tell us what we want to hear, and break their word. I wanted instead to be able to run on a record where if you wanted to know what I thought, you could point to the record, he stated. He recommended that students go build a record fighting for an issue that matters.

When looking back on the night, Terrell Seabrooks 21, vice president of Whig-Clio, noted that the attendees hed spoken to really enjoyed the discussion.

We want to be that political hub where regardless of your political views, you can come and hear whats being said in Washington. So thats why were really happy with tonight; we brought that conversation down to the student body, he stated.

Srivilliputhur and Han agreed with Seabrooks sentiments about member reaction, but they also raised questions over the selection of pre-submitted audience questions by event organizers.

They complained about censorship, how you cant speak your mind anymore, but they picked pretty softball questions, Texas resident Srivilliputhur said. Both my roommate and I had questions about what Ted Cruz does for bi-partisanship as someone represented by Cruz Id like to have known his opinions on current events or specific policies.

It would have been interesting to hear him speak on COVID, Han added.

Srivilliputhur, reflecting on the experience, noted that he may disagree with Ted Cruz on a lot of issues.

But from a human to human standpoint, Princetonian to Princetonian, he continued, this event did a good job of humanizing Ted Cruz and showing that hes just a guy like other people.

Hoffman declined to offer comment for this story.

Editors Note: After publishing this piece, The Daily Princetonian granted one of the interviewed students anonymity, following personal concerns brought to our attention.

View post:

Cruz '92 conversation ranges from lighthearted Princeton memories to free speech, the 'shrill' left - The Daily Princetonian

Stephanie Fox and Beth Miller: Pompeo Tramples on International Law, Free Speech, and Human Rights With His Support for Israeli Settlements – YubaNet

WASHINGTON, DC, November 19, 2020 In a blatant attack on free speech, human rights, and social justice movements, Secretary Mike Pompeo announced today that the State Department will designate the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement as antisemitic and pledged to create a blacklist of organizations that support BDS. This comes alongside his visit to an illegal Israeli settlement and announcement that all goods made in illegal settlements will now be labeled as a product of Israel, reversing longstanding U.S. policy.

Make no mistake, this is not about Jewish safety. This is about shielding the Israeli government from accountability for its apartheid rule over Palestinians. Especially given decades of U.S. government complicity and unwillingness to hold Israel accountable, only global, grassroots pressure will force Israel to abide by international law. As a Jewish and proudly pro-BDS organization, we know that using our grassroots power to fight for equality, justice and freedom for Palestinians is a powerful expression of our own Jewish tradition. Working toward Palestinian freedom is not and never has been antisemitic.

This attack on the BDS movement made alongside the decision to label products from illegal Israeli settlements as being from Israel is a last ditch attempt from the outgoing Trump administration to give every gift possible to the far right in Israel and to white Christian Evangelicals in the U.S. Pompeo is creating an opaque blacklist to terrify organizations critical of Israel into silence. Every person who believes in free speech and in the rights of people to pressure their governments to end injustices should be speaking out against this authoritarian move by the Trump administration.

Jewish Voice for Peace Actionis an independent, non-partisan, 501(c)(4) political and advocacy partner organization of Jewish Voice for Peace. It is a multiracial, intergenerational movement of Jews and allies working towards justice and equality in Israel/Palestine by transforming U.S. policy.

Excerpt from:

Stephanie Fox and Beth Miller: Pompeo Tramples on International Law, Free Speech, and Human Rights With His Support for Israeli Settlements - YubaNet

Unions Tell NLRB That Inflatable Rat Display Is Free Speech – Law360

Law360 (November 24, 2020, 7:35 PM EST) -- A 12-foot-high inflatable rat with red eyes and fangs is to unions "what the American flag is to United States citizens," three Illinois-based labor federations told the National Labor Relations Board, claiming a member union's display outside an RV trade show was protected by the Constitution.

In an amicus brief filed on Monday, the Illinois branch of the AFL-CIO, along with the Chicago Federation of Labor and the Chicago and Cook County Building & Construction Trades Council, said the International Union of Operating Engineers was allowed to display "Scabby the Rat" outside the trade show, even though the company targeted by...

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Continued here:

Unions Tell NLRB That Inflatable Rat Display Is Free Speech - Law360

61% Agree with Athletes’ Right to Speak Out for Social Justice; But More than a Third Say It Hinders Desire To Watch Games, Ruins Sports as ‘Escape’ -…

While 61 percent of Americans say that athletes have a right to free speech and it is their decision to speak out for social justice, 35 percent call sports their "escape"and don't want to see any commentary other than sports. In addition, 36 percent say that athletes speaking out hinders their desire to watch games.

These were the findings of a Seton Hall Sports Poll conducted November 13-16 among 1,506 American adults, geographically spread across the country.The Poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percent.

On the question of athletes exercising free speech and making their own decision to speak out, only 15 percent disagreed compared to the 61 percent who agreed that players held that right. Among self-described sports fans, those who agreed that players held that right to speech was 69 percent. On the question of sports being an escape and not wanting to see any commentary on subjects other than sports, almost an equal number agreed and disagreed. While 36 percent said they saw sports as an escape and did not want to hear commentary from athletes outside of sports, 37 percent felt otherwise. Among sports fans, however, 46 percent said they saw sports as an escape and would rather not see commentary outside of sports, while 34 percent felt otherwise.

Does Social Justice Commentary from Athletes Hinder the Desire To Watch Sports?

Does social justice commentary from athletes hinder the desire to watch sports? For 35 percent the answer was yes, but 39 percent said that athletes speaking out on social justice issues is not a hindrance. The rest - about a quarter of the population in each case - neither agreed nor disagreed.

"It marks a fine line for many sports fans, probably across the political spectrum,"saidProfessor Charles Grantham, Director of the Center for Sport Management within the Stillman School of Business, which oversees the Seton Hall Sports Poll. "What many Americans seem not to understand is that despite their fame, our black athletes, male and female, have their own histories and experiences with police, mourn the losses of those who look like them and feel the potential dangers of forthcoming encounters.They are committed to raising the consciousness of America with regard to systemic racism and social injustice."

"Leagues really need to note the fact, however, that about a third of the population is uncomfortable with these displays of free speech,"said Stillman Professor of Marketing and Poll Methodologist Daniel Ladik. "That's a minority, but it's sizeable if you are trying to sell a product. A number of the leagues have already taken some action but need to continue to explain to consumers why this speech is important."

Why Are TV Ratings Down?

Television ratings for both the NFL regular season and the NBA finals are and were down this year, and respondents were asked their opinion why. Twenty-eight percent said they thought that fans are turned off by the social justice efforts by athletes and their leagues, and 24 percent said it was because attention was focused on the November elections. Twelve percent said it was because too many sports were available while 35 percent had no opinion or did not know.

As To the Strange NBA Season

The shortened NBA season, with the playoffs staged before no fans and in a bubble, elicited fan reaction in the poll. Asked if the finals were just as entertaining as in previous years, only 22 percent agreed, with 21 percent disagreeing. Fifty-seven percent neither agreed nor disagreed, a large number perhaps reflected by the decline in viewership this year. Asked if the finals were dull with no fans in attendance, 25 percent agreed and 15 percent disagreed. Again, a large percentage of the respondents (59 percent) neither agreed nor disagreed. Asked if it was difficult to follow the NBA Finals because there were too many other sports on TV, only 15 percent agreed while 21 percent disagreed and 62 percent neither agreed nor disagreed.

Only 26% Think NFL Will Make it To Super Bowl

Asked if the they thought it doubtful the NFL will make it through the playoffs and complete the Super Bowl in this year of Coronavirus, 26 percent agreed. Among self-described sports fans the number of those who doubt that the NFL will successfully complete the season moved up to 29 percent; however, an equal number of sports fans (29 percent) felt the opposite and did not doubt the season will successfully conclude. The remainder neither agreed nor disagreed.

"It is a different kind of year,"said Grantham, the former executive director of the the National Basketball Players Association. "That which seemed certain in years past now is the subject of doubt. The Super Bowl is the most watched sporting and media event in the United States. The fact that 29 percent of sports fans think the Super Bowl itself may be in question is astounding."

About the PollThe Seton Hall Sports Poll, conducted regularly since 2006, is performed by the Sharkey Institute within the Stillman School of Business. This poll was conducted online by YouGov Plc. using a national representative sample weighted according to gender, age, ethnicity, education, income and geography, based on U.S. Census Bureau figures. Respondents were selected from YouGovs opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S residents.This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls. The Seton Hall Sports Poll has been chosen for inclusion in iPoll by Cornells Roper Center for Public Opinion Research and its findings have been published everywhere from USA Today, ESPN, The New York Times, Washington Post, AP, and Reuters to CNBC, NPR, Yahoo Finance, Fox News and many points in between.

Media: Michael Ricciardelli, Associate Director of Media Relations, Seton Hall University michael.ricciardelli@shu.edu,908-447-3034; Marty Appel,AppelPR@gmail.com

Click here for the results.

About Seton Hall UniversityOne of the country's leading Catholic universities, Seton Hall has been showing the world what great minds can do since 1856. Home to nearly 10,000 undergraduate and graduate students and offering more than 90 rigorous academic programs, Seton Halls academic excellence has been singled out for distinction by The Princeton Review, U.S. News & World Report and Bloomberg Businessweek.

Seton Hall embraces students of all religions and prepares them to be exemplary servant leaders and global citizens. In recent years, the University has achieved extraordinary success. Since 2009, it has seen record-breaking undergraduate enrollment growth and an impressive 110-point increase in the average SAT scores of incoming freshmen. In the past decade, Seton Hall students and alumni have received more than 30 Fulbright Scholarships as well as other prestigious academic honors, including Boren Awards, Pickering Fellowships, Udall Scholarships and a Rhodes Scholarship. The University is also proud to be among themost diverse national Catholic universitiesin the country.

During the past five years, the University has invested more than $165 million in new campus buildings and renovations. And in 2015, Seton Hall launched a School of Medicine as well as a College of Communication and the Arts. The Universitys beautiful main campus in suburban South Orange, N.J. is only 14 miles from New York City offering students a wealth of employment, internship, cultural and entertainment opportunities. Seton Hall's nationally recognized School of Law is located prominently in downtown Newark. The Universitys Interprofessional Health Sciences (IHS) campus in Clifton and Nutley, N.J. opened in the summer of 2018. The IHS campus houses the University's College of Nursing, School of Health and Medical Sciences and the Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall University.

For more information, visit http://www.shu.edu.

See the original post:

61% Agree with Athletes' Right to Speak Out for Social Justice; But More than a Third Say It Hinders Desire To Watch Games, Ruins Sports as 'Escape' -...

Don’t allow First Amendment rights to be seen as ‘wrongs’ – The Record

When it comes to exercising your rights of free speech, assembly and petition in Tennessee, be careful. Setting up a tent for an overnight stay during a protest could land you in prison for up to six years.

A new law signed quietly into effect Nov. 5 by Gov. Bill Lee changes the crime of overnight camping on state property without a permit aimed at deterring protesters who have done that from a misdemeanor to the much more serious felony. It also provides for stricter penalties and minimum jail terms for such clear threats to the republic as drawing in chalk on state property or interrupting legislators or local officials who are in a meeting.

In recent years, police have resorted to sweeps during demonstrations that operate on the theory of arrest all and sort them out later, sometimes taking into custody non-protesters simply walking to lunch or shopping. The Volunteer States new anti-protest law advocates call it criminal justice reform requires a magistrates intervention to gain early release for anyone sooner than a mandatory 12-hour minimum stay behind bars.

A move in states to si-lence public protest began about a decade ago, around the time of the Occupy movement. The latest Tennessee statute was sparked by demonstrators who set up camp in Nashvilles War Memorial Plaza for nearly two months this year while seeking removal of a bust of Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, first leader the Ku Klux Klan, from the state Capitol building.

By some reports, as many as 40 states have considered or adopted direct or backdoor attempts modeled on a draft law prepared by a conservative alliance of legislators and corporations to restrain public protest. Some proposals include providing legal immunity for motorists who essentially absent a declaration of intent to injure or kill strike demonstrators standing in a public thoroughfare.

Some proposed laws have been deemed outright to be unconstitutional for targeting certain groups or simply for being too broad or too vague. But government officials can enact lawful restrictions on time, place and manner in how we protest. If upheld by the courts, such laws reasonably can limit the hours and locations of public demonstrations or individual protests, the size of signs or the number of people who can gather in public spaces or on sidewalks.

Such laws nonetheless can chill free speech in ways seemingly distant from the 45 words of the First Amendment. Being convicted of a felony also may mean forfeiting the rights to vote, carry a gun or obtain a professional license and negatively can affect your ability to get a job or obtain a mortgage.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis recently proposed not only felony charges on protestors, but also penalties on cities and towns deemed not to be taking appropriate law and order measures in response to demonstrations. If enacted and if the provisions survive court challenge Florida would have the harshest anti-protest laws in the nation.

DeSantis proposal, to be considered when the legislature meets in March, includes felony charges for obstructing traffic during an unauthorized protest or for toppling a monument; an initial no bail provision for those arrested during a demonstration, and a mandatory six-month jail term for anyone who strikes a law enforcement officer during a protest. Anyone who organizes or simply donates money to protesters would risk penalties under the states racketeering laws.

Tennessees chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said the new law in that state law requiring 12-hour holds upon arrest, putting in place mandatory minimums and enhancing petty crimes to felony-level offenses will send a message loud and clear that Tennessee is no place to exercise your constitutional rights if state or local government entities disagree with you.

U.S. Supreme Court decisions stretching back more than 140 years have upheld our rights to assemble and petition. In 1937, the US. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in De Jonge v. Oregon that the right to peaceably assemble for lawful discussion, however unpopular the sponsorship, cannot be made a crime. And in 1939 the court held in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization that streets and parks ... have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens and discussing public questions.

Ten years later, Justice William O. Douglas, in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, wrote free speech is intended to ... invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger ...

It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.

More recent court rulings echo Douglas in acknowledgement that protest is inherently disruptive, may well be offensive or cause anguish to some, but is protected because of a need for robust public discussion around public policy and practices.

Yes, democracy is messy and public demonstrations at times may well inconvenience, insult or infuriate you and me. But legislative acts designed to restrain, remove or chill our rights to protest are not just unconstitutional, but also unpatriotic.

As James Madison, author of the First Amendment, once observed about the new nation: The censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people.

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute and its First Amendment Center. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org or 202-292-6290.

Read and share your thoughts on this story

Link:

Don't allow First Amendment rights to be seen as 'wrongs' - The Record

Hate speech vs free speech: SC gives 2 weeks to Sudarshan TV to respond to Centre’s affidavit – The Tribune India

Satya PrakashTribune News ServiceNew Delhi, November 19

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave two weeks to Sudarshan TV and others to respond to the Centre's affidavit that indicted the channel for violating Programme Code.

A Bench, led by Justice DY Chandrachud, asked Sudarshan TV and the petitioner to file their responses and posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks.

The Centre has indicted Sudarshan TV for violation of Programme Code and cautioned it for telecasting UPSC Jihad saying it was not in "good taste and offensive.

However, it allowed the channel to telecast the remaining episodes of the controversial programme after suitable modification and moderation.

In an affidavit filed in the top court, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry noted that the episodes telecast by the channel have the "likelihood of promoting communal attitudes.

If any violation of the Programme Code is found in future, stricter penal action would be taken, the Ministry said, asking the channel to file a compliance report forthwith before the telecast of the remaining episodes.

Cautioning the channel, the I&B Ministry said, The channel should review the contents of the future episodes of the programme Bindas Bol UPSC Jihad, and the audio-visual content should be suitably moderated and modified, so as to ensure that there is no violation of the Programme Code

The Supreme Court had on September 23 deferred hearing on a petition seeking a ban on Sudarshan News' controversial programme 'UPSC Jihad' after the Centre said it has issued a show-cause notice to the TV channel.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told a Bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud that in the exercise of the power conferred upon it under the Cable TV Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 the Central Government has issued a show-cause notice to Sudarshan News.

The Bench had, however, made it clear that the notice shall be dealt with under law and its order restraining Sudarshan News from telecasting further episodes of its controversial programme shall continue. The programme had alleged Muslims were "infiltrating" civil services in a planned manner.

See the original post here:

Hate speech vs free speech: SC gives 2 weeks to Sudarshan TV to respond to Centre's affidavit - The Tribune India

Britain needs to take a lesson from the US in protecting free speech – Telegraph.co.uk

The sun is setting on the Enlightenment in the United Kingdom. Before its too late, we must take steps to protect our most fundamental of rights: the freedom to express ourselves.A hodgepodge of poorly designed laws and questionable court judgments have empowered the easily offended to censor speech.

Freedom of expression is fundamental to life in a free and democratic society. This includes the freedom to express ideas that others find loathsome and hateful. It allows us both to express our innermost thoughts, and to explore controversial and important topics in public debate. The UKs protection of freedom of expression, revolving around Article 10 of the European Convention, is woefully inadequate.

We can see the rapid slide in rights in the maltreatment of vlogger Count Dankula, the polices pursuit of conservative commentator Darren Grimes, and Bethan Tichbornes public order conviction for telling David Cameron that he had "blood on his hands" during an anti-cuts protest. Shockingly, over 400 people were arrested in London alone over the last five years for communicating in an offensive nature, sending an offensive message and/or sending false information

This would have been unthinkable just a short time ago. It is now becoming the norm.

British law infringes on freedom of expression. There is mounting evidence that longstanding legislative provisions including the Public Order Act 1986, Communications Act 2003, Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006, and the Malicious Communications Act 1988 are increasingly being applied in an overly broad fashion which was not contemplated by their drafters.

The imprecise drafting of existing law means that as social attitudes shift to narrow the confines of acceptable debate, broader categories of speech will be criminalised as offensive, distressing or hateful. This is placing power over public discourse in the hands of the easily offended.

Worse, new threats to freedom of expression lurk just over the horizon. These include the cowardly suggestion by the Law Commission that controversial speech which provokes terrorism, like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, should be banned in order to prevent terrorism. It also includes the bizarre Online Harms proposal by the Government in Westminster which would put a quango in charge of policing legal but harmful political speech on the internet.

Meanwhile, the SNPs Hate Crime Bill is proposing broad new categories of speech crime in Scotland, including new offences where the drafting of private correspondence containing offensive thoughts between consenting adults, even before the correspondence was sent, would be an act to which criminal liability attaches. The law enters everyday life like never before, policing what you can say even in your own home. We are truly entering the realm of thoughtcrimes.

In my new report for the Adam Smith Institute, Sense and Sensitivity: Restoring free speech in the United Kingdom, I argue that Parliament should take a stand against state censorship and implement a UK-wide Free Speech Act, modelled on the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. This should protect all non-threatening political speech from state interference. The only exceptions being that of criminal threatening, harassment, malicious defamation, perverting the course of justice, or direct incitement already in law and unprotected anywhere in the world.

In addition the government should buttress free speech in existing law by removing all references to abusive or insulting words and behaviour from Parts I and III of the Public Order Act 1986. And they should replace Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 with a provision that limits the scope of the existing rule on electronic communication to threats only and bringing a new rule that addresses meaningful stalking and cyberstalking threats which cause or intend to cause substantial emotional distress.

Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. The British people no longer have freedom of speech. The time is ripe for Parliament to step in to restore this most essential and ancient of our liberties.

Preston J. Byrne is a technology lawyer and Legal Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute. He is admitted in England and the United States.

Original post:

Britain needs to take a lesson from the US in protecting free speech - Telegraph.co.uk

NASA Data Shows Evidence of Ancient “Megafloods” on Mars

Scientists identified massive ripples on the surface of Mars likely formed by an ancient megaflood and planet-covering storm clouds.

Storm Season

Billions of years ago, Mars may have been buried beneath powerful, gigantic megafloods.

In recent years, scientists have discovered evidence of a sizeable amount of water on and under the surface of Mars. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg: Research published this month in the Nature journal Scientific Reports suggests that gigantic “megafloods” could have carved out the Red Planet’s surface features and even altered its climate, vastly changing our understanding of Mars’ past.

Biblical Proportions

The Cornell University and California Institute of Technology scientists behind the research suspect that the floods began when a meteorite struck Mars about 4 billion years ago.

The impact would have generated enough heat to melt Mars’ ice reservoirs, releasing water vapor into the atmosphere and creating planet-blanketing storm clouds, according to a Cornell press release.

Swept Away

The end result — which the scientists identified using data from NASA’s Curiosity rover — is that the floods shaped the surface of Mars into 30-foot-tall ripples of rock and dust. The water itself is long gone — but the scientists speculate that the floods means the planet may have been inhabitable at the time.

“Early Mars was an extremely active planet from a geological point of view,” study coauthor Alberto Fairén, an astrobiologist visiting Cornell, said in the release. “The planet had the conditions needed to support the presence of liquid water on the surface — and on Earth, where there’s water, there’s life.”

READ MORE: Field geology at Mars’ equator points to ancient megaflood [Cornell University]

More on Mars: Scientists Just Found Three More Reservoirs of Liquid Water on Mars

The post NASA Data Shows Evidence of Ancient “Megafloods” on Mars appeared first on Futurism.

See the original post:
NASA Data Shows Evidence of Ancient “Megafloods” on Mars

ONOC welcomes independent evaluation of the Oceania Sport Education Programme – Insidethegames.biz

Oceania National Olympic Committees (ONOC) has endorsed a recently-published evaluation report of the Oceania Sport Education Programme (OSEP).

The review, conducted by the Compass Pasifika and Apex Global Sport Group Consortium, was the first independent evaluation of OSEP in its 12 years of existence.

It measured the effectiveness of the programme, looking at its current status and the impact it has had on communities in the region.

OSEP was created in 2007 as an ONOC, Australia Sports Commission and Organisation of the Sport Federations in Oceania collaboration.

It followed an ASC assessment which found that sports education was lacking in many Pacific nations.

OSEP aims to offer cost-effective solutions to build the capacity of Pacific-based coaches and administrators to help development.

A total of 15 countries currently benefit from the programme; American Samoa, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

"Understanding the needs of member National Olympic Committees and countries is a core function of ONOC, and its overall vision for OSEP is for it to be recognised as the benchmark in sport education throughout the continental regions of the Olympic world," said ONOC President Robin Mitchell.

"The evaluation report presented some key achievements of OSEP which include the 14 courses developed and delivered including an e-OSEP online course, 466 course sessions and workshops undertaken, about 7,000 participants reached and the five tracer studies completed in Samoa, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea and Fiji which are evidence of ONOCs delivery in sport education."

One of the key recommendations of the report is for ONOC to consider accrediting the programme through the Pacific Qualifications Framework, which it is said would add value to graduates.

Part of ONOC's new strategy is to strengthen its decentralised pool of coaches and training providers in the Pacific Islands, while also promoting self-starting entrepreneurship.

Through OSEP, ONOC has trained more than 1,000 coaches in various sports in 15 countries and territories over the past 12 years, as well as producing 567 active and non-active trainers who it is hoped will continue to deliver sporting education to their communities.

More:

ONOC welcomes independent evaluation of the Oceania Sport Education Programme - Insidethegames.biz