Ram temple bhoomi poojan live updates | Grand temple will be built for Ram Lalla who lived in temporary tent for years, says PM Modi – The Hindu

Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, 28 years after the demolition of Babri Masjid at the same spot. The wait of centuries has ended and India is creating a golden chapter in Ayodhya, he said in a speech following the ground-breaking ceremony.

Mr. Modi was accompanied by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, among others. The Prime Minister also unveiled a plaque and released a commemorative postal stamp to mark the occassion.

Here are the updates:

7.40 p.m. | Uttar Pradesh

Hailing Lord Ram as Imam-e-Hind (prelate of India), some Muslim devotees of Lord Ram watched the entire bhoomi pujan ceremony in Ayodhya on Wednesday live on their TV sets as they could not go there due to the coronavirus health protocols.

Underlining the countrys tradition of syncretic co-existence, they said once the coronavirus situation improves they would visit the temple site and offer their services in its construction.

It is a moment of joy for us. We are kar sevaks and consider Lord Ram as Imam-e-Hind, Raja Raees, the president of Sunni Social Forum (an organisation working for the Muslims) told PTI on Wednesday.

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi performed the bhoomi pujan at Ayodhya Ram Janambhoomi site, Mr. Raees said, "We celebrated the occasion by beating drums and playing harmonium. Shri Ram is our Paigambar. There is a feeling of happiness among the Muslims in the country. Members of our organisation watched the event live on TV.

Sunny Abbas, who lives in Lucknow, railed against those who identified the Ram temple movement as a Hindus-Muslim issue.

The bhoomi pujan is a tight slap on their faces. Most Muslims have agreed for the construction of a Ram temple respecting the sentiments of Hindus. Now the grand Ram temple will become a symbol of brotherhood, he told PTI over phone.

7.15 p.m. | Madhya Pradesh

The construction of the grand Ram temple at Ayodhya, whose bhoomi pujan was performed on Wednesday, is expected to be completed in the next three years, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) said.

VHP international president Vishnu Sadashiv Kokje said there is enthusiasm among Hindus across the world over the foundation stone laying ceremony for the Ram temple. He blamed the Congress for the delay in the temples construction.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi performed the ground-breaking ceremony in Ayodhya for the temple at the spot where many devout Hindus believe Lord Ram was born, marking the beginning of its construction.

Mr. Kokje told PTI, The smooth manner in which the work of temple construction has been going on after the formation of Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra by the Central government is amazing. We hope that the Ram temple in Ayodhya will be completed in three years.

6.30 p.m. | West Bengal

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi performed bhoomi pujan for the Ram temple in Ayodhya, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Wednesday called for preserving brotherhood between communities and the age-old legacy of unity in diversity.

Hindu Muslim Sikh Isai; Aapas mein hain Bhai Bhai! Mera Bharat Mahaan, Mahaan Hamara Hindustan." Our country has always upheld the age-old legacy of unity in diversity, and we must preserve this to our last breath! Ms. Banerjee tweeted.

West Bengal BJP president Dilip Ghosh, meanwhile, accused the TMC government in the State of disregarding Hindu sentiments by clamping a lockdown on a day when bhoomi pujan ceremony was being organised in Ayodhya.

Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar, who had announced that he would light earthen lamps at the Raj Bhavan on August 5 to mark the ground-breaking ceremony in Ayodhya, said the silence of the Chief Minister was due to her appeasement politics.

5.40 p.m. | Haryana

Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar on Wednesday described the laying of foundation stone of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya as a happy and historic moment for every Indian.

He also said that with the laying of the foundation stone, the dreams of crores of Lord Rams devotees have come true.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday performed the bhoomi pujan of a Supreme Court-mandated Ram temple in Ayodhya, bringing to fruition the BJPs mandir movement that defined its politics for three decades and took it to the heights of power.

In a series of tweets on the occasion, Mr. Khattar said, This happy moment is historic for every Indian.

Moments before the Prime Minister was to perform the bhoomi pujan of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, Mr. Khattar urged people to light a lamp in the courtyard of their homes and give a message of brotherhood.

5.35 p.m. | Jharkhand

Union Minister Arjun Munda and former Chief Ministers, Babulal Marandi and Raghubar Das, on Wednesday greeted people over foundation laying of Ram temple in Ayodhya by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Mr. Munda said the historic shrine in Uttar Pradesh has been a symbol of faith for Hindus worldover and starting the construction work of a grand temple by the Prime Minister has given respect to their faith.

Ram devotees have struggled for a long time for construction of Ram temple and even sacrificed their lives. This day is also to remember them, Mr. Munda, who is Union Tribal Affairs Minister, said in a statement.

Babulal Marandi said a golden and proud age began with the bhoomi pujan (ground-breaking rituals) for the Ram temple in Ayodhya.

August 5 will be scripted in the pages of history after Prime Minister Narendra Modi ji laid the foundation stone for construction of a grand Ram temple, Marandi said in a statement.

He said with this historic event, a new chapter of national unity and harmony has also begun.

5.00 pm | New Delhi

The construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya is much more than a religious affair and the structure will stand as a tribute to the best of timeless human values, Vice-President M. Venkaiah Naidu said.

He also said that Lord Rams conduct and values constitute the core of the consciousness of India, cutting across all kinds of divisions and barriers, and they are still relevant today.

In a Facebook post marking the foundation laying ceremony of Shree Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir on Wednesday, he said the construction of a temple for Lord Ram at his birthplace is more a re-coronation of the highest human values of truth, morality and ideals that the maryada purushottam epitomised during his life.

As the King of Ayodhya, he led an exemplary life, worthy of emulation by the common men and other nobles, he said.

Mr. Naidu and his wife Usha on Wednesday also recited Ramayana at the Vice-Presidents House to mark the bhoomi punjan ceremony at Ayodhya.

The family members of the Vice-President donated 5 lakh each for the fight against COVID-19 and for the construction of Ram temple, an official statement said.

In his social media post, Mr. Naidu expressed happiness at the ceremony, saying the Ram temple will continue to remind and reinforce the ethos of the motherland which is universal in application without any discrimination.

Mr. Naidu also lauded Iqbal Ansari, son of late Hashim Ansari, one of the parties to the land title dispute, for urging the people to forget the past and move on in the true spirit of India.

His words of wisdom offer useful guidance for all, he said.

The Vice-President termed this day the beginning of a new era of mutual respect for all faiths and harmonious co-existence that should spur the building of an India of the dreams of every aspiring citizen of the country. PTI

4.45 pm | Chandigarh

Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh congratulated the people of the country on the foundation laying of Ram temple in Ayodhya, saying it fulfills the long cherished desire of every Indian.

My heartiest congratulations to the people of India on the historic foundation laying of #RamMandir in #Ayodhya, which fulfills the long cherished desire of every Indian. Lord Rams universal message of Dharma remains the guiding light not just for India but for the world," the Chief Minister said in a tweet.

4.40 pm | Chennai

The Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam in neighbouring Kancheepuram has sent gold and silver coins, holy soil collected from the Kamakshi temple and the mutt, besides Vasthu (traditional Indian system of architecture) materials to be used in the bhoomi pujan for constructing the Ram temple in Ayodhya on Wednesday.

The soil specially obtained from the temples like Ekambranathar Swamy, Kamakshi and other Vishnu temples in the town have been sent by flight to Ayodhya ahead of the bhoomi pujan, said Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamy, the 70th Acharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam.

4.00 pm | New Delhi

Terming the foundation laying of Ram temple in Ayodhya as a historic and proud day for India, Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday said it heralds the beginning of a new era.

He said by starting the construction of the grand Ram temple in Ayodhya, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has written a golden chapter in the history of the great Indian civilisation, and asserted that the government remains committed to the preservation of Indian culture and its values.

Today is a historic and proud day for India. The consecration of the grand Ram temple by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Lord Rams birthplace has written a golden chapter in the history of great Indian culture and civilisation and heralded the beginning of a new era, Mr. Shah, who is recuperating at a private hospital in Gurgaon after contracting COVID-19, said. PTI

3.30 pm | Ahmedabad

Jay Shree Ram! August 5 will be written in golden letters in the history books of 21st century. Five decades, 500 years of penance and struggle materialised today with the bhoomi pujan of Ram Lallas temple, Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani said in a video message.

The slogan - We swear by Ram that temple will surely be built there at Ayodhya - has been realised today. A Diwali like celebration has gripped the entire nation. Many Gujaratis made a contribution in the kar seva for building this temple, the BJP leader said.

He credited the two sons of Gujarats soil Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah for the harmonious atmosphere in which the bhoomi pujan was held at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh on August 5.

We always do what we promise. This is BJPs commitment. If coronavirus was not there, todays event would have become the biggest religious congregation. I am sure the construction of Ram temple would lead to nation-building and take India ahead with pride, Mr. Rupani said. PTI

2.30 pm

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Wednesday congratulated the entire country on the occasion of the bhoomi poojan of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.

Congratulations to the entire country on the occasion of bhoomi poojan. May we continue to receive Lord Rams blessings. With his blessings, our country will get rid of hunger, illiteracy and poverty, and India becomes the most powerful nation in the world. May India show the path to the world in times to come. Jai Shri Ram! Jai Bajrang Bali, Mr. Kejriwal tweeted in Hindi.

2.20 pm

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said that Lord Ram is the ultimate embodiment of supreme human values and can never appear in cruelty, hatred or injustice.

In a tweet in Hindi, the former Congress president said, Maryada Purshottam Lord Ram is the ultimate embodiment of supreme human values. He is the core of humanism embedded deep in our hearts.

Ram is love, he can never appear in hatred. Ram is compassion, he can never appear in cruelty. Ram is justice, he can never appear in injustice, he said. - PTI

2.10 pm

Ram temple will be the harbinger of a prosperous India, said PM Narendra Modi.

"Our scriptures says there has been no ruler like Lord Ram. Lord Ram's policy was that motherland is bigger than heaven. It is also Lord Ram's policy that as a nation gets powerful, it also becomes better at living peacefully. We have to ensure that fraternity and friendship cements the bricks of this temple. We have to respect the sentiments of everyone," he said, adding that the temple will continue to inspire generations to come.

PM Modi winded up his speech by talking about the importance of social distancing and using masks to control the coronavirus pandemic. - Sandeep Phukan

2 pm

Continuing his speech after the ground-breaking ceremony of the Ram temple, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that just as every section of the society, including Dalits and tribals, extended support to Gandhi ji during the freedom struggle, today every section has supported the Ram temple.

"India's faith, the collective of the people and the strength of this collective, has been a subject of research by many across the world," he said.

PM Modi speaks at the Ayodhya Ram temple ground-breaking ceremony.

"Ram is the thread of India's unity in diversity," PM Modi said, commenting on the different traditions and names of Ram and Ramayan in different languages like Tamil, Telugu, Odiya, Bengali, Kashmiri, Malayalam etc.

"Indonesia, which has the maximum Muslim population in the world, has unique Ramayan. Lord Ram is still worshipped there," he said, mentioning the different traditions of Ramayan in Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia. He added that references to Ramayan can be found in Iran and China, and that Srilanka has it's own Ramayan while Nepal's tradition is attached to Mother Janaki.

Ram belongs to everyone and Ram is in everyone, said PM Modi. - Sandeep Phukan

1.50 pm

Just as August 15 symbolises the end of our struggle for freedom, today symbolises the culmination of the fight for a Ram Mandir for centuries, said PM Modi, continuing his speech at the ground-breaking ceremony of the Ram temple in Ayodhya.

On behalf of 130 crore people, I bow my head and pay respect to all those who were associated with the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, he said. "Whenever we have to do something, we have looked towards Ram ji. Efforts were made to destroy Lord Ram's identity, but he still reigns in our hearts," he said, adding that the temple will be a symbol of national sentiment and collective faith.

After the temple is constructed, Ayodhya will not gain importance but the entire economy will be transformed as people from all over the world will come here, said PM Modi.

"This is an opportunity to connect people with faith, connect present with the past. It is a gift to justice-loving India," he said, adding that the event has displayed the same dignity that was shown the day the Supreme Court order regarding the temple came out. - Sandeep Phukan

1.40 pm

Prime Minister Narendra Modi started his speech with a chant hailing Lord Ram and "Jai Siya Ram".

"Today this celebration and victory call is not restricted to Ayodhya but all over the world. Congratulations to Ram devotes across the world," he said.

"It is my fortune that Shri Ram janma Bhoomi Teertha Trust invited me and allowed me to part of this event. I express my heartfelt tribute," he said, adding that it was natural for him to come.

"India Today is creating a golden chapter. Today, the entire country is immersed in Ram. Today, the entire nation is emotional as the wait that went on for centuries ended. Crores of people may not believe that they are witnessing this event. For years, Ram Lalla who has been under a tent will see a grand temple," he added.

The tradition of breaking down and rising up again will end today, he said. - Sandeep Phukan

1.35 pm

Before he begins addressing those gathered, Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiled a plaque to mark the laying of foundation stone of the Ram temple in Ayodhya.

He also released a commemorative postage stamp on the Shree Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir.

1.30 pm

The construction of the Ram temple is equivalent to the construction of India, said Mahant Nrityagopal Das, head of the Trust in charge of building the Ram temple in Ayodhya.

Mahant Nrityagopal Das, head of the Trust in charge of building the Ram temple in Ayodhya

"We request Modi ji and Yogi ji to start construction immediately to respect the sentiments of the devotees," he added. - Sandeep Phukan

1.20 pm

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, speaking at the ceremony, hailed the ground-breaking ceremony as the result of 20-30 years of work. "RSS, like-minded organisations worked for 20-30 years RSS, like-minded organisations worked nearly 30 years for fulfilment of temple construction resolve," he said, adding that many people have made sacrifices for this day.

See original here:

Ram temple bhoomi poojan live updates | Grand temple will be built for Ram Lalla who lived in temporary tent for years, says PM Modi - The Hindu

Blockchain in Supply Chain Market 2020 by Component (Platform, Services); Application (Smart Contracts, Payment and Settlement, Inventory Monitoring,…

Blockchain is a record of blocks or digital database of unchallengeable and authenticated transactions. The blockchain technology is an open ledger wherein each transaction on the network is recorded and available for all the parties involved in the network. These transactions can be viewed and verified by all the entities involved. Thereby, blockchain removes the requirement to transfer information among organizations through any other communication channel. It unifies the information sharing within enterprises, thus ensuring the transparency at each level of supply chain management.

Get Sample [emailprotected]: https://www.premiummarketinsights.com/sample/TIP00020494

Key Players:

1. ACCENTURE PLC.2. Amazon Web Services3. AUXESIS GROUP4. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.5. IBM CORPORATION6. Interbit Ltd.7. MICROSOFT CORPORATION8. ORACLE CORPORATION9. SAP SE10. TIBCO SOFTWARE

What is the Dynamics of Blockchain in Supply Chain Market?

The rising need for transparency in the supply chain owing to increased demand for improved security of transactions is the key reason propelling the growth of blockchain in supply chain market. Also, the growth of the e-commerce industry is another significant factor bolstering the demand for the blockchain in supply chain market. However, lack of skilled workforce and awareness regarding the technology are the major challenging factors hindering the blockchain in supply chain market. Moreover, increased automation, coupled with the exclusion of intermediaries in the supply chain management offers lucrative opportunities to the blockchain in supply chain market.

Avail Discount on this [emailprotected]: https://www.premiummarketinsights.com/discount/TIP00020494

What is the SCOPE of Blockchain in Supply Chain Market?

The Global Blockchain in Supply Chain Market Analysis to 2027 is a specialized and in-depth study of the blockchain in supply chain industry with a special focus on the global market trend analysis. The report aims to provide an overview of blockchain in supply chain market with detailed market segmentation by component, application, end-user and geography. The global blockchain in supply chain market is expected to witness high growth during the forecast period. The report provides key statistics on the market status of the leading blockchain in supply chain market players and offers key trends and opportunities in the market.

What is the Blockchain in Supply Chain Market Segmentation?

The global blockchain in supply chain market is segmented based on component, application and end-user. By component, the blockchain in supply chain market is bifurcated into platform and services. On the basis of application, the blockchain in supply chain market is segmented into smart contracts, payment and settlement, inventory monitoring, product traceability, compliance management and others. The market by end-user is categorized into retail, healthcare, food and beverages, manufacturing, oil and gas and others.

What is the Regional Framework of Blockchain in Supply Chain Market?

The report provides a detailed overview of the industry, including both qualitative and quantitative information. It provides an overview and forecast of the global blockchain in supply chain market based on various segments. It also provides market size and forecast estimates from the year 2017 to 2027 with respect to five major regions, namely; North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific (APAC), Middle East & Africa (MEA) and South America (SAM). The blockchain in supply chain market by each region is later sub-segmented by respective countries and segments. The report covers the analysis and forecast of 18 countries globally along with the current trend and opportunities prevailing in the region.

The report analyzes factors affecting the blockchain in supply chain market from both demand and supply side and further evaluates market dynamics affecting the market during the forecast period, i.e., drivers, restraints, opportunities and future trend. The report also provides exhaustive PEST analysis for all five regions namely; North America, Europe, APAC, MEA and SAM after evaluating political, economic, social and technological factors affecting the blockchain in supply chain market in these regions.

Visit link:

Blockchain in Supply Chain Market 2020 by Component (Platform, Services); Application (Smart Contracts, Payment and Settlement, Inventory Monitoring,...

Why the colour of #RevolutionNow was not Arab Spring-red – TheCable

They all happened almost simultaneously, as if in a choreography. On February 9, 2011, a huge crowd of protesters had gathered at the Tahir Square in Cairo, Egypt. Unruly, eyes dilating like pellets of ice immersed in mug-full Campari liquor, it was obvious that this was a crowd determined to change thestatus quo.They shouted anti-government slogans, calling for an end to oppression, economic adversities and collapse of the Arabian spirit in the Arab world.

A couple of weeks before then, specifically on January 14, 2001, at the Habib Bourguiba Boulevard in Tunis, Tunisia, it was the same huge crowd, mobilized to end the decadent order. Similarly on February 3, 2011, a mammoth crowd of dissidents gathered at the Sanaa in Yemen, calling for the resignation of President Ali Abdullahi Saleh. A couple of months after, specifically on a cold morning of April 29, 2011, hundreds of thousands of people at Baniyas, Syria, gathered to upturn the ruling order.

The overall goal of the protesters was similar: Bring down oppressive regimes that manifested in low standard of living in the Arab world. Dubbed Arab Spring, an allusion to the 1848 Revolution and the Prague Spring of 1968 by Political Scientist, Marc Lynch in an article he did for the AmericanForeign Policymagazine on January 6, 2011, the upheavals were a series of anti-government protests sparked off in early 2010s in Tunisia that eventually culminated in uprisings and armed rebellion that became widespread across the Arab World.

In a twinkle of an eye, they spread to five other Arab countries, namely Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, leading to the deposition of the second President of Tunisia, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali; Egyptian Hosni Mubarak; Muammar Gaddafi and Yemeni first President, Ali Abdullah Saleh. In places where such upturns were not achieved, major social dislocations, riots, civil wars and insurgencies followed. In all of this social violence, the demonstrators catchphrase was, translated from Arab, the people want to bring down the regime.

So, did the#RevolutionNowconveners actually want to bring down the Muhammadu Buhari government last week and if yes, were they representative of the people of Nigeria? I asked this question because, if the Arab Spring upheavals were what they sought to clone, we must place it side by side the gloat of the Buhari presidency which likened their own version to a childs tantrum and a poor imitation of the original.Femi Adesina, Buharis spokesman, articulated the Buhari governments disdain for and scant belief in the possibility of a rehash of an Arab Spring-like revolution in Nigeria. My reading of this mockery of the protests was that Buhari, like the ruling class elite now and before him, was persuaded that the internal contradictions in Nigeria can never allow for a peoples revolt against governmental oppressors.

A revolution is always a mass thing, not a sprinkle of young boys and girls you saw yesterday in different parts of the country. I think it was just a funny thing to call it a revolution protest. In a country of 200 million people and if you see a sprinkle of people saying they are doing a revolution, it was a childs play. Revolution is something that turns the normal order. What happened yesterday, would you call it a revolution? It was just an irritation, just an irritation and some people want to cause irritation in the country and what I will say is when things boil over, they boil over because you continue to heat them, the Buhari publicist said.

I am persuaded that the social condition of the 200 million people Adesina literally venerated for staying aloof to the#RevolutionNowis far worse thanthose of the Arab countries. Like them, a tiny clique too has held the jugular of power for decades, continuously riding roughshod over their suffering people and believing that a violent upturn was a mirage. This ruling elites lethargy, in Nigeria, has resulted in apathy to the worsening fates of society and breeding a teeming agonizing majority.

However, my reading of the presidencys dismissive appraisal of the#RevolutionNowprotests shows that that mockery is situated on a wonky pedestal. Buharis basis for dismissing the protest includes its scant attendance, absence of belligerence of the protesters and the fact that things have not yet boiled over. Of a truth, on the outward, Omoyele Sowores#RevolutionNow, which provoked that disdainful appraisal of the Nigerian presidency, may look too sparse to qualify for a peoples revolt. However, proclaiming it a failure may be a fatal mis-reading of the temperature of revolts.

Though Buhari must have been buoyed into lethargy by the many contradictions of the Nigerian state that might not have allowed Nigerians to troop out in their millions to convince government that Buhari is sitting on a keg of gunpowder, things are actually fast boiling over from within.It is apparent that government has failed to see the success of the protest as a symbolism for perforation of the veneer of governmental resistance. Since it could not see this implication, government then dangerously lapsed into a couple of false assumptions which show it as incapable to properly read what people dont say.

In his weeklyFacebookepistle, Adesina was further lionized to make further fatal fallacious blunders. Citing the viral call of a 4-year old boy who urged his mum to calm down, entitledWhy We Need to Calm Down, the presidents spokesman made same ruling elite mistake of equating infrastructural projects with development and imagining that the people are happy. He regaled Nigerians with construction projects which he said were unprecedented in Nigerias history. Does he know that development is mental and not merely physical structures?

While Nigeria may indeed have witnessed a flurry of Chinese loan-funded, ostensibly corruption-ridden infrastructural projects, Nigerians joy level has sunk considerably under Buhari. Development is in the peace that has eluded Nigerians in the last five years, in the widespread belief that Nigeria is rudderless under Buhari and the fear that Boko Haram, ISWAP, ISIS and bandits are presiding over the Nigerian affairs, rather than the elected political elite.

By definition, a revolution is a fundamental, sudden change in political power and political organization. It is propelled when a people revolt against an oppressive government run by generally perceived incompetent people. In human history, there have been an array of revolutions which significantly changed thestatus quo. While notable revolutions are the American Revolutionary War of 1775-1783, the French Revolution of 1789 to 1799and the Russian Revolution of 1917, Africa has had its ownexperiences, ranging from the Angolan Revolution of 1961 1974, the Egyptian Revolution of 1919 and the Zanzibar Revolution of 1964. The most recent in this league in Africa is the Arab Spring. So, what gave#RevolutionNowconveners the impression that Nigeria is ready for a revolt?

Successful revolutions have been known to succumb to some indices.James DeFronzosRevolutions and Revolutionary Movements, which can be regarded as a handbook for revolution, provided some insights. Mass frustration resulting in local uprisings, dissident elites, powerfulunifying motivations, a severe crisis paralyzing state administrative and coercive power and a permissive or tolerant world context are some of the indices DeFronzo suggested cannot but be present if a revolt against an existing order must sail through.

A critical look at the Nigerian situation reveals the following: Whereas there is mass frustration in the country, this has seldom resulted in local uprisings, except the June 12 riots. In the same vein, the Nigerian elites, being part and parcel of the maggots that lace the Nigerian decadence, are literally having a saturnalia inside the Nigerian sewage and are far from being dissident against thestatus quo. Again, whereas there are motivations for revolt in virtually all parts of Nigeria, the complexities in diversities of tribe, religion and culture have compelled divisive motivations. The Nigerian ruling elites are coercive, reckless and feckless in their rule but the contradictory indices earlier provided have restrained massive and widespread paralysis of governments. Allied to these is the fact that while there is indeed asidon lookof the international system against the slide in the affairs of Nigeria, this has lionized the ruling elite into further tightening the screw of their misrule.

Only a surface analysis would conclude that Nigeria is not ripe for a revolution. A combination of an incompetent ruling class and a gale of hopelessness is oscillating in the Nigerian sky. A conservative estimate will show that, at least 90 per cent Nigerians, from all the geopolitical zones, are miserable, hopeless and perceiving life as worthless. At every point, those purportedly elected to provide succor daily advertise confounding helplessness.

Look at the Bauchi State governor who recently appointed a Special Assistant on Unmarried Women Affairs; or the systemic chaos that is the order of the day in Nigeria. Check out the symbolism of Edo State where the unrivalled lawlessness of Adams Oshiomhole is jamming the arrogance of power of Godwin Obaseki. And of course, the massive theft of Nigerias inheritance and full-blown wretchedness of Nigerians, both of which are tribal-blind and religion-jaundiced.

What are those contradictions that made the#RevolutionNowlook like a failure and which have made Adesina and his ilk gloat at the possibility of an overturn of the system? One is the structural default that Nigeria sits upon. No successful revolt can happen, in the words of DeFronzo, without unifying motivations. Though there is mass frustration, the motivations for revolt are not unifying. This necessitated what happened recently in Katsina, Buharis home state. Tired of their massive killing by bandits with a corresponding incapability of their son, Buhari and his sidekick governor, Aminu Masari, Katsina people blocked the roads and asked for their twin resignation.

Also, persuaded that the unprecedented heists in government and Buharis cancerous cronyism are offshoots of a systemic imbalance, Southern Nigeria has consistently called for restructuring. In the ears of a feudal North used to kowtowing, however, that singsong is absolute bunkum. Again, while bandits who come from a seeming culture that justifies slaughtering have butchered more Southern Kaduna people than the number of rams they probably slaughtered in their lifetime, the rest of Nigerias consternation at this bloodletting sounds strange to the sons of perdition whose DNA is violence and bloodshed. So where can there be one voice against systemic disorder as to propel people to massively gather to upturn a decadentstatus-quolike Buharis?

The above are ills resulting from the calamitous dalliance of Flora Shaw and her British soldier liaison, Lord Lugard. Unfazed by the fact that Nigeria is not a nation but a concentration of nations, with different persuasions, worldviews, cultures, social foundations, human excitements and expectations, this duo soldered the nations into a fractious whole, with dangers for their forcefully welded existence. This resulted in last weeks sprinkle of young boys and girls,a lathe presidencys gloat, as against a mass uprising, even though the indices of revolution, the hopelessness, the frustrations, are present everywhere. The truth is, there is no difference between the widespread despondency in Katsina-Ala, the frustration in Nkalagu or the massive disdain with Nigerian ruling class in Igboho but motivations for dissent are not the same.

Femi Adesina and the ruling class as a whole may however not have too long to gloat. To gloat at the impracticability of a revolution is a fallacious appeal to authority. It can also pass as a fallacy of the straw man. This is because it is not unlikely that the Nigerian ruling class might have been holding on to weak, phony and ridiculous beliefs that have no basis in science. The collapse of current world order, especially in this world of Coronavirus, may have underscored this.

It is in the enlightened self interest of the Nigerian ruling class to flatten the curves of inequalities and gross lack and want, otherwise, its thinking that Nigerians are incapable of rising against it will collapse.

This was the thinking of the runners of George OrwellsAnimal Farm. The lyrics of OrwellianBeasts of Englandsay this much and are a pointer to the fact that, if the oppression and frustration in Nigeria continue unabated, it may be a push for a surge of the adrenaline of the Nigerian oppressed.

Orwell had enjoined the suffering oppressed, the Beasts of England, Beasts of Ireland the corollary inside the Nigerian Animal Farm cage, the, Beasts of every land and climenot to be downcast asSoon or late the day is coming,//Tyrant Man shall be oerthrown//And the fruitful fields of England//Shall be trod by beasts alone. Rejoicing in a future of conquest of the system, Orwell also enjoined that, Rings shall vanish from our noses//And the harness from our back//Bit and spur shall rust forever//Cruel whips no more shall crack.

Are the Nigerian ruling elite who believe that the decadent order would continuead infinitumlistening?

Mimiko: A withered Iroko tree

The sagging consequence and worth of the name of Olusegun Mimiko, the former governor of Ondo State, received some boost in political discourse recently. It was buoyed by the coming October governorship election of his Ondo home state. Since leaving office in 2016, Mimiko, the man who prided self as Iroko tree of Ondo politics, seemed to have been felled from reckoning and became the butt of jokes. You could summarize his tumble in a Yoruba wise-saying thatogbon a ma pa ologbon at the juncture of fate, the Smart Alec will certainly meet their waterloo.

Mimiko received the push of destiny in his political sojourn, from being a commissioner, Secretary to the State Government, Minister of the Federal Republic, to an eight-year reign as governor. His was an unexampled case of an underdog disdained by the powers-that-be who upturned power equation in Ondo State and ran for, as well as won governorship on the platform of an unknown Labour Party. Thereafter, for eight years, he built a power base that he unfortunately wove round himself as theFuhrer. A student of the power of symbolism, Mimiko appeared almost everywhere in austereadireattire, projecting the image of an ascetic who deliberately shunned wealth and the good things of life.

But that was just a faade! It covered Mimikos reification of self above every other consideration. A few months before the 2015 election, the Smart Alec jumped ship again, from the LP to the PDP. There was thus no wonder that almost immediately he left office, with no power grip, he suffered a huge casualty of erstwhile followers who made an about-turn from a Smart Alec who thought he was the only wisdom base of power. The icing on the case of his fall was when the Iroko ran for Senate and was thoroughly humiliated by a man who could not dare the majesty of his power as theFuhrer.

Thereafter, Mimiko tumbled down politically and with resounding ignominy. His major cusp of fall was his decision to trade off the candidacy of his Attorney General for almost eight years, Eyitayo Jegede. Those in the know claimed that while Mimiko stood like an Iroko behind him by the day, he traded in the Jegede merchandize at night, smiling away with the booty of the barter. When the consignment was weighed down by the shenanigan of another merchant of politics, Jimoh Ibrahim, the former governor easily meshed into the midst of those who bore the pall of that dream. He only began to harvest the seeds of political Karma, post-office. Not only did followers migrate from him, the erstwhile Iroko became the sole inhabitant of a political party whose total membership could hardly fill a tiny living room. More instructively, all his harvests of office have vapourized into the hands of a band of smarter Smart Alecs and the Iroko is now as dry as a morsel swallowed without stew.

But, not to worry, political capital and reckoning are returning to the withered Iroko tree. A fellow political inhabitant of the hovel of the oldest profession in the world, who in less than a month, had traversed two political parties and is being careered into a third by an inordinate ambition that has no place for morality, wants to share political harlotry with the once famous Iroko. He is Agboola Ajayi, Ondo deputy governor, whose vaulting ambition is pushing to be the most notorious political harlot in recent time. And Mimikos solo political hovel Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) is the shack to harbor their co-habitation. Irokos political odyssey has over the years taken him on a merry-go-round from AD to PDP, to LP, PDP and to ZLP, barring any further political peregrination. He is likened now to a huge Iroko tree shunned of its Irokoness.

The ZLP misadventure of Agboola and Mimiko would be the last total withering of the Iroko tree. By the foot of the tree would be left this epitaph: Here are the ruins of a once domineering tree, withered by a personal belief that he is smarter than all.

Olukoya and ill-logics of the Pentecostal Republic

General Overseer, Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries, Pastor Daniel Olukoya, polluted Nigerias religio-political waters last week. Apparently swimming in the pool of what my friend, Ebenezer Obadare, labeled Nigerias incestuous interplay of religion and politics in what he tags a Nigerian Pentecostal Republic, the pastor took liberty on the pulpit to spew illogicalities that have become the preserve of so-called men of God.

The Olukoya epistle contained so many other cants. Speaking under the immunity of this Pentecostal Republic and a narrative from the pulpit that Nigerian politicians must have operated under a demonic spell, Olukoya highlighted what made Awolowo one of the most unique minds of the last century. From his prosecution of the war with zero borrowing as Yakubu Gowons Minister of Finance, to his ascetic lifestyle and how he mesmerized the Gowon cabinet with Simple Primary Economics, Awolowo, in the words of Olukoya, was simply a genius.

And when they were going to do FESTAC 77, they asked for Awos opinion. Awo said, This Festac 77 is a show of our primitivity and that the white man will be quite happy to see us exhibit our primitivity. He said that the money that would be used for Festac 77 should be spent on technology for education, for things that will move people forward, not going back to the idols that dragged us to where we were, and the man had this uncanny attribute of being right, said Olukoya.

However, rather than those alluring superlatives being held as qualifications for eternal life, both in the hearts of the people and the Kingdom of God which admits only the purest of hearts, Olukoya punctured all those attributes he ascribed to Awolowo with what I call the irreverent logic of the pulpit. It is a logic which Pentecostal overlords have deployed to hoodwink their congregants and the public.

Olukoya then magisterially proclaimed that the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo never fulfilled his destiny because he did not give his life to Christ. Despite Awolowos greatness and exploits on the political scene, Olukoya said the sage denied Christ even against the prodding of great Apostle Joseph Ayo Babalola, who allegedly once visited his house.

Some writers have brought out the lie of that Babalola reference so it wont detain me here. It however occurred to me that Olukoya, as said earlier, must have been operating under that general and global belief of politicians being evil and their Nigerian variants, archetype of the thief on the left cross, totally submerged in evil. It was that global tar-brush that the Pentecostal overlord apparently applied on Immortal Awo. This narrative wont wash with Awolowo.

In the history of Nigerian politics, not many of the political elite approximate Christlike attributes as Awolowo did. If the refrain in Christendom is for worshippers to fervently yearn to be like Christ, in character and humility, virtually all politicians since Awolowos earthly departure, pray to be like him in forthrightness and devotion to humanity. Awolowo made life and living worthwhile for the people of Western region, through his developmental strides.

Methinks Olukoya and his Pentecostal overlords have over the years sunk into the arbitrariness zBorn Again-ism as a classification, mis-perceiving it as literal. Born Again, in my reading, isnt only, or isnt strictly, a mouth confession to be like Christ. Born Again is found in the philosophy of humanism which Awolowo epitomized. Humanism isnt all about the metaphysics of religion or the physical service to God since no one can see Him. To be born again is to put humanity first in any earthly engagement. That was Awos creed and it supersedes any metaphysics of religion or in Born Again-ism which Pentecostal pastors have deployed for ages to mesmerize their congregants, preparatory to erecting drain pipes into their hearts which then mint cash into their pockets.

It was that same literal interpretation that Christ disdained in Mathew 25: 35:For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you took Me in,Iwas naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was in prison and you visited Me.When asked when they did these to him, He replied, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.

Awolowo, in serving humanity, served God affectionately.

Link:

Why the colour of #RevolutionNow was not Arab Spring-red - TheCable

The 50 Best Comedies on Netflix Right Now – Vulture

Will Ferrell and Rachel McAdams in Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga. Photo: Elizabeth Viggiano/Netflix

This post is updated frequently as movies leave and enter Netflix. *New additions are indicated with an asterisk.

As the world continues to fall apart, dont you just want to something to make you laugh? Netflix is becoming the countrys biggest source for a laughter after a long week at work, but it can be hard to find exactly what youre in the mood for when you log on to the service. So were here to help. (And for more public service announcements, check out our regularly updated lists of the 100 Best Movies on Netflix and the 50 Best TV Series on Netflix.)

The romantic comedy genre has been in a dire state for many years now, but Hollywood occasionally produces a clever twist on the stale formula. Take this Richard Curtis (Yesterday) movie that features Domhnall Gleeson and Rachel McAdams at their most charming. Gleeson plays a man who can travel back in time, and uses that ability to alter his romantic future, learning that its better to accept life one day at a time with all of its imperfections.

The movie that made Jim Carrey a superstar is over 25 years old already, but its stars fearless physical comedy style doesnt really age. Carrey plays the title character, who gets caught up in a case involving the kidnapping of the Miami Dolphins mascot. Its just an excuse for Carrey to act as goofy as possible. He would do anything to get a laugh.

Movies just dont get much funnier than this 1980 classic from David Zucker, Jerry Zucker, and Jim Abrahams. Robert Hays, Julie Hagerty, and Leslie Nielsen star in a parody of the disaster flicks of the 70s, but Airplane! has far transcended its roots to become one of the most quotable and beloved comedies of all time.

Believe it or not, this is the last movie to win both the Oscar for Best Actor (Jack Nicholson) and Best Actress (Helen Hunt). James L. Brooks romantic comedy is a perfect example of a movie that caught its cast at just the right moment, getting one of the last Nicholson performances that could be called charming and supporting it with great work from Hunt and Greg Kinnear. Some of it is a bit dated, but it catches just enough lightning in a bottle in terms of casting to justify another look.

Mike Myers never could have imagined that his goofy superspy parody would launch a franchise, but all three films about the inimitable Austin Powers are on Netflix, just waiting for a rainy-day marathon. The reason these movies work is Myers complete fearlessness hell do anything to make you laugh.

Another family movie! This adaptation of the famous kids book by Judi and Ron Barrett completely expands on the world of its source material to tell the story of an inventor (voiced wonderfully by Bill Hader) who unleashes a storm of food. The character design here is clever and the script is very smart, written by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, who went from this to make a little flick called The LEGO Movie and produce Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. They know a thing or two about great cartoons.

Its hard to believe that its been a quarter-century since Amy Heckerlings brilliant reimagining of Jane Austens Emma hit the pop culture landscape, but its even more remarkable how well this films humor has held up. The fashion and music may be dated, but the progressive sense of humor and perfect comic timing mean it will work even for the generations born after it was released.

InThe Death of Stalin, Armando Iannuccis acid dramatization of the days in October 1953 when the Soviet Union lost its paranoid-psychotic totalitarian leader of three decades, the characters accents are Cockney, Brit-twit, and Yank no Russian is spoken while tortures and mass murders are ordered in tones of crisp English understatement. It takes some time to adjust to the mix of silly, peevish bureaucrats and the serious atrocities they inflict. But thats the beauty of the thing. Iannucci gets that grotesque horrors often emanate from egotists, clowns, and stumblebums, from small-minded people with vast and unchecked powers.

Eddie Murphy is back! Its been a long time since we saw this version of Eddie, who reminds us how funny and charismatic he can be with the right part. That part is the flashy personality that was Rudy Ray Moore, a washed-up musician who transformed himself into the character of Dolemite. Like The Disaster Artist and Ed Wood, this is an ode to DIY filmmaking with not just a great performance from Murphy, but Wesley Snipes and Keegan Michael Key too.

One of the most delightful surprises of the dumpster fire that is Summer 2020 has been Eurovision Song Contest, an unexpectedly sweet and clever flick and Will Ferrells best comedy in a decade. The Anchorman star plays half of an Icelandic duo who stumble their way through the Eurovision singing contest, but the movie really belongs to Rachel McAdams, who gives a performance that joyfully reminds everyone that she has absolutely perfect comic timing.

Greta Gerwig got a lot of deserved attention for Lady Bird but it wasnt her first semi-biographical screenplay, and maybe wasnt even her best. She co-wrote this quarter-life crisis comedy with director Noah Baumbach, in which she stars 27-year-old New Yorker Frances Halladay. Its one of those films that doesnt have much of a plot but works because of the genuine, empathetic way it approaches its leading lady, a character who feels both incredibly specific and yet universally relatable at the same time.

Remember when Russell Brand was a star? Riding the fame from his supporting role in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, he headlined this spin-off as Aldous Snow, an obnoxious rock star who takes a talent scout played by Jonah Hill along for the ride of his personal meltdown. Brand and Hill are funny, and you may have forgotten that Rose Byrne and Elisabeth Moss pop up in funny supporting roles too.

Michael Dowses 2011 hockey comedy is a great sports movie about finding your ideal role in life. It made hardly anything in theaters but found an audience at home (so much so that theyve already made an inferior sequel). Seann William Scott stars as Doug Glatt, a sweet but kinda dumb guy who becomes the tough guy on a hockey team. You know, the one who starts and finishes most of the fights. Its funny and surprisingly sweet with Scotts career-best work.

Relive one of the best comedies of all time over and over again on Netflix. Believe it or not, this 1993 Bill Murray vehicle wasnt that rapturously received critically or commercially when it came out, but its become a beloved genre classic. Murray stars as a weatherman forced to relive the same day over and over again until he gets it right. Its not just the clever premise but how much co-writer/director Harold Ramis and Murray inject humanism and truth into it. And its held up so much better than most early 90s comedies.

The Coen brothers wrote and directed this divisive 2016 comedy about the film industry in the 1950s. Forget Ryan Murphys Hollywood and stick with this razor sharp gem with a great Coen ensemble that includes Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Ralph Fiennes, Jonah Hill, and many more.

Long before Popstar and Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Andy Samberg starred in his first Lonely Island project and first major film after Saturday Night Live. Relatively ignored and critically derided at the time, Hot Rod has developed a loyal cult following over the years. Its easy to see the Lonely Island comedy voice developing in this story of a goofy stuntman trying to perform the biggest stunt of his career to save the life of his irascible father.

There are not a lot of great Netflix Original comedies (sorry, Adam Sandler fans) as the company has focused more on sci-fi and drama in its first few years of nonstop production. One of the exceptions is this Sundance hit, a great vehicle for Jessica Williams. The former Daily Show correspondent stars as the title character, someone trying to find happiness and love. Shes charming and delightful in a movie that not enough people have seen.

One of Cameron Crowes best films became something of a punchline with its heavily quoted lines (Show me the money, You had me at hello, everything that cute kid says) but its actually a wonderful romantic comedy that has held up incredibly well in the quarter-century since its release. Tom Cruise plays the title character, a sports agent who is pushed into starting his own agency while he falls in love with a single mother, played by Renee Zellweger. Its sweet, smart, and funny.

Long before he was Deadpool, Ryan Reynolds was a fat kid named Chris Brander. Ignoring the arguably offensive fat jokes, this is an underrated laugher about a guy who is stuck in the friend zone with his best friend (played by Amy Smart) but gets a chance to make his dreams come true a decade later. Its far from perfect but features very likable performances from Reynolds, Smart, and Anna Faris.

You have likely never seen a movie quite like this 2004 martial arts comedy, Stephen Chows masterpiece. Set in 1940s China, this worldwide hit features some of the best stunt work you can find on Netflix, all in service of a movie that often plays like a live-action cartoon. Its ridiculous and unforgettable.

Greta Gerwigs Oscar nominee is one of the most personal and striking coming-of-age films of the 2010s. Saoirse Ronan stars as a young Californian who longs for someplace cooler than her own hometown. Its a heartfelt and very smart film, buoyed by great performances throughout, including Ronan, Tracy Letts, Timothee Chalamet, Lucas Hedges, Beanie Feldstein, and Laurie Metcalf, who was robbed of that Oscar.

Nicole Holofcener is one of the most underappreciated writer-directors alive, even if she did just earn an Oscar nod for co-writing Can You Ever Forgive Me? You simply have to see Enough Said, Lovely and Amazing, and Please Give. Her latest stars Ben Mendelsohn as a man deep in a mid-life crisis that comes from the realization that hes not as important as he thought that he was his whole life. Its not as good as some of her best work, but minor Holofcener is still worth a look.

Theres a movie on Netflix that features Aubrey Plaza as a profanity-spewing nun and you havent watched it yet? Jeff Baenas Sundance hit also stars Alison Brie, Dave Franco, John C. Reilly, Molly Shannon, and Fred Armisen in a ridiculous, raunchy retelling of The Decameron. Its reminiscent of classic Mel Brooks in the way it skewers classical storytelling structures with modern comic sensibilities.

Comedy doesnt get much darker than this 2015 offering from the 2019 Oscar-nominated Yorgos Lanthimos. The Greek director co-wrote and directs the story of a place where single people go to hook up with others looking for love. The catch? If they dont find a partner within 45 days, they are turned into animals. As dry and deadpan as comedy gets, there are still some very funny beats in Lanthimoss exaggerated look at the folly of human connection.

Its hard to say that youll laugh out loud at this look at marital dysfunction, but Azazel Jacobs indie critical darling has enough black humor to qualify. The wonderful Tracy Letts and Debra Winger star as an estranged, middle-age couple who are both having relatively open affairs. As their lovers insist that they end the marriage, the couple is surprised to fall back in love with each other.

Tom Hanks and Shelley Long star in this 1986 hit about a couple who end up with a disastrous home and try to renovate it with hysterical results. A whole generation of 80s kids love this movie, which has a nice blend of physical comedy for the little ones and the kind of nightmarish situation to which their parents can relate.

Theres a bunch of Monty Python specials and movies on Netflix, but this remains arguably the career peak of one of the most beloved comedy troupes of all time. A parody of tales like those of the Knights of the Round Table, Holy Grail is one of the most heavily quoted movies of all time, a comedy that feels like its playing in some theater somewhere in the world, probably at midnight, every single day. Its popularity simply never recedes.

Holy Grail may be laugh-out-loud funnier, but its arguable that Life of Brian is actually smarter. Monty Pythons most controversial movie stars Graham Chapman as Brian Cohen, the neighbor of Jesus Christ. Its an incredibly smart film that caused quite an uproar when it was released due to accusations of blasphemy. Modern comedy could use a little more blasphemy every now and then.

Pair this up with Uncut Gems for a little bit of Sandler whiplash. Years before his most acclaimed role, Sandler was the biggest comedy box office star in the world, as evidenced by his remake of Frank Capras Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, the story of an average guy who becomes an unexpected billionaire. Its all an excuse for Sandlers trademark man-child humor, but its got a big heart in some of the right places and certainly outshines some of the recent Happy Madison Netflix Originals.

Not every movie on a list like this should be a smash hit, so were digging a little deeper for this South by Southwest hit starring the delightful Nol Wells of Master of None and Saturday Night Live. She also wrote and directed this story of a young lady returning to her hometown and dealing with some unresolved issues regarding her ex-boyfriend, now with a new partner. Wells is charming and funny.

Jared Hess and Jack Blacks goofy senses of humor meshed well in this 2006 comedy hit. Black plays a cook at a Oaxacan monastery who unexpectedly becomes a famous luchador, but thats just the skeleton of a plot on which to hang physical humor and silly behavior. Its the kind of comedy thats easy to put on in the background while youre doing other things. Sometimes thats all you want from Netflix.

No one ever could have guessed that the unsuccessful TV series Police Squad! would turn into the wildly successful film series The Naked Gun, which was such a hit on its 1988 release that it turned Leslie Nielsen into a massive star and produced two sequels. The first film is still a best, a gloriously ridiculous spoof of cop shows/films in which Nielsens Frank Drebin stumbles upon a plot to kill Queen Elizabeth II that involves Reggie Jackson. Its too bad they dont make movies this gloriously stupid (in a good way) as often as they did in the 80s and 90s. The second film is also on Netflix (but not the third.)

The timing may not seem right for a movie about violent cops, but Jody Hills pitch-black comedy gets at something about corrupt power and the kind of personality drawn to the force, and people seem more drawn to it than ever during Summer 2020 for that reason. Its vicious and hysterical.

Jenny Slate should be a household name. Shes always charming, has great comic timing, and seems to find new dramatic registers with each outing. This remains her best overall film and performance, the story of a stand-up comedian who has to deal with a few of lifes unexpected curveballs. Shorthanded as the abortion comedy, theres more to Obvious Child than just that brief description allows. Its smart and genuinely likable things that arent often said about what could be called a rom-com.

For some reason, the Steven Soderbergh remake of the classic heist film, Oceans Eleven, is not on Netflix, but its two very different sequels are. The meta approach of Oceans Twelve earned the film something of a loyal following on Film Twitter, whereas the looser, more mainstream final film in the trilogy was underrated then and now. Both are worth a look when you feel like hanging out with some cool, beautiful people.

Is this Will Ferrells last great comedy? Capping off a decade that included Anchorman, Old School, Step Brothers, and Talladega Nights, the SNL alum co-stars with Mark Wahlberg as two cops forced to step into the spotlight after the hysterical death of the two most popular officers on the force. Ferrell and Wahlberg are great in one of Adam McKays funnier comedies. He should reunite with his best leading man and make another one.

Stephen Chbosky adapted his own book into this tender and moving coming-of-age comedy starring Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, and Ezra Miller. Its a remarkably smart film when it comes to teen issues that are rarely reflected accurately like depression and anxiety. And Chbosky directs his ensemble to beautiful, nuanced performances.

Andrew Bujalskis Support the Girls got a lot of buzz last year, even winning some awards for its great central performance from Regina Hall. If you liked it, check out Bujalskis last film, another movie about a very unique working environment. Cobie Smulders, Guy Pearce, and Kevin Corrigan star in this quirky rom-com set in the high-pressure world of personal trainers.

Michael Cera stars in Edgar Wrights vibrant adaptation of Bryan Lee OMalleys graphic novel, a movie that feels like it could come out exactly the same way today, almost a decade after its release. Wrights style is perfect for this material, capturing the tone and structure of the source material with his razor-sharp editing and wit.

When Set It Up hit Netflix in the Summer of 2018, it felt like a splash of cold water for one reason: the rom-com is in a dire state. They barely get released in theaters at all any more, and theyre typically awful when they do. So to see an old-fashioned, charming romantic comedy felt like something new again. It also helps that Zoey Deutch and Glen Powell have future stars written all over them. Theyre charming and delightful two things we wish we could say about more rom-coms in the past decade.

If you love Russian Doll (and really who doesnt) then you should dig into the history of its creator, Leslye Headland. She wrote and directed this clever 2015 comedy starring Jason Sudeikis, Alison Brie, Adam Scott, Jason Mantzoukas, and, of course, Natasha Lyonne.

We could all use a little romance every now and then, and it doesnt get much sweeter than this 1993 blockbuster that made Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan one of the most beloved movie couples of all time. Nora Ephron directs this story of a widower who moves to Seattle and tries to raise his 8-year-old son, and the Baltimore woman who hears his tragic tale and falls in love. They dont make many films like this one anymore.

Mel Brooks last great parody is this hysterical spoof of the world of Star Wars, filtered in a comedic style that is distinctively that of one of movie historys greatest writers. Spaceballs takes most of its direct aim at the Lucas trilogy (yes, there were only three back in 1987), but Brooks tackles other sci-fi properties too, and he does it all with his wicked sense of timing and hysterical wordplay.

There are a lot of movies on Netflix. There are not a lot of movies like this Sundance hit. Just when you think youve seen it all, along comes Daniel Radcliffe as a farting corpse. The former Boy Who Lived stars with Paul Dano in a film that cant really be captured in a tiny list entry. Just watch it and report back.

It may not be accepted in 2020, but Sydney Pollacks comedy about a man who dresses as a woman to finally make it in his career was a blockbuster hit when it was released almost four decades ago. Watch it now for the incredible comic timing of Dustin Hoffman, Jessica Lange, Teri Garr, Dabney Coleman, and Bill Murray, among others. Its one of those 80s comedies that really shattered all expectations, making over $175 million (in 1982 movie) and even winning an Oscar for Lange. It was nominated for ten Academy Awards! That just doesnt happen for comedies anymore.

If a studio had released this delightful romantic dramedy in theaters, even just in major cities, people would have noticed. Its smart, funny, and contains a pair of wonderful young performances. Its the story of Danny (Callum Turner) and Ellie (Grace Van Patten), two struggling New Yorkers drawn together over a mysterious briefcase.

This horror/comedy made hardly an impact when it was released in 2010 but has become a true cult hit in the decade since on DVD and streaming services. The main reason is that Tyler Labine and Alan Tudyk have perfect comic timing as a pair of lovable hillbillies who get caught up in a crazy horror movie situation that leads to a lot of laughs and buckets of blood. Now give us a sequel!

After John C. Reillys pitch perfect spoof of the rock biopic, one would think that the tropes skewered in this laugh-out-loud comedy would go away but watching this now after the success of films like Bohemian Rhapsody makes its genius seem even sharper.

Look, another Noah Baumbach movie! When Netflix launches movies by auteurs, they often include a lot of their older films in the catalogue, and so the inclusion of The Meyerowitz Stories means a lot of old Baumbach. This 2014 comedy may not be his deepest work, but its one of his funniest, with likable, perfectly tuned performances from Ben Stiller, Naomi Watts, and Adam Driver.

Jason Reitman directs the always-great Charlize Theron in this 2011 dark comedy about a writer of young adult novels who returns to her hometown to wreak havoc. The movie is a bit inconsistent at times but Theron (and Patton Oswalt) is simply great, especially in the way she allows her character to be genuinely unlikable. Its a smart movie about someone who thinks shes superior to those around her and learns maybe shes not.

Sometimes its fun to watch what could be a mediocre movie get totally carried by the charms of its two stars. Thats the case here. Is this a great comedy? Not really, but Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks are so delightful and fun to watch that you just dont care.

Continue reading here:

The 50 Best Comedies on Netflix Right Now - Vulture

First Amendment – Rights, U.S. Constitution & Freedoms …

Contents

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. It also protects the right to peaceful protest and to petition the government. The amendment was adopted in 1791 along with nine other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights a written document protecting civil liberties under U.S. law. The meaning of the First Amendment has been the subject of continuing interpretation and dispute over the years. Landmark Supreme Court cases have dealt with the right of citizens to protest U.S. involvement in foreign wars, flag burning and the publication of classified government documents.

During the summer of 1787, a group of politicians, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, gathered in Philadelphia to draft a new U.S. Constitution.

Antifederalists, led by the first governor of Virginia, Patrick Henry, opposed the ratification of the Constitution. They felt the new constitution gave the federal government too much power at the expense of the states. They further argued that the Constitution lacked protections for peoples individual rights.

The debate over whether to ratify the Constitution in several states hinged on the adoption of a Bill of Rights that would safeguard basic civil rights under the law. Fearing defeat, pro-constitution politicians, called Federalists, promised a concession to the antifederalists a Bill of Rights.

James Madison drafted most of the Bill of Rights. Madison was a Virginia representative who would later become the fourth president of the United States. He created the Bill of Rights during the 1st United States Congress, which met from 1789 to 1791 the first two years that President George Washington was in office.

The Bill of Rights, which was introduced to Congress in 1789 and adopted on December 15, 1791, includes the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The First Amendment text reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While the First Amendment protected freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition, subsequent amendments under the Bill of Rights dealt with the protection of other American values including the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Freedom of speech gives Americans the right to express themselves without having to worry about government interference. Its the most basic component of freedom of expression.

The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what types of speech is protected. Legally, material labeled as obscene has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection, for example, but deciding what qualifies as obscene has been problematic. Speech provoking actions that would harm otherstrue incitement and/or threatsis also not protected, but again determining what words have qualified as true incitement has been decided on a case-by-case basis.

This freedom is similar to freedom of speech, in that it allows people to express themselves through publication.

There are certain limits to freedom of the press. False or defamatory statements called libel arent protected under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment, in guaranteeing freedom of religion, prohibits the government from establishing a state religion and from favoring one religion over any other.

While not explicitly stated, this amendment establishes the long-established separation of church and state.

The First Amendment protects the freedom to peacefully assemble or gather together or associate with a group of people for social, economic, political or religious purposes. It also protects the right to protest the government.

The right to petition can mean signing a petition or even filing a lawsuit against the government.

Here are landmark Supreme Court decisions related to the First Amendment.

Free Speech:

Schenck v. United States, 1919: In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft during World War I.

The Schenck decision helped define limits of freedom of speech, creating the clear and present danger standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, the Supreme Court viewed draft resistance as dangerous to national security.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971: This landmark Supreme Court case made it possible for The New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the contents of the Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship.

The Pentagon Papers were a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Published portions of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Texas v. Johnson, 1990: Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the administration of President Ronald Reagan.

The Supreme Court reversed a Texas courts decision that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. This Supreme Court Case invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag-burning.

Freedom of the Press:

New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971: This landmark Supreme Court case made it possible for The New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the contents of the Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship.

The Pentagon Papers were a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Published portions of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Freedom of Religion:

Reynolds v. United States (1878): This Supreme Court case upheld a federal law banning polygamy, testing the limits of religious liberty in America. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbids government from regulating belief but not from actions such as marriage.

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961): The Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring stores to close on Sundays, even though Orthodox Jews argued the law was unfair to them since their religion required them to close their stores on Saturdays as well.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that states could not require a person to abandon their religious beliefs in order to receive benefits. In this case, Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, worked in a textile mill. When her employer switched from a five-day to six-day workweek, she was fired for refusing to work on Saturdays. When she applied for unemployment compensation, a South Carolina court denied her claim.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): This Supreme Court decision struck down a Pennsylvania law allowing the state to reimburse Catholic schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in those schools. This Supreme Court case established the Lemon Test for determining when a state or federal law violates the Establishment Clausethats the part of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from declaring or financially supporting a state religion.

Ten Commandments Cases (2005): In 2005, the Supreme Court came to seemingly contradictory decisions in two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. In the first case, Van Orden v. Perry, the Supreme Court ruled that the display of a six-foot Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capital was constitutional. In McCreary County v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that two large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses violated the First Amendment.

Right to Assemble & Right to Petition:

NAACP v. Alabama (1958): When Alabama Circuit Court ordered the NAACP to stop doing business in the state and subpoenaed the NAACP for records including their membership list, the NAACP brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favor of the NAACP, which Justice John Marshall Harlan II writing: This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations.

Edwards v. South Carolina (1962): On March 2, 1961, 187 black students marched from Zion Baptist Church to the South Carolina State House, where they were arrested and convicted of breaching the peace. The Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision to reverse the convictions, arguing that the state infringed on the free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition of the students.

The Bill of Rights; White House.History of the First Amendment; The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Schenck v. United States; C-Span.

Continued here:

First Amendment - Rights, U.S. Constitution & Freedoms ...

First Amendment | Contents & Supreme Court Interpretations …

First Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States that is part of the Bill of Rights and reads,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The clauses of the amendment are often called the establishment clause, the free exercise clause, the free speech clause, the free press clause, the assembly clause, and the petition clause.

The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted only what the federal government may do and did not bind the states. Most state constitutions had their own bills of rights, and those generally included provisions similar to those found in the First Amendment. But the state provisions could be enforced only by state courts.

In 1868, however, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people liberty without due process. Since then the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually used the due process clause to apply most of the Bill of Rights to state governments. In particular, from the 1920s to the 40s the Supreme Court applied all the clauses of the First Amendment to the states. Thus, the First Amendment now covers actions by federal, state, and local governments. The First Amendment also applies to all branches of government, including legislatures, courts, juries, and executive officials and agencies. This includes public employers, public university systems, and public school systems.

The First Amendment, however, applies only to restrictions imposed by the government, since the First and Fourteenth amendments refer only to government action. As a result, if a private employer fires an employee because of the employees speech, there is no First Amendment violation. There is likewise no violation if a private university expels a student for what the student said, if a commercial landlord restricts what bumper stickers are sold on the property it owns, or if an Internet service provider refuses to host certain Web sites.

Legislatures sometimes enact laws that protect speakers or religious observers from retaliation by private organizations. For example, Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans religious discrimination even by private employers. Similarly, laws in some states prohibit employers from firing employees for off-duty political activity. But such prohibitions are imposed by legislative choice rather than by the First Amendment.

The freedoms of speech, of the press, of assembly, and to petitiondiscussed here together as freedom of expressionbroadly protect expression from governmental restrictions. Thus, for instance, the government may not outlaw antiwar speech, speech praising violence, racist speech, pro-communist speech, and the like. Nor may the government impose special taxes on speech on certain topics or limit demonstrations that express certain views. The government also may not authorize civil lawsuits based on peoples speech, unless the speech falls within a traditionally recognized First Amendment exception. This is why, for example, people may not sue for emotional distress inflicted by offensive magazine articles about them, unless the articles are not just offensive but include false statements that fall within the defamation exception (see below Permissible restrictions on expression).

The free expression guarantees are not limited to political speech. They also cover speech about science, religion, morality, and social issues as well as art and even personal gossip.

Freedom of the press confirms that the government may not restrict mass communication. It does not, however, give media businesses any additional constitutional rights beyond what nonprofessional speakers have.

Freedom of petition protects the right to communicate with government officials. This includes lobbying government officials and petitioning the courts by filing lawsuits, unless the court concludes that the lawsuit clearly lacks any legal basis.

Read this article:

First Amendment | Contents & Supreme Court Interpretations ...

First Five: Standing up for the First Amendment and Austin Tice – McDowell News

One of the most interesting things about the press is that despite being the only profession actually named in the Constitution, journalists themselves are not defined by any legal document or ordained by any government body. As my colleague Gene Policinski wrote on World Press Freedom Day a few years back, In the larger sense, were all press every time we post, tweet or blog whether we want that title or not. Media critics and advocates alike are fond of noting the press has no more and no less privilege under the First Amendment than any other U.S. citizen.

This is as true for the professional journalists who covered the recent Black Lives Matter protests as it is for the Minneapolis teenager who recorded the killing of George Floyd, which sparked those protests in the first place. Anyone who cares enough to expose wrongdoing people in power is serving as a watchdog. Anyone who wants to make truth known to the public at large wields the power of the press.

But the fact that anyone can do this doesnt detract from its significance, or the risks that it might entail.

Next week, it will have been eight years since Austin Tice went missing. Austin was a Georgetown law student and former U.S. Marine Corps officer who went to Syria as a freelance journalist in 2012. He was also one of the only Western journalists on the ground while the Syrian conflict was unfolding and he made it his mission to report on the impact the conflict was having on civilians. On July 25, 2012, he posted this on his Facebook page, responding to those who told him he was crazy to try to report what was happening in Syria: We kill ourselves every day with McDonalds and alcohol and a thousand other drugs, but weve lost the sense that there actually are things out there worth dying for. Weve given away our freedoms piecemeal to robber barons, but were too complacent to do much but criticize those few who try to point out the obvious.

Read the original here:

First Five: Standing up for the First Amendment and Austin Tice - McDowell News

FIRST 5: Standing up for the First Amendment; and Austin Tice – Salina Post

Lata Nott. Photo courtesy Freedom Forum.

By LATA NOTT

Last week, I spoke (virtually, of course) with agroup of journalism students about how the First Amendment relates to, and protects, the work theyll soon be doing. I walked them through the major legal doctrines that protect freedom of expression in this country:

The government cant create laws that censor or punish people for their speech, unless theres a compelling purpose behind them and those laws are the least restrictive way to achieve them;

It cant apply laws or take actionsin a manner thatdiscriminates against people based on the point of view theyre expressing;

It cant engage in prior restraint prevent something from being published unless it can prove that that publication would cause immediate and irreparable harm to the United States.

Its a lecture Ive given many times over the past few years, but afterwards, one of the students asked me a question Id never been asked before. Who makes sure the government isnt doing any of the things it cant be doing? Is there an agency that ensures compliance with the First Amendment?

For the most part, its just us, I replied and made some sort of expansive hand gesture in an effort to letthe studentknow that us encompassed her, me, the other 20 people on the Zoom call and the American people as a whole.

It was an off-the-cuff answer, and if Id had more time and my Wi-Fi connection had been less laggy, I might have said that its the courts that strike down unconstitutional laws and government actions, although executive agencies like the Department of Justice andlegislative bodies like Congress can certainly play a role by pushing for and implementing further safeguards for free expression. But my original answer still stands. Courts hear cases when lawsuits are brought by peoplewhose rights have been violated. The executive and legislative branches respond to demands from their constituents. And the public learns about the governments transgressionsthrough the press.

One of the most interesting things about the press is thatdespite being the only profession actually named in the Constitution, journalists themselves are not defined by any legal document or ordained by any government body.As my colleagueGene Policinskiwroteon World Press Freedom Day a few years back,Inthe larger sense, were all press every time we post, tweet or blog whether we want that title or not. Media critics and advocates alike are fond of noting the presshas no more and no less privilege under the First Amendment than any other U.S. citizen.

This is as true for theprofessional journalists who covered the recent Black Lives Matter protestsas it is for theMinneapolis teenager who recorded the killing ofGeorge Floyd, which sparked those protests in the first place. Anyone who cares enough to expose wrongdoingpeoplein power isserving as a watchdog. Anyone who wants to make truth known to the public at largewields the power of the press.

But the fact that anyone can do this doesnt detract from its significance, or the risks that it might entail.

Next week, it will have been eight years sinceAustin Ticewent missing. Austin was a Georgetown law student and former U.S. Marine Corps officer who went to Syria as a freelance journalist in 2012. He was also one of the only Western journalists on the ground while the Syrian conflict was unfolding and he made it his mission to report on the impact the conflict was having on civilians. On July 25, 2012,he posted this on his Facebook page, responding to those who told him he was crazy to try to report what was happening in Syria: We kill ourselves every day with McDonalds and alcohol and a thousand other drugs, but weve lost the sense that there actually are things out there worth dying for. Weve given away our freedoms piecemeal to robber barons, but were too complacent to do much but criticize those few who try to point out the obvious.

On Aug. 14, 2012, three days after his 31st birthday, Austin Tice was taken captive as he was preparing to travel from Daraya, near Damascus, Syria, to Beirut, Lebanon. Diverse credible sources report that he is still alive. Austinsparents, who have unrelentingly advocated for his return, recently published anopen letterinThe Washington PostsPress Freedom Partnership newsletter that included this heartbreaking message:

Each year around Austins birthday and the date of his capture, theres a brief moment of renewed attention and media coverage.Our son is imprisoned every single day.Every single day Austin needs his colleagues in journalism to ask questions about what is being done to bring him home, to dig for answers when they meet with obfuscation and to hold U.S. government officials accountable for their actions or lack thereof.

Advocating for Austin and other journalists who have been unjustlytargeted or detained is in our hands. So is safeguarding ourFirst Amendment freedoms. As Austin pointed out, we cant afford to be complacent.

. . .

Lata Nott is a Freedom Forum Fellow. Contact her via email at[emailprotected], or follow her on Twitter at@LataNott.

See more here:

FIRST 5: Standing up for the First Amendment; and Austin Tice - Salina Post

US Department of Education Reaffirms Commitment to Protecting the Religious Liberty of Students and Religious Organizations – U.S. Department of…

WASHINGTON U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced today guidance to protect the religious liberty of individuals and institutions participating in Department of Education programs. This action is part of ongoing efforts by the Department to advance religious liberty protections and delivers on President Donald J. Trumps Executive Order 13798, Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.

This Administration will continue to protect the religious liberty and First Amendment rights of every student, teacher and educational institution across the country, said Secretary DeVos. Too many misinterpret the separation of church and state as an invitation for government to separate people from their faith. In reality, the First Amendment doesnt exist to protect us from religion. It exists to protect religion from government. Todays guidance reaffirms our commitment to protecting our first liberty and ensuring that discriminatory restrictions on access to federal grant funding are no longer tolerated.

This guidance follows recent Supreme Court victories for religious liberty, as Espinozav. Montana Department of Revenueand Trinity Lutheran v. Comercurtailed religious discrimination and thus strengthened protections for religious organizations.

The guidance was drafted pursuant to a directive from the Office of Management and Budget requiring each agency to publish policies detailing how they will administer federal grants in compliance with Executive Order 13798, as well as the Attorney Generals Oct. 6, 2017, Memorandum on Religious Liberty, and the Office of Management and Budgets Jan. 16, 2020, Memorandum.

Notably, the guidance announces a new process by which individuals and organizations can inform the Department of a burden or potential burden on their religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to adequately protect their religious liberties while participating in Department programs.

The new guidance also, consistent with First Amendment principles and Department regulations, does the following:

Full text of the guidance can be found here.

Link:

US Department of Education Reaffirms Commitment to Protecting the Religious Liberty of Students and Religious Organizations - U.S. Department of...

Symposium: Free exercise, RFRA and the need for a constitutional safety net – SCOTUSblog

This article is part of aSCOTUSblog symposiumon the Roberts court and the religion clauses.

Kim Colbyis director of the Christian Legal Societys Center for Law and Religious Freedom. She was counsel on amicus briefs on behalf of the Christian Legal Society inEspinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue,Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, Tanzin v. TanvirandFulton v. City of Philadelphia.

Americans religious freedom depends on a patchwork of protections scattered throughout federal and state laws. Religious freedom is protected to a limited degree by the First Amendments free exercise clause; to a much greater degree, but only at the federal level, by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and to various degrees by specific religious exemptions tucked here and there into federal statutes and regulations. While state constitutions, as well as some state and local statutes, pay homage to religious freedom, when state courts apply them the results frequently tend to be less robust than their language would suggest.

The Supreme Courts 2019-20 term brought significant religious freedom victories. But it also highlighted the lack of a constitutional safety net for religious freedom. The 2020-21 term offers a critical opportunity to restore a constitutional safety net that has been sorely lacking for three decades.

Thirty years ago, the Employment Division v. Smith decision unexpectedly weakened the constitutional protection for religious freedom. The Smith decision substituted rational basis review or possibly, no review at all for strict scrutiny review whenever a burden on the free exercise of religion is imposed by a neutral and generally applicable law. The court has never explained what it means by a neutral and generally applicable law; it is still not clear whether Smith completely gutted the First Amendment protection for religious freedom or merely shrank it considerably and made it much more complicated and confused. Whatever the degree of damage, this loss of protection applies at the federal level and also at state and local levels.

The cases before the court this term and next term illustrate Smiths regrettable long-term consequences and demonstrate why the court should overrule Smith. A case to be heard next term, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, expressly presents that question.

1. Constitutional protection at state and local levels is needed.

Americans religious freedom varies widely depending on the state in which they live. Smith deprived religious persons of previous bargaining power and incentives necessary to persuade state and local officials to respect religious freedom.

To provide protection in states, the court has labored to identify discriminatory treatment of religious persons because Smith itself left strict scrutiny in place when religious persons suffer discriminatory treatment. The court has utilized two distinct buckets to protect religious persons:

1. Discrimination based on religious status: In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, relying on the state constitution, Montana bureaucrats excluded parents and students from a state tuition tax-credit program because many participating families chose to send their children to religious schools. The court held that the Montana constitution impermissibly discriminated on the basis of religious status in violation of the federal free exercise clause.

2. Discriminatory treatment compared to similar secular conduct: Just three years after Smith, in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, the court unanimously ruled that a municipality violated the free exercise clause when it prohibited killing animals as part of a religious ritual, but not as part of a secular activity, such as hunting. In 2018, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court applied Lukumi in ruling that state officials unconstitutionally punished a man of deep religious convictions who refused to create a wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding, but did not penalize other bakers who refused to create cakes with messages to which they personally objected.

Requiring government officials to treat religious conduct with the same respect given similar secular conduct has been an important, if unevenly applied, protection for religious freedom under the Smith regime. But it is not an adequate substitute for reliable constitutional protection of religious freedom achieved through consistent application of strict scrutiny analysis to laws that burden religious freedom. Fulton which involves a citys denial of licensure to a Catholic organizations foster-care program gives the court an opportunity to reinstate strict scrutiny for such laws.

2. RFRAs protection for religious freedom at the federal level requires reinforcement.

In response to Smith, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. RFRA requires the federal government to demonstrate a compelling interest unachievable by a less restrictive means before it may enforce a neutral, generally applicable law against a person whose sincerely held religious beliefs would be substantially burdened by the law.

RFRA, rather than the First Amendment, has provided the primary protection for Americans religious freedom at the federal level for 27 years. A singular legislative achievement, RFRA ensures a level playing field for Americans of all faiths by putting minority faiths and unpopular religious beliefs on an equal footing with faiths that are politically popular.

Two cases on the courts 2019 and 2020 dockets illustrate RFRAs importance to persons of all faiths. In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, Catholic nuns returned to the Supreme Court for the third time in their nine-year effort to win the right to serve the poor without violating their religious convictions regarding contraceptives. Ruling in the Little Sisters favor, the court held that the federal government had the authority under RFRA to provide a generous religious and moral exemption from an administrative regulation that required employers to provide contraceptive coverage through their insurance plans. Unfortunately, the court did not follow the course urged by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch to find that RFRA not only permitted the exemption but actually required it. In a concurrence, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, provided a roadmap for the lower court on remand to rule against the religious exemption a prospect that may necessitate a fourth trip to the Supreme Court for the Little Sisters before final victory.

The second RFRA case, Tanzin v. Tanvir, will be argued this fall. Three Muslim men, one a U.S. citizen and two lawful permanent residents, seek to recover money damages from federal FBI employees who allegedly retaliated against them by placing them on the No Fly List for their refusal to become FBI informants within their religious congregations. The issue before the court is whether RFRAs authorization of appropriate relief includes recovery of money damages from federal officials acting in their personal capacities.

The coalition of 68 organizations from across the religious and political spectrum that urged RFRAs passage had one overriding operative principle: RFRA would protect all Americans religious freedom. Anticipating RFRAs main task as protecting minority faiths, few proponents foresaw that Catholic nuns would be denied a modest religious exemption by a popularly elected administration and, therefore, need RFRAs protection.

But the times have changed rapidly and dramatically. Since 2010, religious social conservatives have increasingly faced a rigid insistence that they conform to and promote the orthodoxies of the abortion and LGBT movements even when those orthodoxies directly conflict with their religious beliefs.

As a result, Congress is being pressured to eviscerate RFRA. The Equality Act, H.R. 5, passed the House of Representatives in May 2019 by a vote of 236-173, with a provision buried in it to gut RFRA. The Equality Acts proponents are willing to forfeit all Americans religious freedom in order to suppress religious dissent.

In its decision this term in Bostock v. Clayton County, which re-interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes, the court offered reassurance that RFRA, Title VIIs religious exemption and the ministerial exception will suffice to protect religious individuals and institutions. But more needs to be done to make its promise a reality. This is particularly true because many state officials are likely to apply Bostocks rationale to re-interpret state prohibitions on sex discrimination in employment, public accommodations and government programs. Title VIIs religious exemption and RFRA do not follow Bostocks analysis downstream to the states.

The courts reaffirmation in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru of the First Amendments strong protection for religious employers decisions about who will lead their religious mission and teach their religious beliefs does apply to the states. But the protection, while strong, is limited and does not extend to all employees.

More to the point, Our Ladys protection of this essential right was possible only because, eight years ago in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the court set Smith to one side. In Hosanna-Tabor, the U.S. government argued that the free exercise clause offered no protection to a religious congregations decisions regarding who would be its minister or teach its faith in its school. The government understandably relied on Smith for this jaw-dropping proposition, only to find its reliance rejected by a unanimous court. But by requiring the court continually to cabin it or create workarounds, Smith works distinctive institutional damage to the courts reputation.

RFRA and the ministerial exception have performed yeomans work. But they urgently need reinforcement through restoration of consistent and reliable constitutional protection for religious freedom.

By protecting all religious beliefs regardless of their popularity, religious freedom makes it possible for Americans with starkly different worldviews to live peaceably together. Now is the time to restore substantive constitutional protection for all Americans regardless of what they believe or where they live.

Posted in Symposium on the Roberts court and the religion clauses, Featured

Recommended Citation: Kim Colby, Symposium: Free exercise, RFRA and the need for a constitutional safety net, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 10, 2020, 11:20 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/symposium-free-exercise-rfra-and-the-need-for-a-constitutional-safety-net/

Read this article:

Symposium: Free exercise, RFRA and the need for a constitutional safety net - SCOTUSblog

Federal judge rules wedding receptions in New York state can be held at 50 percent capacity and not capped at 50 people – WKBW-TV

BUFFALO, N.Y. (WKBW) A federal judge has delivered some much-needed relief to frustrated brides-to-be in New York, issuing a temporary injunction allowing wedding receptions to be held at 50 percent of the venue's capacity and not be capped at 50 people.

Judge Glenn Suddaby of the Northern District of New York ruled in favor of two couples with weddings booked at the Arrowhead Golf Club in Akron, who-- along with the co-owner of the club-- sued Governor Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Letitia James, Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz, the Erie County Department of Health, and the Empire State Development Corporation.

The couples claimed the restrictions put in place by the governor's executive order in March at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic violated their First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights, stating the "restriction will deprive Plaintiffs of an 'irreplaceable life event' (i.e., their ability to have a wedding that allows their friends and family to participate to the full extent contemplated by their Christian faith)."

"We're Christians and we really do believe that a wedding is a ceremony to bring glory to God and we wanted to do that in front of witnesses," said Jenna Crawford, a newly wed and plaintiff in the lawsuit.

"The fact that on a Wednesday or Thursday we could have 200 plus people here sitting in and eating at a restaurant and that's completely allowed by law, but then the very next day on a Friday, we can't have any more than 50 people. If that doesn't scream unequal treatment, I don't know what does," said Lucas James, co-owner of Arrowhead Golf Club.

The ruling allows wedding reception halls to operate at the same level of service as restaurants, which is 50 percent capacity for indoor dining.

"It was a sigh of relief. It was a long journey and expensive. We spent almost $40,000 to get there on behalf of these couples. I think there's kind of a feeling of like what's next?" said Clinton Holcomb, co-owner of Arrowhead Golf Club.

Less than 12 hours before the oral arguments were first heard, the venue's liquor license was suspended.

"On Thursday morning, August 6th they had an emergency meeting about what to do with regards to Arrowhead. They decided the best thing they could do would be to pull our liquor license. We found that out Thursday evening which was obviously kind of shocking to us given that they knew that we had our oral arguments in front of a federal judge literally the next morning," Holcomb said.

"The judge's decision is irresponsible at best, as it would allow for large, non-essential gatherings that endanger public health," a spokesperson for the governor told 7 Eyewitness News in response to the ruling. "We will pursue all available legal remedies immediately and continue defending the policies that have led New York to having - and maintaining - one of the lowest infection rates in the country, while cases continue to rise in dozens of other states."

Judge Suddaby's ruling states wedding venues and guests must comply with the same rules in place for restaurants, including tables placed at least six-feet apart from one another and mandatory face coverings when not seated.

Holocomb and James said they appreciate anyone who would like to help them fund this legal battle through their GoFundMe.

Anyone seeking additional information about the lawsuit can email Holocomb at clint@discovercbd.com.

Read the full ruling here:

See the article here:

Federal judge rules wedding receptions in New York state can be held at 50 percent capacity and not capped at 50 people - WKBW-TV

The Whole Concept of Unlawful Assembly Is a Mess – The Atlantic

That March day, on the other side of the bridge stood hundreds of Alabama state troopers, sheriffs deputies, and mounted possemen (white locals deputized by Dallas County Sheriff Jim Clark). They were armed with rifles, tear gas, batons, and cattle prods. It would be detrimental to your safety to continue this march, Alabama State Police Major John Cloud announced. And Im saying this is an unlawful assembly. You are to disperse.

The subsequent violence became known as Bloody Sunday, and the shock waves it sent across the country transformed the national debate about voting rights for Black Americans.

The words that echo in 2020 are This is an unlawful assembly. This summer, police in Oregon have been declaring riots almost every night. And Oregon is not even on the cutting edge: The mayor of one southern hamlet, Graham, North Carolina, recently suspended all protests, out of a professed fear that demonstrations against Confederate monuments would lead to violence. Similarly, the troopers who brutalized the crowd of unarmed men, women, and children on Bloody Sunday saw themselves as enforcers of the law. But, textually, the words unlawful assembly embody a tension, even a contradictionbecause the First Amendment, in its very terms, protects the right of the people peaceably to assemble. So unlawful assembly is like illegal writing or forbidden religious exercise: There surely may be such a thing, but, in each case, the burden has to be on the authorities to explain why this assembly, this writing, this religious exercise is an exception to the broad protection afforded to these important political rights.

Read: How Martin Luther King Jr. recruited John Lewis

By the logic of unlawful assembly, John Lewis had it coming. He and the marchers had gathered without permission. They had blocked a highway. Told to go home, they stayed. And violence followed. If you want to get technical, the marchers didnt commit the violenceit was committed by the police and the local white toughs who hung around the fringes of the march. But the marchers had gathered in a place where the police didnt want them. As one local white official explained to Martin Luther King Jr. in the aftermath of the march, Everywhere you have been, there has been violence.

Some scholars have argued recently that Americans have lost sight of peaceable assembly as an important constitutional right. One of them is Tabatha Abu El-Haj, a professor at the Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law, whom I spoke with last week. Abu El-Haj has written extensively about the First Amendment and the right to assemble in particular, including a 2009 article called The Neglected Right of Assembly. Abu El-Haj explained to me that while England maintained a relatively tight leash on popular assemblies, the experience of the American Revolution convinced early Americans of the importance of the people out of doors as part of citizenship and political participation. Marches, open-air meetings, and protests were routinely held on public property during the 18th and 19th centuries. Not until 1914, in fact, did New York, by then a city of 2 million, even begin to require permits for these marches.

Read more here:

The Whole Concept of Unlawful Assembly Is a Mess - The Atlantic

The actions of Trump guests at N.J. golf club should concern us all, Murphy says – NJ.com

President Donald Trumps guests at his Bedminster golf club Friday evening engaged in behavior that should concern us all, Gov. Phil Murphy said Monday.

You see people inside on top of each other, Murphy said at his coronavirus press briefing. We all ought to be really concerned. Thats where the flareups are coming from.

CORONAVIRUS RESOURCES: Live map tracker | Newsletter | Homepage

Earlier this month, Murphy tightened the rules for indoor gatherings, restricting them to no more than 25 people, except for weddings, funerals and religious and political events.

Photos of Trumps Friday press conference showed Bedminster golf club members congregating in the back of the ballroom to watch the event, cheering the president. Many did not wear masks.

Asked about the guests, Trump said they took advantage of Murphys exemption.

You know, you have an exclusion in the law, Trump said. It says exactly political activity or peaceful protests. And you can call it political activity, but Id call it peaceful protests because they heard you were coming up. And they know the news is fake. They understand it better than anybody.

Murphy said the exemption on crowd size was for outdoor protests, not those inside a room.

The First Amendment protests relate to outdoor activities principally, and not indoors, he said. Any pictures of people inside on top of each other without wearing face coverings top of each other should concern us all.

The guests wore masks when they attended Trumps Saturday press conference, according to White House pool reports. They watched the president sign four executive orders designed to address the coronavirus-caused recession.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Jonathan D. Salant may be reached at jsalant@njadvancemedia.com.

Excerpt from:

The actions of Trump guests at N.J. golf club should concern us all, Murphy says - NJ.com

Dinosaur diagnosed with bone cancer that afflicts humans today – CNN

Now, scientists say they have, for the first time, found that dinosaurs suffered from osteosarcoma -- an aggressive malignant cancer that afflicts humans today.

When a lower leg bone or fibula from a horned dinosaur called Centrosaurus apertus that lived 76 to 77 million years ago was unearthed in Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta, Canada, in 1989, the malformed end of the fossilized bone was originally thought to be a healing fracture.

But a more detailed analysis, using modern medical techniques that approached the fossil in the same way as a diagnosis in a human patient, revealed that it was osteosarcoma, a bone cancer that in humans today usually occurs in the second or third decade of life.

It's an overgrowth of disorganized bone that spreads rapidly both through the bone and to other organs, including most commonly, the lung.

"Diagnosis of aggressive cancer like this in dinosaurs has been elusive and requires medical expertise and multiple levels of analysis to properly identify," said Dr. Mark Crowther, a professor of pathology and molecular medicine at McMaster University in a press statement.

"Here, we show the unmistakable signature of advanced bone cancer in (a) 76-million-year-old horned dinosaur -- the first of its kind. It's very exciting," said Crowther, author of the paper, which published Monday in the journal Lancet Oncology.

The team analyzing the fossilized bone included professionals from diverse fields including pathology, radiology, orthopedic surgery and paleopathology -- the study of disease and infection in the fossil record.

The bone was examined, cast and CT scanned before a thin slice of the bone was studied under the microscope. Then, powerful three-dimensional reconstruction tools were used to visualize the progression of the cancer through the bone. The investigators ultimately reached a diagnosis of osteosarcoma.

To confirm their diagnosis, the team compared the fossil to a normal fibula from a dinosaur of the same species, as well as to a fibula belonging to a 19-year-old man with a confirmed case of osteosarcoma.

Common biological links

"It is both fascinating and inspiring to see a similar multidisciplinary effort that we use in diagnosing and treating osteosarcoma in our patients leading to the first diagnosis of osteosarcoma in a dinosaur," said Seper Ekhtiari, an orthopedic surgery resident at McMaster University and study co-author.

The fossil specimen is from an adult dinosaur with an advanced stage of cancer that may have invaded other body systems; however, it's not clear if the dinosaur was killed by the cancer.

It was found in a massive bone bed, suggesting it died as part of a large herd of Centrosaurus that was struck down by a flood.

"The shin bone shows aggressive cancer at an advanced stage. The cancer would have had crippling effects on the individual and made it very vulnerable to the formidable tyrannosaur predators of the time," said study-co author David Evans, the James and Louise Temerty endowed chair of vertebrate palaeontology at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto in the news release.

"The fact that this plant-eating dinosaur lived in a large, protective herd may have allowed it to survive longer than it normally would have with such a devastating disease."

This study said it aimed to establish a new standard for the diagnosis of diseases in dinosaur fossils and opened the door to more precise diagnoses.

Studying disease in fossils is a complicated task given there are no living references. The diseases of the past, however, will help scientists to gain a better understanding of the evolution and genetics of disease, experts say.

"Evidence suggests that malignancies, including bone cancers, are rooted quite deeply in the evolutionary history of organisms," the paper said.

"This discovery reminds us of the common biological links throughout the animal kingdom and reinforces the theory that osteosarcoma tends to affect bones when and where they are growing most rapidly," said Ekhtiari.

Read more:

Dinosaur diagnosed with bone cancer that afflicts humans today - CNN

Five takeaways from the Great Plains Alliance tourney – SC Times

ST. CLOUD Saturday morning kicked off the high school division of the Great Plains Alliance tournament at Tech High School and Sartell Community Center.

Central Minnesota-based MN Comets hosted the five division, 60-team tournament that gave Division III, NAIA and junior college coaches their first live glimpse of high school prospects since COVID-19 began canceling tournaments in March.

I got to watch over a dozen local players in five games throughout the day Saturday. Here arefive takeaways from a full day of action at the Great Plains Alliance:

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

1. Diew, Lund keep improving

Thomas Diew capped off his sophomore campaign at Apollo by scoring the winning basket in the section 8-3A final over Alexandria, and he started off the scoring for Comets Elite 2022 on Saturday with a fast break layup. Diew finished with 8 points and two blocks, showcasing his wide-array of post moves. Sartell's Mason Lund had 7 points and 4 rebounds off the bench, and Comets Elite finished their day 3-0 with all three wins by double figures. The 6-foot-6 wing Lund and 6-foot-8 post Diew should be on college radaras they enter their pivotal junior seasons.

Alexandria's Kristen Hoskins dishes a pass for MN Comets Elite 2022 Saturday, Aug. 8, 2020, at Tech High School.(Photo: Zach Dwyer, zdwyer@stcloudtimes.com)

2. Alexandria will be dangerous in 2020-21

Alexandria was only one bucket away from making an appearance at state in 2020. The Cardinals lose only two starters next season and return all three all-conference starters.Two of their leading scorers will be back in juniors Kristen Hoskins and ErikHedstrom, and both were on display Saturday morning for Comets Elite 2022. Hedstrom knocked down three 3-pointers and finished with 13 points, and Hoskins led the pace and offense to finish with 10 points. Both averaged double figures as sophomores, and they will be a force in the Central Lakes Conference this upcoming season.

Sartell's Gus Gunderson makes a no-look pass for MN Comets Kirchner Saturday, Aug. 8, 2020, at Sartell Community Center. (Photo: Zach Dwyer, zdwyer@stcloudtimes.com)

3. Comets Kirchner has plenty of talent

Central Lakes all-conference guard Gus Gunderson had a great all-around game on Saturday night for MN Comets Kirchner, shooting 4-7 from the field and adding four assists and three rebounds. Gunderson showcased his court vision and awareness on multiple no-look passes, leading the offense in a similar manner as his junior season at Sartell. Granite Ridge all-conference post Andrew Hahn of Albany finished in double figures with 10 points on 4-5 shooting and grabbed four rebounds. He played similar to his high school season by setting great screens, fighting for rebounds and being reliable in the post. Sartell guard Evan Templin just finished his sophomore year but is playing upa grade with Comets Kirchner, and he finished the game strong with three baskets in the closing minutes of a 77-55 win.

ROCORI's Jayden Philippi high fives a teammate for MN Matrix Saturday, Aug. 8, 2020, at Sartell Community Center. (Photo: Zach Dwyer, zdwyer@stcloudtimes.com)

4. MN Matrix love their space

The Matrix featured three upcoming seniorsin Ethan Opsahl (Sauk Rapids), Sam Stolzenberg (Cathedral) and Jayden Philippi (ROCORI) in the 22-team junior division, but they ran into a tough foe in Select Ohnstad on Saturday night. The Matrix used incredible spacing and cutting to constantly look for open three-pointers, running a more fluid offense than any other game I watched on Saturday. However, the trio combined for only three field goals and the Matrix couldn't get on any shooting hot streaks to stick with Select's superior size and speed on the fast break.

Tech High School was one of the host sights of the MN Comets Great Plains Alliance tournament Saturday, Aug. 8, 2020, at Tech High School.(Photo: Zach Dwyer, zdwyer@stcloudtimes.com)

5. Safety first

To be able to pull off a 60-team tournament in today's world is quite an accomplishment. Players assembled outside Tech High School and the Sartell Community Center by signs for their court, entering as a team with masks on until they reached their court. Temperature checks were done at the door, and players and the limited number of fans were funneled out a different entrance after games.

Overall it was a great day of AAU's return to St. Cloud. The event ran on time and seamless throughout the day, giving high schoolers another weekend to feel a sense of normalcy being back on the court.

Zach Dwyeris a sports reporter and photographer for the St. Cloud Times. Reach him at 320-406-5660 or zdwyer@stcloudtimes.com. Follow him on Twitter @sctimeszach.

Support local journalism. Subscribe to sctimes.com today.

Continue reading here:

Five takeaways from the Great Plains Alliance tourney - SC Times

Jimmy Lais arrest in Hong Kong is the latest blow to free speech – The Economist

IT WAS, at least, live-streamed on Facebook. But those hunting for signs that freedom of expression has not been completely cowed in Hong Kong will have found little else to give them hope when, earlier today, they watched police rifle through the offices of Apple Daily, a local tabloid, bind the wrists of Jimmy Lai, its proprietor, and lead him away.

When Carrie Lam, Hong Kongs chief executive, unveiled a suffocating national-security law on July 1st, she promised that Hong Kongers would continue to enjoy the freedom of speech, freedom of press, of publication, protest, assembly and so on. But it has not taken long for the law, which was imposed by the Chinese Communist Party without the approval of Hong Kongs legislature, to send a chill through a once-feisty city.

Mr Lai is the most high-profile of the handful of arrests (mostly of student activists and protesters) so far made under the legislation. The details of his alleged crimes have not been released, save that he colluded with a foreign country, a crime that carries a potential life sentence. With his campaigning for democracy in Hong Kong, he had long been a thorn in Chinas side. But it might be that a letter that Mr Lai ran on the front page of his newspaper in May riled them even more. And although offences committed before the law was gazetted are in theory exempt from prosecution, it ensured he became the authorities ripest target.

In it, he called on Donald Trump to help save Hong Kong. The American president did not need Mr Lais invitation to try. On July 14th Mr Trump revoked the territorys special trading status with America, on the grounds that it no longer enjoyed sufficient autonomy from China. Then, on August 7th, his administration imposed sanctions on 11 Hong Kong and Chinese officials, including Mrs Lam, whom he accused of implementing Beijings policies of suppression of freedom.

The so-called sanctions, as the government has taken to describing them, hit a nerve. They put Mrs Lam into a small band of leaders that America thinks awful enough for punishment, including Venezuelas Nicols Maduro. The Hong Kong government calls the action shameless and despicable, and a barbaric interference in the internal affairs of the Peoples Republic of China. Mrs Lam says she will give up her American visa. She will probably become the first chief executive of post-colonial Hong Kong never to be invited to the United States, a country that until recently was considered an ally.

One immediate question is where the tycoon will be tried. Under the terms of the law, trials for serious offences can be switched to the mainland, and held under Chinese jurisdiction. This was one reason why several countries, including Australia, Britain and Canada, recently tore up their extradition treaties with Hong Kong. Chinas leaders say that such extraditions will be rare, saved only for complicated cases. But they may view Mr Lai as too important a scalp to risk sending to trial in a supposedly independent Hong Kong court.

A conviction might be useful beyond getting revenge on a nagging critic. The repression of anti-government figures under the new law has been swift and hard. Last month 12 pro-democracy candidates, some of them moderates, were barred from standing in Hong Kongs legislative elections, which were scheduled for September, but have now been postponed for a year. (There was no question of political censorship in their disqualification, claimed the government unconvincingly.) The idea of quickly wielding the legislation against high-profile figures may be pour encourager les autres. If so, it has been a success. Hong Kongers have already, to a remarkable extent, gone into self-censorship mode. Rare is the figure who will now go on the record to criticise China, or even the national-security law. Street protests have all but ceased.

Were Mr Lai to be sent to the mainland, it would represent an unhappy homecoming. A poor boy from Guangdong province, he arrived in Hong Kong in 1960 aged 12 as a stowaway, and worked himself up from factory hand to manager to entrepreneur to tycoon, through his clothing chain, Giordano.

The bloody end in 1989 to pro-democracy protests in Beijing turned him into a prominent critic of the Chinese Communist Party. A true rarity in Hong Kong even in the 1990s, a pro-democracy business tycoon, Mr Lai became a staple of the foreign media, grateful for his penchant for a colourful quote, and his tendency to weep when talking about the crushing of the Tiananmen unrest. All this was galling enough to Chinas rulers. But in 1994 he went further, insulting Li Peng, then Chinas prime minister, personally as a turtles egg [bastard] with zero IQ and the shame of the Chinese nation. Then as now, the party had economic levers to pull in reprisal. It began to close Giordano shops in China, forcing him to sell out.

He turned to businesses that would be viable outside China. From the point of view of his relations with Beijing, he could not have plumped for a worse industry to manage this transition: the media. First with Next, a glossy, scandal-mongering, weekly magazine in Hong Kong, and then with Apple Daily, which successfully transposed the formula to the newspaper market, his products were both wildly popular and deeply suspicious of the Communist Party. Worse, from Chinas perspective, he pulled off the same trick in Taiwan, after weathering resistance from local competitors and an advertising boycott.

When pro-democracy Umbrella protesters blockaded much of the centre of the city in 2014 to press their demand for China to allow them an electoral system that might offer voters a real choice, Mr Lai camped out with them. His tent was a hospitable port of call for journalists covering the ultimately failed movement. Mr Lai, as he has often acknowledged, had it coming.

More here:

Jimmy Lais arrest in Hong Kong is the latest blow to free speech - The Economist

What’s the Best Way To Protect Free Speech? Ken White and Greg Lukianoff Debate Cancel Culture – Reason

Even as debates over cancel culture have swept the nation, free speech defenders have disagreed about what, exactly, cancel culture is, and what it means for freedom of speech. In many ways, these disagreements represent differences of opinion about how best to protect and uphold true freedom of speech.

And what better way to deal with questions about free speech than with a debate? Ken White is an attorney, a co-host of All the President's Lawyers, and a frequent commenter on issues of speech and law. Greg Lukianoff is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit whose mission is to "defend and sustain the individual rights of students and faculty members at America's colleges and universities." In the following exchange, the pair debate the resolution: Free speech law is the best defense against cancel culture.

This is a golden age for free speech in America.

For more than a generation, the United States Supreme Court has reliably protected unpopular speech from government sanction. The Court's staunch defense of the First Amendment is remarkable because it has transcended political partisanship and upheld speech that offends everyone, including the powerful.

In overturning flag burning laws, the Court protected (literally) incendiary speech that remains intolerable to many Americans. Years later, in upholding the right of Westboro Baptist Church to picket the funerals of servicemen with vile homophobic insults, the Court aggrieved both the left and the right, permitting violation of norms of veneration of the military and against hate speech. The Court has protected scatological and humiliating ridicule of public figures and overturned laws purporting to bar "disparaging" or "immoral or scandalous" trademarks, firmly establishing that offensive speech is free speech.

Crucially, the Court has repeatedly rebuked demands that it create new First Amendment exceptions based on the tastes of the moment. Instead, it has adhered to a select, narrowly defined list of historical exceptions, rejecting efforts to create a general "balancing test" that would determine whether speech is protected by an ad hoc weighing of its value and harm. The Court's defense of free speech is not perfectstudents and public employees have seen some narrowing of rightsbut it is unprecedented in American history, and in sharp contrast to the Court's halfhearted defense of Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights.

Moreover, Congresstypically not a reliable defender of rightshas contributed meaningfully to our freedom to speak without fear of legal retaliation. For decades, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has made online discourse feasible by protecting websites from lawsuits based on the speech of visiting commenters and users. The SPEECH Act, enacted in 2010, protects us from libel tourism by making foreign defamation judgments unenforceable in the United States unless they comply with our robust free speech protections.

Of course, rights are enforced by courts, which can make them more theoretical than actual. Access to justice is inconsistent, and the litigation process is hideously expensive and burdensome. But we've witnessed an explosion of First Amendment advocacy groups from every part of the political spectrum willing to vindicate Americans' rightsincluding the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Yet gloom and despair dominate public discourse about free speech. We're told that free speech is in decline, under siege, subjected to constant threats.

It's true that the First Amendment is constantly under attack and requires ongoing protection from legal assault from all sides. But the prevailing narrative isn't about official threats to speechthat is, threats involving state action that would violate the First Amendment. Instead, we're consumed with a debate about free speech culturea disagreement about whether some speech is impermissibly threatened by other speech. That's "cancel culture": the notion that some people's exercise of their rights to free speech and free association impedes others in exercising those rights. It's a clash of norms, not of laws.

The notion that free speech norms impact free speech rights is not new. The legal system won't reliably protect rights unless the culture values them. Consider how our unreflective "law and order" culture has degraded Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights. Judge Billings Learned Hand articulated it perfectly in his "Spirit of Liberty" speech in 1944: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." The project of cultivating a cultural respect for free speech is completely legitimate.

How do we protect free speech norms? With our free speech rights, grounded in the rule of law. Cancel culture and denunciation of cancel culture are competing norms in the protected marketplace of ideas. You can't burn down the marketplace in order to save it. Efforts to use state force to tamper with the marketplace to sort "valid" criticism from "invalid" cancellation inevitably result in less free speech, not more.

Consider ongoing efforts to use punitive laws to stop the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, which put a government thumb on the scales by declaring that some forms of free speech and free association are an impermissible way to protest. Or consider how quickly J.K. Rowling, a very wealthy person who styles herself a victim of cancel culture because of the reactions to her comments about transgender people, uses threats of legal action under the U.K.'s regrettable defamation laws to force retractions and apologies from critics, nominally in service of some right to speak without "unfair" criticism. You can't win real free speech with censorship.

So what does it mean to use legal norms to protect cultural norms?

It's common for people criticizing cancel culture to say "we're not talking about law, we're talking about culture and behavior." Sure. But knowledge is power, and ignorance is poisonous.

Dialogue about free speechincluding about free speech cultureis often shot through with misunderstandings and disinformation about our legal rights. For instance, the debate over how social media platforms should be moderating unpopular speech is dominated by propaganda and gibberish about Section 230. That's bad for culture and civic society, because you can't effectively rely on or defend a right you don't understand.

Debates about free speech need not be limited to the law, but they should not mislead about the law. For example, when FIRE criticizes private universities for censorious policies, they take pains to point out that private schools are not bound by the First Amendment but should be bound by their promises of free exchange of ideas. That approach combines robust discourse about culture with accurate information about rights.

Many people who are concerned with cancel culture are acting in good faith and not trying to push a political agenda. But some people are. Cancel culture like any somewhat useful descriptive termis cynically used to mean "things I don't like" and "liberals suck." Take our president:

The problem isn't just that this reflects a completely unprincipled definition of cancel culture. The bigger problem is that the president (and many other politicians) decry cancel culture while wallowing in it by seeking to inflict social and economic consequences against speakers they don't like.

In fact, I respectfully submit that most complaining about cancel culture is insincere griping meant to convey "liberals are bad." This is part of a general political effort to associate free speech with the right and censorship with the left. (That effort isn't just historically laughable and demonstrably untrue, it's terribly shortsighted and counterproductive if your goal is to sell young people on free speech culture.) As a result, when people of good faith, like my friend Greg Lukianoff, talk about cancel culture, they're viewed with skepticism. They cannot pretend that their arguments exist in a vacuum; they exist in a culture of relentless, unprincipled misuse of the phrase.

So what can they do? They can use the rigor you would associate with legal norms. They can explain their terms, debate principled definitions of what is objectionable, and call out political misuse of the concept, so that their discourse can't be mistaken for mere partisanship. That brings us to the next way legal norms can inform this debate:

The debate over cancel culture is best conducted using specific examples, as you would in a legal argument, not broad generalities.

There is, for instance, a fairly broad consensus that the firing of David Shor was unjust and contemptible. So why not say so explicitly? The now-famous Harper's magazine letter about cancel culture didn't. It relied, instead, on somewhat vague allusions to cases, and on general criticism of "intolerance of opposing views" and "a vogue for public shaming and ostracism"terms that are very susceptible to exactly the sort of cynical political misuse I'm talking about. It should not have shocked the authors that their audience, steeped in our current political culture, read it as a partisan wolf in principled sheep's clothing. Couching the debate in specific cases, like Shor's, will help as much as rigorous definitions.

The point of the law is to sort out competing claims of rights. Any debate over cancel culture must do so as well. The things decried as "cancellation" of free speechpublic denunciations, calls for firings and boycotts, and so forthare indisputably other people's free speech. Just as a legal argument won't persuade if it ignores the claims of the opposing party (well, unless it's a D.A. arguing), the cultural argument won't persuade if it amounts to shut up so I feel more comfortable talking.

This is particularly true because cancel culture is used so flexibly to mean anything from demanding that someone be fired for saying something offensive (which might be a principled definition) to criticizing that person for saying it because doing so might be "mob action" that contributes to cancellation. Everyone's free speech rights are equal before the law. "There's no right not to be offended" is indisputably true, but so is "there's no right not to be criticized." These rights should be equal philosophically, too. People arguing that cancel culture is bad need to confront the fact that boycotts, group public condemnation, and even demands for firing are the sort of speech that comparatively obscure and powerless people have available to them.

And finally, in legal advice I always give to clients:

Like any Very Online debate, cancel culture is a bright flame attracting huckster moths, eager to gather money and attention by portraying themselves as its victimsjust subscribe here to learn all about it! Exercise prudent skepticism.

Debating free speech values is good. A little legal rigor wouldn't hurt.

Free speech culture is more important than the First Amendment. It's more important because free speech culture is what gave us the First Amendment in the 18th century. It's what kept free speech alive in the 19th century. It's what reinvigorated the First Amendment in the 20th century. It's what informs the First Amendment todayand it is what will decide if our current free speech protections will survive into the future.

The thinking that culture can be separated from the law is an odd sociological, let alone legal, theory, especially in a common law country. Indeed, the most important book in the history of freedom of speech, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, is primarily a philosophical, not legal, argument against a repressive/conformist culture. The same is true of the most important book on freedom of speech in the last 50 years, Jonathan Rauch's Kindly Inquisitors. And the greatest speech on the nature of a free society, Judge Billings Learned Hand's 1944 "Spirit of Liberty" speech, explicitly argues that culture trumps law: "I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts," he said. "These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."

Indeed, the framers of the Constitution and the First Amendment itself were heavily influenced by the cultural norms of the mother country and by radical free speech advocates like John Lilburne. They also benefited from free thinkers like Montesquieu, Francis Bacon, John Locke, David Hume, and the colonial experience in which the press and individual free speech was essentially impossible to control. The Bill of Rights in many ways is a summary of cultural values of what had previously been called "free-born Englishmen."

What does free speech culture look like? Popular idiomslike "it's a free country"are one good window into cultural values, and free speech values are not absent from our idioms. The folk wisdom of "to each his own," and "everyone's entitled to their own opinion" can be found all over First Amendment law and is mirrored in quotes, including my favorite in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943): "Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much."

The sentiments "different strokes for different folks" and "who am I to judge?" find their legal analogs in cases including Cohen v. California's great line"one man's vulgarity is another's lyric"from 1971.

Notice, many idioms that were common when many of us were younger just don't have the same cultural force they used to have. Indeed, "sticks and stones" is regularly made fun of and misrepresented as being an incorrect folk notion rather than a mantra a free society teaches its children to help them deal with the burdens of everyday life. Free speech culture is a culture with a high tolerance for difference; a general presumption that, for most of us, our personal political opinions don't matter all that much for our day-to-day lives: "To each his own."

Free speech culture started to decline on college campuses in the mid-1980s, when campuseswhether they knew it or notstarted adopting the idea of "repressive tolerance." This was the belief that free speech protection for minority opinions did not go far enough. Instead, campus authorities should censor hateful speech. Of course, on campus, their political ideology was entirely dominant, giving them a skewed view of the importance of free speech for minority opinions in the off-campus world.

Luckily, lawyers and judges largely educated before the rise of repressive tolerance norms continued to zealously protect it. However, we kid ourselves if we believe our legal freedoms will survive if our free speech culture is undermined by the institutions entrusted to educate future citizens, leaders, lawyers, and judges.

The idea of free speech culture will always be frustrating to lawyers because it doesn't have the specificity of law. Of course, free speech law is more specific than free speech culture; law is about rules, while culture is about norms. That free speech culture is less specific than law does not make it less powerful. As Charles Davenant had mythological King Thoas observe in 1677's Circe, there is great power in "Custom, that unwritten Law, By which the People keep, even Kings in awe."

Oddly, some lawyers think of the law as something barely influenced by culture. But what about, for example, gay marriage? It only became legal after the culture accepted its legitimacyan unthinkable development 50 years ago.

What does free speech culture look like? Free speech culture means high tolerance for difference. It means a general presumption that, for most of us, our personal political opinions don't matter all that much for our day-to-day jobs: That those with "terrible" opinions can still be amazing lawyers, artists, scientists, and accountants, and people with "good" opinions are not necessarily good at anythingindeed, they might be a little too conventional to contribute interesting things to art, science, or social innovation.

The idea that bad people can be beneficial to society, and good people might be useless, is something that seems heretical in the context of cancel culture, which deems nasty things said in tweets 10 years ago relevant.

Cancel culture comes from our natural instinct to silence dissent. The desire for compliance and conformity is reflected in most of human history. It's deeply ingrained in all of us. We did not have to learn to censor others, we had to learn to be tolerant of nonconformity. We had to learn not to burn the heretic.

Cancel culture is a useful term for delineating the social media era expression of the ancient desire for conformity. Pervasive social media means that things that might have previously been ignoredangry letters sent to The New York Timesare now potentially successful efforts to mobilize a sufficient number of people to ruin lives. Early attempts to describe the new phenomena are instructive, including my own short book Freedom From Speech (2014), the documentary Can We Take a Joke? (2015), and Jon Ronson's So You've Been Publicly Shamed (2015).

So how would I define cancel culture? Broadly and tentatively, of course. How about:

"Cancel culture" is a term to refer to a relatively recent (post-2013) uptick inand success ofideologically driven efforts to get individuals fired or otherwise cast out of acceptable society for non-conforming speech or actions, including speech that would have once been considered trivial, private, or unrelated to someone's job. It is tightly related to the rise in social media, which allows for unparalleled collective policing of ideological norms, and the comparative ease of creating online "outrage mobs."

Cancel culture is in my view, the progeny of campus "callout culture" that Jonathan Haidt and I explore in our book The Coddling of the American Mind (2019). Some characteristics of campus callout culture looks similar to cancel culture, including: 1) the conflation of expressions of opinion with physical violence, 2) the use of ad hominem rhetorical tactics which delegitimize the person and soften or ignore the substance of the argument), 3) the elimination of concern for the intent of targeted speech, relying solely on its claimed effect, 4) a high reliance on guilt by association and theories of "moral pollution" (a concept well explained by my colleague Pamela Paresky), and 5) appeals to authority to punish or remove the targeted speaker (also known as moral dependency). None of these criteria are required to be part of cancel culture, but some or all of these characteristics often are.

Cancel culture often relies on speech that is already unprotected under First Amendment law, including threats of bodily harm and outright harassment. In other cases, cancel culture demands behavior from others that would be unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. While, for example, you're absolutely free to advocate for less free speech by, for example, demanding a professor be fired for their expression, if a public university were to act on those demands it would violate the law, plain and simple.

The forces of conformity are very strong in humans, and we've given them superpowers in recent days. It must be opposed. Diversity of opinion, the right to individual conscience, the power of thought experimentation and devil's advocacy are important for a free and innovative society.

What does a culture look like that has a strong free speech culture, but not favorable law? France in the 18th century is a good example. It was one of the greatest philosophical periods in human history. It featured thinkers like Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and milie du Chtelet, as well as salons, like those of Baron d'Holbach, attended by thinkers like David Hume, Adam Smith, and Benjamin Franklin. Sometimes these thinkers and writers had to flee France to avoid arrest, and sometimes they were arrested, but the cultural norm of open discussion was so strong they kept writing and innovating and challenging norms and beliefs.

And what does a country look like that has no free speech culture, but good free speech law? Consider the following guarantees of free speech, from other countries' constitutions:

Each of these sounds similar to our own First Amendment's speech promise. And if you want to know how they are working out, you can visit Russia, North Korea, and Turkey, respectively.

And while these are stark examples, free speech is even under threat in the nominally "free world," including in Spain, Britain, and France, where people have been imprisoned for rap lyrics saying the wrong thing, reading the wrong thing, or having the wrong reaction in a Facebook post.

That's where we could be headed if we don't remember that free speech culture is more important than free speech law. A free speech culture can exist without protective law, but not the other way aroundat least not for very long.

My friend Greg Lukianoff is passionate about free speech, as befits someone who has fought so effectively for it. We have few legal disputes about the scope of the First Amendment. Moreover, as a matter of taste, our views about cancel culture are often consistentI, too, think that demands that people suffer economic consequences for disfavored speech are often counterproductive and destructive to civic society. But my view of the current public dialogue about free speech culture is substantially more cynical than his, and there we differ.

Greg asserts that free speech culture "gave us the First Amendment in the 18th century" and "kept free speech alive." That culture has always been more aspirational than actual. The free speech culture that produced the First Amendment also promptly produced the Alien and Sedition Acts. The dawn of the modern age and mass media gave us broad justifications for censorship of political speech, cultural repression, and suppression of minority views and values.

Though Americans support free speech in the abstract, that support often breaks down when we are confronted with specific examples of speech we don't like. The history of the First Amendment is a history of Americans struggling mightily against other Americans trying to silence them. If free speech is in our national DNA, so is censorship.

That's a fundamental flaw in the current popular cancel culture narrative. It suggests, expressly or implicitly, that America enjoyed some golden age of cultural tolerance for speech. But did we? Did we really? If so, when was it? I submit that there was never such an age, and that unpopular views have always met with social and economic repercussions in America.

We can strive to do better, but we shouldn't distort history by claiming that people now are more censorious than they were before. We can argue, for instance, that Americans should be able to express disapproval of gay marriage without losing their jobsbut that shouldn't lead us to suggest that America was previously a safe place to express pro-gay views, when it manifestly was not.

Why does this matter? It matters because the loudest voices condemning cancel culture in America are not people of good faith like Greg. The loudest voices are using the issue as a cynical political wedge from the right to attack the left.

They're the same voices who try to get people fired for speech when that speech is offensive to them, when that speech comes from the left. The "golden era" conceptthe suggestion that there was a better time for social tolerance of speech in America, and it's now been spoiled by millennials and progressivesis not just wrong, it's nakedly partisan, and it's part of the same effort to make free speech culture into a political weapon.

Making free speech a partisan issue is foolhardy, and true free speech defenders must resist it. The First Amendmentand free speech culture more broadlyrely on a sometimes tenuous bargain. The bargain is this: We all agree not to use the power of the state to punish speech that makes us mad, and instead to use the power of the marketplace of ideas to fight it. That deal convinces Americans to refrain, at least some of the time, from state censorship of some truly despicable and upsetting speech.

But what if we now tell Americans that yes, they have the marketplace of ideas, they have the ability to respond to speech they hate with "more speech"but that more speech shouldn't be too harsh? What if we tell themand especially young people, who tend to be far more left-leaningthat we should see harsh responses to ugly speech as "liberal" and mild responses as "conservative"? Their natural reaction may be to see the free speech "deal" as a partisan sham, a rationalization for preferring the speech and feelings of one group over the other. It's hard to imagine a better way to lose an entire generation's commitment to free speech values.

To be taken seriously, cancel culture critiques must be doggedly nonpartisan and overtly hostile to political misuse. They must also strive for evenhandedness. Critics shouldn't impose norms on "more speech" that they don't impose on the speech it's rebutting.

So, for instance, if you're concerned that widespread condemnation of a professor's column chills speech, you might ask at the same time whether the professor's description of student activists as a "terrorist organization" was also chilling. More speech is free speech, entitled to the same legal and cultural protection as the speech to which it responds. A philosophy that criticizes one to the exclusion of the other will not convince Americans.

Ken White and I are both great admirers of American First Amendment law. I believe it's the best body of thought on how to have freedom of speech in the real world. Where Ken and I differ is that I believe free speech culture and law are (almost) inextricable. We interpret law through the lens of culture, and culture is what makes our law possible and effective. The list of countries that have good free speech laws on the books, but have no free speech because they utterly lack a free speech culture, is long.

We are extremely lucky that our Supreme Court is populated by attorneys educated or coming up during the 1970s, arguably the best decade for both free speech culture on campus and free speech law. However, I've seen a stark decline in student respect for, or understanding of, speech norms over the past decade, and I believe this will inevitably lead to an eventual decline in law.

As I've recounted countless times, from 2001 to about 2012, the students were the best constituency for free speech on campus. Then, in the 201314 school year, students started to demand new campus speech codes and disinvitations, claiming that the presence of people with certain views was medically harmful. Conservatives had railed against campus narrow mindedness for years, but starting in 2014, more and more liberals and left-of-center people grew concerned about the trend, as well. As researchers would discover, the population hitting campuses around 20132014 were less tolerant of free speech.

Because the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education works exclusively on campus, I saw this change in real time and on the groundboth figuratively and literally. In 2015, I filmed Nicholas Christakis when he was encircled by Yale students calling for him to lose his job.

As more members of Generation Z hit the "real world," free speech norms like tolerance for political differences will erode. A 2020 Cato/YouGov survey found that 27 percent of Americans under 30 would support firing a business executive who personally donates to Joe Biden's campaign; 44 percent support firing a similar Donald Trump donor.

Ken warned me about grifters, charlatans, and Trump tainting my argument. But this is the kind of guilt-by-association argument I am fighting: "Bad people make argument, therefore argument bad!" Never mind that I was speaking about this phenomenon years before anyone imagined a President Trump. Yes, Trump pointed out a rising intolerance on the left, but former President Barack Obama has also made similar arguments several times over, and continues to do so.

So have former presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Ken is a friend who I love, admire, and respect, but I have to vent some frustration. I've seen a lot of hostility to the idea of free speech culture coming from people who defer to Ken's point of view. If Ken is concerned about free speech cynicism, he's fortuitously positioned to help stop it.

So, I have some requests of Ken, but, more importantly, of his fans, and for many others.

Not everybody who cares about freedom of speech is as well-versed in its nuances as Ken and me. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and even expect people to be inconsistent, because that's part of human nature. Sometimes free speech defenders can disagree about what should be protected, may still be learning, or just made a bad call once. If the price of chiming in to say "I believe in free speech" is to be called out as a presumptive hypocrite, why wouldn't people become cynical?

If someone usually disagrees with you, but actually agrees with you on a particular free speech incident, welcome their help rather than fixate on what you consider to be their previous hypocrisy (which sometimes isn't even there).

Jonathan Rauch, Nadine Strossen, and I and many others are people who actually work in this profession; Milo Yiannopoulos and Charlie Kirk, for example, are explicitly partisan and only care about free speech for ideological allies. In my experience, speech professionals are thoughtful and consistent, and should not be dragged down because grifters exist, as they have always existed.

Many people follow Ken's example by tweeting something about how people on the right "don't care about these casesin your face, conservative!" But few realize what else he does: Send the cases our way and actually support our work. Be more like Ken and do more than dunk on your opponents: Spread the word, contact the school, and urge other influential people to join the profree speech side.

Ken and I don't have to agree on the value of free speech culture. But when people are fostering contempt and cynicism about free speech it makes the job of actual free speech fighters, including both Ken and me, much harder. If we preoccupy ourselves with distancing ourselves from the "bad" folks, we will eventually cede free speech to the grifters.

It's okay that people deemed "bad" by internet mobs agree with me about cancel culture. Indeed, I would like more people to come out against cancel culture; most Americans are against it but may be afraid to say so. I may be greedy, but I'd like both strong free speech law and a strong culture.

Therefore, I would like more people to return to the idioms of a free society: How about "everyone's entitled to their own opinion," "it's a free country," "address the argument, not the person," and maybe a new one: "Even people I hate have to make a living."

Read more:

What's the Best Way To Protect Free Speech? Ken White and Greg Lukianoff Debate Cancel Culture - Reason

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | "Free Speech" should apply to all, not just some – The Auburn Plainsman

In light of the circumstances surrounding incoming lecturer Dr. Jesse Goldberg, we at Auburn Spectrum are reminded of another situation where an employee's social media posts caused an outrage. Last year, Bruce Murray from the College of Education was shown to have made and shared several posts that deny and condemn the existence of LGBTQ+ individuals.

Despite the outcry from more than 200 faculty members and countless students who said that these comments perpetuated the harm that Auburn's LGBTQ+ students have to face every day, the University refused to condemn the comments as hate speech, saying that this professor's posts on social media and the opinions he submitted to newspapers over several years are protected by free speech.

Dr. Goldberg made posts condemning an institution he believes is violent and contributes to an oppressive system. Less than a week later his posts are condemned by the University's administration as hate speech (even though police are not considered a protected class by the University while gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation are), and his job is at risk before it ever even began.

By contrast, it was three weeks after The Plainsman published the article about Murray before anyone from the administration made a statement, and even then it was two sentences expressing vague and nonspecific support for the community harmed by the rhetoric that he had shared repeatedly.

If Auburn University is going to swiftly and harshly condemn one employee's social media posts for hate speech, it should do so in all cases.

If Auburn University is going to passively allow employees to share their opinions on social media and in newspapers - no matter how reprehensible some may find them - in the name of free speech, it should do so in all cases.

The University cannot pick and choose when it wishes to allow freedom of speech and expect people to stand idly by in the face of such hypocrisy.

Get The Plainsman straight to your inbox.

If Bruce Murray's bigoted remarks are protected by the First Amendment, then Jesse Goldberg's anti-police remarks should receive similar protection.

Heather Mann is the president of Spectrum, Auburn University's Gay-Straight Alliance.

Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.

Heather Mann | Spectrum President

See the rest here:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | "Free Speech" should apply to all, not just some - The Auburn Plainsman

What is The Dream Bell Exchange Ticket in Animal Crossing (& How to Get Them) – Screen Rant

Luna has returned to take players on the ride of their dreams! Heres how to earn Dream Bell Exchange Tickets in Animal Crossing: New Horizons.

The Swimming Summer update for Animal Crossing: New Horizons wasnt the only big present Nintendo had cooking up for players. Another wonderful update has just been released, adding a ton of collectibles, clothes and activities. The update has also added new weekly events for players to partake in.

Related:Why Animal Crossing: New Horizons' Summer Update Is Disappointing

Along with the fun for players, some old characters have returned to the island. Luna is a Tapir who appeared in Animal Crossing: New Leaf. Luna has a lot of tricks to show players, but first they need to get their hands on some Dream Bell Exchange Tickets. Heres how to earn Dream Bell Exchange Tickets in Animal Crossing: New Horizons.

Luna was a character that was introduced in New Leaf. She worked in the Dream Suite and was in charge of leading players to new towns in their dreams. In New Horizons her role is mostly the same. While she no longer runs the Dream Suite, she will appear to players whenever they go to sleep in any bed. Sleeping has previously held no purpose to the game, or benefit for players. When she appears, players will have access to islands that have been uploaded to the Library of Dreams. In order to access the library, players will need Dream Bell Exchange Tickets.

The first ticket that can be gained will come after the player has uploaded their first island to the system. This will allow other players to come to their island in a dream state. Bare in mind that the island can not be permanently changed in any way. Players dont have to worry about someone showing up and making changes to their space. The other tickets will come from making updates to existing islands in the system. Players can currently do this once a day.

When a player puts their island online for others to come visit, they will get mail from Luna about the process. Players should check their mailbox for their first Dream Bell Exchange Ticket. Players will want to make frequent updates to their island on the system if they want to keep earning tickets. This means that players should make sure they update their island every day, in order to receive a new ticket each day after.

If a player doesnt have any interest in exploring dream islands in their sleep, they can sell the tickets to the Nook Twins. Head on down the Nooks Cranny and ask them to take the tickets. They will buy them for 5,000 bells. Players who arent interested in travelling may still want to go ahead and upload their island every day because this can be a lucrative method of making a bit of money each day.

More:How to Find (& Catch) The Arowana in Animal Crossing: New Horizons

Animal Crossing: New Horizons is available on Nintendo Switch.

Ghost of Tsushima's Charms Are The Game's Worst Feature

See the article here:

What is The Dream Bell Exchange Ticket in Animal Crossing (& How to Get Them) - Screen Rant

Instagram launches Reels, its attempt to keep you off TikTok – The Verge

With TikToks future uncertain, Instagram is hoping to lure some creators away with the rollout of a direct competitor, Reels, which is launching in more than 50 countries today, including the US, UK, Japan, and Australia, on both iOS and Android.

Similar to TikTok, Reels lets people create short-form videos set to music that can be shared with friends and followers and discovered while browsing the app. Its the newest opportunity for Instagram to bring in users, increase the amount of time people spend in the app every day, and establish itself as a video entertainment platform.

Reels allows people to record videos up to 15 seconds long and add popular music, as well as an array of filters and effects, over top of them. For creators looking to use Instagram Reels as a new way to build a following, Instagram has revamped its Explore page to create a specific landing spot for Reels at the top of the screen that people can vertically scroll through similar to TikToks For You Page.

Both private and public options are available. If you want to become the next Charli DAmelio, having a public profile will allow your Reels to be widely discovered. For people who want to share with friends, Reels created under private accounts will only post to a persons Feed and Stories. The feature lives entirely inside of Instagram; its not a new app.

The launch of Reels comes as TikTok faces a potential ban in the United States by President Donald Trump or a possible partial acquisition by Microsoft. ByteDance also said Sunday that Facebook was among the troubles in its path, accusing the company of plagiarizing its product with Instagram Reels. Robby Stein, Instagrams product director, said that while TikTok popularized the short video format, the two products are different.

I think TikTok deserves a ton of credit for popularizing formats in this space, and its just great work, Stein told The Verge. But at the end of the day, no two products are exactly alike, and ours are not either.

Thats a familiar line to people who remember when Instagram first launched Stories in 2016, and the company was accused of creating a Snapchat clone. Stein said that his team received very similar feedback when we launched Stories. But Instagram Stories quickly surpassed Snapchat in daily users and has continued to be a massively successful product. That history of success is one of the strongest reasons for Instagrams team to think it can pull Reels off. TikTok did it first, but maybe Instagram can do it better.

Part of that strategy is focusing on what Stein believes Instagram does best: creating easy-to-use technology for whoever wants to make a video. When opening Instagram to make a Reel, people will be able to slide to a new section of the camera that comes with an assortment of tools. Reels can be recorded either all at once or as a series of clips, or people can upload videos from their photo gallery. The cameras new features are similar to TikToks, with options to mess with the speed, apply special effects, set a timer, and add audio.

Instagrams product team is really positioning Instagram camera around a few core formats, according to Stein. Stories is designed as more of a social feature quick little snippets people want to share with their followers. Reels is designed with entertainment in mind, an area that Instagram wants to really focus on. Part of that focus includes the redesign of Instagrams Explore page. More than 50 percent of people use Instagrams Explore page in a month, Stein said, and now therell be a dedicated hub for Reels. This is essentially Reels equivalent of the For You Page on TikTok, a place for creators to possibly go viral or find new followers.

Were going big with entertainment and [making Explore] the permanent place for you to go lean back, relax, and be inspired every day, Stein said. Its our hope that with this format we have a new chapter of entertainment on Instagram.

Reels biggest difference from TikTok is its tie-ins to the overarching Instagram ecosystem, Stein says. People can send Reels to their friends directly on Instagram and they can use Instagram-specific AR filters and tools everything that people want to do is part of an existing network.

TikTok and Instagram are more than camera products, though. Theyre communities for established and burgeoning creators. Stein said the companys main goal is to support the entire creator ecosystem, including giving creators the ability to scale their reach on the platform and adding new tools to make their videos pop. For now, though, Instagram wont be paying popular creators for their videos, as TikTok has started to offer.

Instagram already allows for influencers and creators to earn revenue through brand deals and sponsored posts, but Instagram doesnt directly pay people for content. TikTok didnt either until very recently. The company announced last month that its starting a $200 million fund in the US to pay top creators for their videos. TikTok is hoping to expand that fund north of $1 billion. The message is simple: we want you to stay on TikTok and create for TikTok, and were going to pay you to do it. Stein had nothing to share for now about direct payments to creators, but he stressed that allowing people to monetize is important.

There are a few other features that Reels will not have at launch. People wont be able to duet with each other a core TikTok feature that lets people interact with, build upon, and remix videos. Instagram also wont allow people to upload songs directly into the apps system. Musicians looking to use the app as a place to make a song go viral can add original audio by just recording and that can live on later, Stein said, adding that other people could use it and remix it, but the actual song cant be uploaded directly.

Reels isnt its own world like TikTok is or Vine was. Its another thing to do on Instagram and another way to find entertainment beyond scrolling through Stories and our Feeds. That lack of focus might seem like a weakness, but Stein sees it differently. I think one of the really fun parts of this, he says, is its just another format on Instagram.

Continue reading here:

Instagram launches Reels, its attempt to keep you off TikTok - The Verge