Select Page ::

Conjure Women is a tale of slavery and its aftermath – The Economist

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

Afia Atakoras debut novel evokes a haunting period in American history

May 7th 2020

Conjure Women. By Afia Atakora. Random House; 416 pages; $27. Fourth Estate; 14.99.

RUE KNEW she was a liar. When she was enslaved, and then during her first years of freedom, she often said, falsely, I know. As a child, she only pretended to understand why her mothers love felt so fierce and unforgiving. Years later, as her plantations resident healer, she was not sure why so many babies fell ill, or why women felt certain pains in childbirth, but she assured people otherwise. Rue saw that healing demanded faith and that she had to seem confident to get others to believe in her power. Her magic ought to be absoluteor it wasnt magic at all.

Conjure Women, Afia Atakoras atmospheric debut novel, is largely Rues story. Born into slavery in Americas South, she tends to the plantations pregnant and sick in the years after the civil war. Her mother, May Belle, made her name and living crafting curses for fellow slaves. Hoodoo, May Belle would say, is black folks currency. From her, Rue learned to heal, but she is wary of witchcraftand troubled by a shameful secret. When an illness claims the lives of local children, grieving parents accuse her of devilry. Meanwhile, Bruh Abel, a handsome itinerant minister with a too-wide grin on his face, arrives peddling salvation to a community too nervous about reprisals to feel truly free.

The book opens in the 1860s (Freedomtime), when Rue is around 20, but it skips back and forth before and after the war. By juxtaposing the brutality of slavery with the uncertainty of freedom, Ms Atakora captures the disorientation of the era. After Rues first whipping, her father reassures her that her cuts will harden sos the next time and the next time they beat you it wont hurt quite so bad. A few years later, he will be lynched by a white mob, his dangling toes making circles in the dirt as his body spun on the rope. Naturally, Rue and her fellow former slaves remain wary of breaking the white mans nonsense rules. She had never seen that thing the Yankees were promisingfreedomand she did not trust in what she could not see.

Ms Atakora poetically evokes the anxious, cloistered life of newly emancipated slaves. She notes the aroma the earth made when it sighed, and the stale air in the bedroom of the masters daughter, which smelled of rosehip and burning hair and sweat. Repetitious as it sometimes feels, her novel is a vivid portrait of a time in American history that remains both haunting and unresolved.

This article appeared in the Books & arts section of the print edition under the headline "A kind of freedom"

Conjure Women is a tale of slavery and its aftermath - The Economist

Freedom Haven Emergency Shelter and Transitional Living Home – – KUSI

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

SAN DIEGO (KUSI) Freedom Haven was born to address the overwhelming need for families that are faced with the choice to stay and possibly be killed or leave and live on the streets.

Currently, there are 3 short term and long-term domestic violence shelters in San Diego County.

Freedom Haven is not just another short-term shelter. Freedom Haven Emergency Shelter and Transitional Living Home offers short term and long-term housing. It will provide;

Supportive services for women and children in need of immediate protection from their abusers in a secure, confidential facility. Clients will live in private rooms.Services will focus on safety planning, case management, therapeutic counseling, and housing stability as they begin to recover from trauma.

The mission of Freedom Haven is to empower domestic violence survivors to gain freedom in life through housing, education and placement programs in the San Diego area with a vision to be expand nationally.

The vision of Freedom Haven is to inspire domestic violence survivors to turn fear into safety, helplessness into strength and belief that they are enough.

In order to make a dent in the crisis the organization is on a mission to raise 1 million dollars to break ground on housing that will give freedom to women escaping domestic violence.

Megan Fenyoe, a licensed psychotherapist, is the Founder and CEO of the I Am Enough 501C(3) organization that Freedom Haven is a part of.

Fenyoe joined Good Morning San Diego to discuss Freedom Haven.

Consider donating http://thefreedomhaven.com

Continue reading here:

Freedom Haven Emergency Shelter and Transitional Living Home - - KUSI

Freedom Festival events postponed to 2021, firework show will be held – Deseret News

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

PROVO Americas Freedom Festival at Provo is the latest in a string of summer events postponed to 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but a fireworks show in honor of essential workers and first responders battling the virus will still be held.

The safety and health of our guests is always the first priority at any Freedom Festival event, period, said Jim Evans, executive director of Americas Freedom Festival, in a statement. Even in a typical year thats the prevailing theme. But with so many of our loved ones at risk from this illness, including so many wonderful military veterans, we have to be especially careful this year.

Evans said organizers are excited to offer a safe and big free fireworks show on July 4th as a thank you to Utahs brave essential workers and for a community thats supported the festival for so many years. According to a news release, it will be visible to those wishing to social distance.

More information on the show will be forthcoming.

Americas Freedom Festival at Provo is a nonprofit foundation with the mission of teaching and honoring U.S. values like family, freedom and country. The festival holds more than 25 events throughout the year, with the largest set in July expansive work that utilizes thousands of volunteers. Events postponed until 2021 include the Stadium of Fire, the Grand Parade, the Balloon Fest, Freedom Days and all other events that had been scheduled for this summer.

Spring events like student art, essay, speech and teacher contests are all ongoing in a virtual format. Submission deadlines have been extended to May 18.

The festivals signature event, the Stadium of Fire, is held at Brigham Young Universitys LaVell Edwards Stadium before an audience of 50,000 people not conducive to social distancing.

Steve Shallenberger, chairman of the Freedom Festival board of trustees, said next years Stadium of Fire will be the 40th anniversary and the biggest and best yet.

Orem resident Isaac Thomas has been going to festival events with his family for more than 20 years. An Air Force veteran, Thomas said the festival sums up the freedom and liberties that we enjoy and is a good opportunity to talk to his children about what it means to serve in the military and serve a country.

It really gives a good history of our country and what its all about, he said. It honors the military all branches, and I enjoy that.

Also canceled in July is the Days of 47 celebration, Bountiful Handcart Days and the Deseret News Marathon, as well as Salt Lakes annual arts festival in June. Organizers for Ogden Pioneer Days, another major July event, have yet to reach a decision on whether it will be held.

Event organizers said that canceling the respective celebrations was a decision not taken lightly and that first priority in determining what to do was given to local officials public health guidelines.

Still, the news was met with some disappointment from the community as the celebrations have long been fixtures in the area.

The Bountiful Handcart Days has been going on for 70 years. Citing unprecedented circumstances, organizers announced most of the events cancellation on April 15 because of the constraints social distancing restrictions place on organizing activities.

Officials said they hope restrictions will be eased by July, which would enable them to still have a performance from the band Joshua Creek and a free fireworks show.

The Days of 47 Pioneer Day celebrations that pack downtown Salt Lake City every July were postponed to 2021 on April 28.

Go here to read the rest:

Freedom Festival events postponed to 2021, firework show will be held - Deseret News

Granite State confined at home find freedom and calm in the garden – The Union Leader

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

For gardeners like Karin Hamilton, the states stay-home orders have meant more time working their plots.

Hamilton has been casually cultivating little gardens in her yard in Dover for two years, but in this spring of pandemic, working from home and economic slowdown has allowed Hamilton to focus on her garden.

Lockdown started mid-March, and thats really too early to start, but I was itching to get going, Hamilton said.

She started seeds under grow lights in her garage, put up a cold frame and built a small greenhouse. With help from online communities and a lot of YouTube videos, shes learning about potatoes and strawberry towers, and thinking about how she can grow more food for herself and her 84-year-old father.

I dont want to be reliant on supermarkets for food that is so easy to grow she said.

Karin Hamilton moves a tomato planting in her greenhouse in Dover last Sunday. The greenhouse is a new addition for Hamilton, a longtime casual gardener who has dug into the hobby this year.

There has been a certain amount of trial-and-error involved, Hamilton said with a laugh.

I lost a bunch of stuff, I gave a bunch of stuff away, and I kept replanting.

Growing food, and the simple act of caring for beds, has been soothing, she said.

If you open up to it, youre able to get from it what you need to calm yourself, Hamilton said. Music is an island for some people. For me, its gardening. If Im anxious, I go out in the garden (and) it all goes away.

Larry Stout, from Manchester, puts bags of topsoil in his cart at Demers Garden Center in Manchester on Wednesday.

More people are seeking that oasis.

Goffstown gardener Jane Turcotte said her friends and family people who never expressed any interest in growing things have been coming to her for gardening advice this spring.

In Turcottes own garden, the balance has shifted from flowers to food, a reflection of a little bit of anxiety about how long the food system can be sustained during the coronavirus crisis.

Ive taken less space for my things that I do for joy, and giving more space to the things that are going to feed us, Turcotte said.

Shes trying to help her elderly parents curb their trips to the supermarket. Shes planted cucumbers, zucchini, strawberries, peas and carrots, and is cultivating an asparagus patch. And of course, tomatoes.

Everybody wants the tomatoes, she said.

Shes mailing seeds to friends around the state, and is on call to give gardening advice to the novices.

I get a lot of messages, Does this look right? Am I doing this right? Turcotte said.

She loves knowing more people are finding comfort in the garden.

I hate this is all happening, but I love the fact that others are getting into this too, she said. I hope when things go back to normal, theyll keep doing it.

Danielle Demers works in the greenhouse with her family at Demers Garden Center in Manchester on Wednesday. Garden centers around the state have been busy this spring as residents have turned to their gardens for a release from coronavirus anxiety.

Plant sales disrupted

For New Hampshires garden clubs, the pandemic has shaken up the way they grow. Small town plots cant be tended to, plant talks had to be postponed and several clubs have canceled annual plant sales.

The Epping Garden Club sold pansies earlier this year, said club president Eunice Miller. But instead of customers coming to pick up their plants when they arrived in mid-March, club members made doorstep deliveries for most of the plants.

The towns garden plots really need to be raked and mulched, Miller said, but you need a few people for that heavy work and the plots arent big enough to keep gardeners six feet apart.

Its disappointing to watch spring coming without being able to spend time with the garden club, Miller said, but she sees it as a necessary sacrifice.

Its for the health of more than just us, she said. Weve just been staying home and working on our own gardens.

The Colonial Garden Club of Hollis knew their annual Mothers Day plant sale could not go on as usual this year.

When we had this coronavirus came on, the executive committee said were going to try to outsmart it and do an online sale, said club secretary Carol Ace. This coronavirus has definitely changed things up a bit.

The clubs website, hollisgardenclub.org, will have an ordering form online from May 14-19, and buyers will pay online. Then club members will deliver the plants to buyers homes.

We could have just said were not going to do it, Ace said. But there are hundreds of plants waiting for new homes. And gardeners around the state eager to get growing.

Martha Smith cleans up some of the 600 plants kept at her home for the Colonial Garden Club of Hollis on Saturday.

MSNBC contributor: Americans ‘freedom-obsessed’ to point ‘we’re blind to other types of threats’ | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

MSNBC contributor Anand Giridharadas argued Wednesday that Americans are "freedom-obsessed" to the point it blinds them to other types of threats, including "a virus" or "climate change" in a commentary that sparked some blowback on the right.

One of the fundamental questions to me is, whats going to be our relationship to government, the idea of government after this? We kind of look at it at three levels this week, Giridharadas told "Morning Joe" regarding a post-coronavirus America.

Theres a primordial American tradition going back to the founders of being freedom-obsessed, even though were a country founded on slavery and genocide, the Vice TV host continued. Being freedom-obsessed to the point where were always so afraid of the government coming for us, that were blind to other types of threats whether its a virus, whether its bank malfeasance, climate change, what have you," he said.

Giridharadas pointed to distrust in governmentbeginning in earnest during the Reagan administration.

Theres also a more recent, kind of 40-year version of this, which is the Reagan war on government, he said. Thats not just an idea on the right. Theres a hard version on the right, theres a small-c conservative kind of militant version of it, but it has also infected many people on the left in this passive sense, like I believe in government, but I would never go work there, or I believe in government, but I kind of like dont like my taxes too high,' or I use trusts in the Cayman Islands.'

Reagan, who consistently advocated for smaller government, said in his 1981 presidential inaugural address, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem," a quote still echoed by conservatives.

The 40th president declared in a later speech that "government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

The commentary by Giridharadas spurred blowback mostly from the righton Twitter, including from fellow MSNBC contributor Noah Rothman.

I dont know how you could survey how states and the federal government has performed over the last eight weeks and conclude anyone had any idea what they are doing. https://t.co/66rlIOXbMV

Authoritarians like @AnandWrites have trouble making coherent arguments. On one hand he claims that Americans are freedom obsessed and on the other he argues that we're really not about freedom at all. https://t.co/6jlF3VC1E4

MSNBC contributor Anand Giridharadas thinks you're all a bunch of freedom-obsessed rubes. https://t.co/jiSdK7NoHk

Originally posted here:

MSNBC contributor: Americans 'freedom-obsessed' to point 'we're blind to other types of threats' | TheHill - The Hill

Faith and freedom of choice are key ingredients for parenting – The New Indian Express

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

Express News Service

CHENNAI: Of late, due to the situation we are in, online education has come to the forefront, and in some instances, it is also replacing the classroom experience. I recently read a report about high school students pursuing online advanced placement program classes (AP classes), which universities abroad require, even while they are in school, to get admission into the university of their or their parents choice. These online AP classes provide an opportunity for children to school themselves learn, assimilate knowledge and work, even in the physical absence of a teacher.

The basic component for this kind of self-schooling largely comes from intrinsic motivation based on a structure offered through coursework. But whats even more significant and encouraging for a child is the trust that parents and teachers have in him/ her. Trust in our children, in their choices, and the right learning environment is the key to a childs happiness and success. This has to be preceded with information regarding the opportunities available to them, the long-term effects of choices and an analysis of the pros and cons. For all parents, the biggest roadblocks in their childs life can be anxiety, need to make choices for their children and sometimes a lack of trust in their instincts.

However, if our children had the aforementioned freedom it must be accompanied with guidance from parents.Often, opportunities come in the form of adversities, and the pandemic-induced lockdown has created a new opportunity for parents and children to adapt to online learning. As parents, coming from the traditional school of thought, we worry that our children might miss out on many lessons due to the absence of classroom experience. In our new role as parent-teachers, we want them up to speed with the next academic years syllabus, learn a new skill, practise the piano...the list is endless.

We want them to be the best! These expectations come only from a place of love, but the pressure right now might trigger fear and anxiety, or other issues which could be wide-ranging, say mental health experts. The question then is why cant we trust our children and their abilities? Do we think that children and young adults, when left to themselves, are not capable of making informed choices? On the contrary, there is empirical evidence to prove that the best recipe to help a child attain goals should include a few tablespoons of intrinsic motivation, advice and structure, and dollops of faith in his/her ability after we have prepared him to use this freedom effectively. This has precisely been Dr Montessoris approach towards children.

She emphatically stated that each child is unique, and comparing children is like comparing apples and oranges. Each child is put on earth with his/her purpose and if everyone became doctors and engineers what happens to teachers, artisans and people who work with their hands? Being a Montessori mom and teacher, I too have been questioning myself and have similar worries. But after listening to my colleagues from different parts of the world, the voice is one having faith in the child is the key to success. My daughter represented her school at a national swim meet, competing against national-level swimmers. But it is her approach to regional and national-level practice that made all the difference to us as parents.

While trying for regionals, she practised tirelessly as she wasnt yet in the rigour of class 10. But for nationals (when she was in class 10), she practised whenever she had a moment to spare showing self-motivation and the ability to make well-informed choices, balancing her studies and love for swimming. As parents, we were not involved in the decision-making process, and in fact, didnt want her to participate. She ranked fourth at the nationals and took it well in her stride. Aware of the volume of classwork, my daughter told us that she wasnt interested in winning; she aimed to better her timing, for which she had worked out a plan along with her coach.

This is true self-realisation. Children have their turning points when they learn to make informed choices coupled with parental guidance. Parenting is the only occupation that doesnt come with a handbook or coursework to prepare us. It is a tough journey but a joyful one. So, place your faith in your children, discuss and explain the options to them and let them make their choices. You need not put your child in a Montessori school to follow the philosophy i.e. freedom within boundaries and to follow the child.

Watch for signs of emotional well-being. At this moment, their mental health is far more important than an online class. Always keep the channels of communication open, talk to them, but most importantly, listen.

(The author has been a teacher for 20 years and is the co-founder of The Redwood Montessori school, LLP. She has worked with children with special needs, and is on the board of the Madhuram Narayanan Centre for Exceptional children.)

Just after Elon Musk denounced coronavirus lockdowns as infringements of freedom, research shows Britons are too scared to leave their homes anyway -…

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

A campaign to keep Britons locked down and protected from the coronavirus may have proved too successful, according to new research, with many now scared to leave their homes.

A leading Cambridge University statistician warned that the governments stay-at-home message had caused many people to grow particularly anxious about going out.

Many people are definitely overanxious about their chance of both getting the virus and the harm they might come to if they do get it, Cambridges David Spiegelhalter told the BBC.

Fully one-third (33%) of Britons said they would feel uncomfortable meeting friends and family outside their household, according to polling released by research firm Ipsos Mori on Friday. Just under two-thirds (61%) said they would feel uncomfortable using public transport or going to bars and restaurants. The data also showed 67% saying they would feel uncomfortable attending large public gatherings, such as sports or music events, compared with how they felt before the pandemic.

Keiran Pedley, research director at Ipsos Mori, said: Clear majorities of Britons are nervous about using public transport again or going to bars, restaurants or live music and sporting events.

These numbers suggest that it will take some time for parts of the British economy to return to any semblance of normality, even after lockdown has ended.

Its a very different story in parts of America as protesters in Michigan stormed the state capitol demanding an end to lockdown, and Teslas TSLA, -1.94% Elon Musk told investors on Thursday that stay-at-home orders were forcibly imprisoning people in their homes against all constitutional rights.

Read:Elon Musk says coronavirus shelter-in-place order is fascist and breaking peoples freedoms

Britons, meanwhile, are not only scared for themselves but are so fearful neighbors might spread the virus more widely that 200,000 of them have called the police to tell tales about fellow citizens breaking the rules.

According to a report in the Times, police investigating illegal house parties and public loitering have issued 9,000 lockdown fines in England and Wales.

More here:

Just after Elon Musk denounced coronavirus lockdowns as infringements of freedom, research shows Britons are too scared to leave their homes anyway -...

Celebrating freedom in the same garden 75 years on – Jersey Evening Post

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

Mrs Pallett (85) still lives in St Saviours Road, now with her husband, Bill, and is just a stones throw from the site of the old Continental Hotel now Liberation Court where she remembers watching German soldiers on parade.

Today with enforced lockdown, her daughter Juliette collects their shopping, queuing in much the same way as she remembers her mother used to queue for milk, carrying a tin can to be refilled.

Then I used to go with my aunt and my mum to Simon Place to the cook-house because some of the time there wasnt any gas, so we used to take our bean crock, or our potatoes and swedes to be cooked there wasnt anything else, she remembers.

One advantage her family had, an unusual one for town-dwellers, was the luxury of a garden where they would grow whatever fruit they could and then barter it for such meat as could be tracked down in the early years of the Occupation.

Mrs Palletts family had bought the plot of land, previously the playground of the school which occupied the adjoining Elysian Terrace at the beginning of the 20th century.

She lived in the cottage at 19 St Saviours Road during the Occupation and then in a bungalow that her husband built across the garden from the early 1960s. Apart from a seven-year period in Hilgrove Street, she has always lived there.

Ive never lived in the country. Ive always lived in town and Im used to it. I dont know what else I can say, really. Its handy and were quite out of the way she said.

Lockdown in 2020 is, therefore, not an entirely new experience for Mrs Pallett who, as a young girl during the Occupation, was not given the freedom to roam afforded to her brother, Charles.

Yes, it is similar today. Years ago the butcher used to deliver the meat and the grocer would deliver the groceries. Thats how it was. Its the same sort of thing really.

But of course, we didnt have the food in those days. I remember my mum having a plate in the middle of the table with bread, and there was a slice and a half each. I can remember me being hungry and saying, Im going to have a piece of bread now, Im hungry, I just cant wait. I had my piece but when we sat down I could see that I still had my piece and a half left.

My mother went without and gave me the extra piece because I was hungry. We just didnt have the food. The children didnt realise it but it was the parents for whom it was really hard. It was sad for them. We were looked after, Mrs Pallett said.

A phone call earlier in the day with a friend of a similar age afforded the opportunity to discuss how lock down is affecting older Islanders and Mrs Pallett agrees that it is not an easy experience, though one for which the Occupation provides some preparation.

But while queues and home deliveries may ring bells, other aspects of life during the Occupation bear little comparison.

Now you can buy what food you like, but you couldnt in those days, she said recalling one particular memory when hunger was at its most acute.

I was at school at St James and we used to pick the tar off the road and chew it. Really, it was a whole different life in those days, she said.

See the rest here:

Celebrating freedom in the same garden 75 years on - Jersey Evening Post

Another Freedom Square resident has died of COVID-19 in Pinellas – Tampa Bay Times

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

SEMINOLE A 70-year-old resident of the Freedom Square retirement community died Wednesday after battling COVID-19 for more than three weeks, according to a medical examiner report.

Freedom Square has suffered one of the worst death tolls among Floridas long-term care facilities, with two dozen deaths.

Patricia Lewandowski was transferred to Largo Medical Center on April 15, where she tested positive for the coronavirus and pneumonia, according to the report released Friday. She had a history of cirrhosis and diabetes and was placed on a ventilator.

She was transferred to a hospice facility on Tuesday, where she died the next day.

That brings the total number of coronavirus fatalities in Pinellas nursing homes and assisted living facilities to 42, according to the state. That is 70 percent of the 60 virus-related deaths in the county.

The Freedom Square retirement community in Seminole, where Lewandowski lived, has been dealing with a major COVID-19 outbreak that so far has infected 104 staffers and residents, killing 24. Most of the infections came from the Seminole Pavilion Rehabilitation nursing home on Freedom Squares campus.

Infections and deaths in long-term care facilities in Pinellas matches the situation across the state: Residents and staffers of long-term care now account for at least 665 of the states death toll, 40 percent of those who have lost their lives to the coronavirus in Florida.

HAVE YOU LOST SOMEONE YOU LOVE TO COVID-19?: Help us remember them

UNEMPLOYMENT Q&A: We answer your questions about Florida unemployment benefits

CONTRIBUTE TO THE SCRAPBOOK: Help us tell the story of life under coronavirus

BRIGHT SPOTS IN DARK TIMES: The world is hard right now, but theres still good news out there

LISTEN TO THE CORONAVIRUS PODCAST: New episodes every week, including interviews with experts and reporters

HAVE A TIP?: Send us confidential news tips

GET THE DAYSTARTER MORNING UPDATE: Sign up to receive the most up-to-date information, six days a week

WATCH VIDEO: How some in Tampa Bay are finding light amid isolation

Were working hard to bring you the latest news on the coronavirus in Florida. This effort takes a lot of resources to gather and update. If you havent already subscribed, please consider buying a print or digital subscription.

View original post here:

Another Freedom Square resident has died of COVID-19 in Pinellas - Tampa Bay Times

Freedom Is An Issue That Stirs Voters – America’s 1st Freedom

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

by Charles C.W. Cooke - Wednesday, May 6, 2020

The American gun-control movement has long insisted that public opinion is firmly on its side, and that its aims are thwarted not by their political unpopularity but by the obstinacy of a handful of over-powerful players. What happened in Virginia at the beginning of this year demonstrates once again that this claim of public support is flatly untrue.

By now, we are well-accustomed to hearing that Republicans! or the NRA! or extremists! have hijacked our elections and set about destroying the prospect of meaningful gun-safety reforms in the United States. But, if that is true, what should we make of Virginias failure to push through the gun ban that the governor and others had so confidently promised?

Certainly, one cannot blame the Republican party, which fared so poorly during the last set of state elections that the Democrats were left in charge of every branch of state government. Nor can one blame the countrys pro-Second Amendment advocacy groups, which, as usual, were outspent in the state. And one cannot claim with a straight face that the Democrats did not care enough about the issue, given that they campaigned on imposing new restrictions, promised after they won that they would impose new restrictions and, at the first opportunity, tried to impose new restrictions. Could it be, perhaps, that when push comes to shove, limiting the right to keep and bear arms is a losing proposition in America?

The scale of the reaction in Virginia suggests the answer is yes. Gov. Ralph Northam and the Democratic legislature insisted they were going to prohibit the sale of the most-commonly owned rifle in the United States and ban and confiscate standard-capacity magazines. In return, the people of Virginia insisted they were going to do no such thing. Six cities and 91 out of the states 95 counties passed resolutions declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. In Richmond, NRA-ILA organized lobby day, where more than 2000 members met with lawmakers to voice their opposition to new gun laws. A week later a rally against the proposals drew more than 22,000 peaceful protestors. And the letters and phone calls flew in by the day. Eventually, the legislature backed downfirst by pretending to water down the proposals in a number of entirely meaningless and wholly unconvincing ways, and then by pulling bills before they got out of committee.

At the heart of the gun-control movement lies a terrible misconception as to who American gun-owners area misconception that explains a great deal about our debates over the Second Amendment and helps to explicate what happened in Virginia. In the gun-control activists imagination, meaningful support for the right to keep and bear arms is a fringe phenomenon, present only among societys oddballs and outliers, and gun owners are a small, rural, homogeneous and dangerous minority.

In reality, that support exists across the spectrum. Why? Because gun owners are half of the country. Electricians are gun owners. Bankers are gun owners. Teachers are gun owners. Stay-at-home moms are gun owners. Your neighbors are gun owners. They may be quiet about it most of the time, but, when the government tries to strip them of their elementary rights in the name of protecting them, they will break that silence in an instant and stand up to say no. In Virginia, it looked for a while as if all the chips had fallen in the wrong place. For the first time in decades, the Democrat Party not only controlled the entire State government, but it seemed determined to use its power to infringe upon the Second Amendment. The game was up, we were told.

And then, it lost its central attempt at a gun ban and possible confiscation.

What happened? You happened. I happened. We the People happened. Not today, Virginia.

View post:

Freedom Is An Issue That Stirs Voters - America's 1st Freedom

How You Can Advance the Cause of Reason and Freedom – New Ideal

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

Take a short break from the grim pandemic headlines, and let me share with you three bright spots.

In April, this journal saw significant growth in the number of new readers, an increase of about 180 percent compared to the same period last year. (To all our new readers, welcome!)

Our AynRandCon conferences planned for Philadelphia and Chicago, but instead streamed online attracted an unprecedented live audience of more than 3,750 viewers combined and a deluge of thoughtful, engaged questions.

And the number of subscribers to ARIs YouTube channel has climbed to more than 51,000. Thats up 45 percent since last year.

Beyond these bright spots, I could mention many more signs of progress in advancing ARIs mission. What powers the Institute is the financial commitment of our donors. To all of you who are donors thank you! You enable us to bring Ayn Rands philosophy of reason to ever more people.

And during this global crisis, we can see even more starkly the need for reason, for science, for innovation, for production and the freedom that makes these possible. Thats why our work at ARI is more important now than ever before.

If you appreciate the ideal of reason, join our fight today. Join us in building a future of freedom: Become an ARI Member by setting up a recurring monthly donation.

By supporting ARI, you advance your own ideals and multiply your impact, in two key ways.

1. On behalf of your ideals, we work on a vast scale to bring Ayn Rands books and ideas to tens of thousands of individuals globally through our online courses, the Ayn Rand University mobile app, our journal New Ideal, our burgeoning YouTube and social media platforms, and our public events.

2. Moreover, as an ARI Member, your recurring donations enable us to maximize ARIs impact. Thanks to consistent, monthly donations, were able to confidently plan for the long-term and grow our projects. Thats hugely important, particularly in a time of economic upheaval. (After I first learned about this upside of monthly donations, I eagerly switched over to become an ARI Member, myself.)

So, by taking a minute to sign up and for the cost of two trips to Starbucks a month, you can have a long-term, outsized impact in the world.

You can drive forward the cause of reason, individualism, and capitalism.

When you become a Member youll receive, along with several forms of recognition, updates on our progress and invitations to exclusive online events with ARIs leadership and experts.

Will you join us today?

And if youre already an ARI Member and can increase your monthly giving from $10 to $50 or more, wed welcome your added support. Thank you.

SUPPORT ARI: If you value the ideas presented here, please become an ARI Member today.

Share this article:

Go here to read the rest:

How You Can Advance the Cause of Reason and Freedom - New Ideal

As Spaniards got their first real taste of freedom this weekend, hundreds of them got arrested and thousands were fined – MarketWatch

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

It takes a lot to keep a Spaniard at home.

Even when bombs were falling on the Madrid streets during the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, the streets would fill up as soon as the all-clear sounded, sending people back to their beloved plazas and avenidas. So when Spain loosened up coronavirus restrictions over the weekend, allowing adults an hour a day to exercise, people here in Madrid took full advantage.

As the coronavirus infection, hospitalization and death rates have mercifully slowed, one of Europes strictest lockdowns has been eased. After weeks in which only one adult could go out of the house at a time for food and medicine, with kids allowed out a week ago, there is now a full schedule according to which everyone can get fresh air.

Saturday morning marked the inaugural of the 6to10 a.m. exercise shift for adults, and by 9 a.m. Madrids sidewalks parks remain closed were jammed. Two adults from the same household may go out together, which remains strict for a country whose citizens have been starved of human contact, particularly those who live alone. Rules are looser for Spanish towns with fewer than 5,000 inhabitants.

The later exercise shift of 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. kids can go out from 12 to 7 p.m., with elderly people allowed the 10 a.m.tonoon hours and 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. slots was even more populous. To the untrained eye it looked like a spontaneous fiesta, with many spilling onto the roads, and groups of two morphing into three and more, several lounging on the grass in front of the Royal Palace. Even a kiss hello between two pals was witnessed.

The looser rules proved too great a temptation for frustrated young people, with reports of dozens of parties across the capital city Saturday evening. The Interior Ministry announced 119 arrests and 16,490 fines on Saturday across Spain, with 116 arrested and 20,272 fined on Sunday. The grip remains so tight here that police stopped three people ambling across Plaza Mayor on Saturday evening as they shouted through a loudspeaker to tell everyone to keep moving no sitting.

Read:Texas park ranger pushed into lake for asking visitors to follow social-distancing guidelines

These outings may be the highlight of the day for some as the country faces a painful downturn that looks set to bring the unemployment rate to 19% this year, according to a government estimate (the International Monetary Fund has pinned its forecast two percentage points higher, as El Pas reported).

A Twitter post, perhaps mindful of the dire outlook, fired back at the penalties being meted out by authorities for lockdown violations, saying: If you think youre going to fix this with fines, then lets do it:

Thanks to the thousands of young people who went out in Madrid, another tweet carped sarcastically. Without your fines, the economy would have collapsed:

If there is one perk for partially liberated adults, many of whom now again face an uncertain economic future less than a decade after la crisis, its that the air is clean even if you cant fully enjoy it through the face masks donned by almost everyone and mandatory on public transport. Ecologistas en Accin, a confederation of ecological groups in Spain, reported a 58% reduction in air pollution in the country between March 14 and April 30.

Read:La Liga taking steps to get players back on pitch in Spain

The rest is here:

As Spaniards got their first real taste of freedom this weekend, hundreds of them got arrested and thousands were fined - MarketWatch

Lockdown phase one freedoms in Spains holiday island Mallorca – Euro Weekly News

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

AS from today Monday, Mallorca and all the Balearic Islands have moved into Phase one of the coronavirus crisis lockdown de-escalation, meaning an easing of some of the restrictions, but also some confusion over exactly what is open and what is now allowed.

New openings

Open-air markets where local councils give the go-ahead, but with restrictions on stall numbers and no self-service, and shops up to 400sqms, but with restrictions on the number of customers at one time.

Also, by previous appointment, car dealerships, ITV stations and garden centres.

Bar, cafe and restaurant terraces, but with maximum occupancy of 50 per cent. No more than 10 people can gather at one table and there has to be a two-metre distance between tables.

Hotels and tourist accommodation establishments are free to open to overnight guests, but communal areas must remain out of bounds.

Museums and libraries can reopen, with limits on entry numbers.

Friends and family

Gatherings of up to 10 people in private homes or on terraces are permitted.

Religious services and funerals

Places of worship are allowed to open their doors, with capacity limited to 30 per cent.

Wakes with a maximum of 15 people are permitted if its open air and 10 in an enclosed area. Up to 15 people can take part in a funeral.

Private vehicle use and travel

All people living in the same household are allowed to travel within the same vehicle. If the occupants are not from the same household there is a maximum of two people per row of seats, with an obligation to wear a face mask and keep a distance from each other.

Travel is possible anywhere on the island.

It is now permitted to travel to and stay overnight in a second home, as long as it is in Mallorca.

On public transport wearing a face mask is obligatory. One seat should be left free next to every passenger and the row behind the driver.

Beach access

This is down to individual councils, and access is only for walks and exercise. Bathing and sunbathing are not allowed.

Activities

Pre-arranged, organised active and outdoor tourism excursions are allowed for groups of up to 10.

Boats can be take out for private leisure or sport activities, but are restricted to sailing between ports or points on the coast within the same municipality and to uninhabited nearby islands.

Exercise times

Time slots for an hours walk or outdoor exercise remain unchanged.

For adults this means from 6am to 10am and from 8pm to 11pm. The designated time for outings with children is from 12pm to 7pm. Over-70s and people who need to go out with a carer have from 10am to 12pm and 7-8pm

The time slot restrictions do not apply in municipalities with less than 5,000 inhabitants.

Follow this link:

Lockdown phase one freedoms in Spains holiday island Mallorca - Euro Weekly News

7 Nonprofits On The Front Lines Of Cannabis Progress – Benzinga

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

ByGoldleaf's Alfonso Colasuonno, provided exclusively toBenzinga Cannabis.

Though the War on Cannabisa subset of the notorious War on Drugshas proven fruitless and wasteful, it still costs U.S. taxpayers about $3.6 billion,according to the ACLU. As cannabis legalization sweeps across the U.S. state-by-state, its easy to see the prosperity of Coloradosgrowing $6 billionindustry and forget that less than a generation ago,state laws made incredibly harsh sentences commonplace among marginalized communities. Decades ofover-policing in communities of colorhave created a sense of mistrust during encounters with local law enforcement. For example,African-Americans are 3.73 times more likely to get arrested for cannabis, despite consuming it at roughly the same rate as whites.

However, as mainstream attitudes shift toward legalization, the disproportionate amount of racially-motivated arrests should decrease in the coming decade. According to a 2019CBS poll, 65% of Americans now support legalization. Through advocacy, education, and common sense policy suggestions, these nonprofit organizations fight for the rights of every American negatively impacted by prohibition.

The Last Prisoner Project is a nonprofit organization working tirelessly to free Americans whove been incarcerated for victimless, cannabis-related crimes. This organization provides resources and support for victims of cannabis incarceration, from fighting for clemency and criminal record expungement to re-entry into the workforce. They are based out of Denver, Colorado and accept donations via their website.

See Also:Michigan Supreme Court Says Municipalities Can Regulate Caregiver Growth Of Medical Marijuana

While the bulk of cannabis nonprofit organizations focus primarily on criminal justice reform for adults, P4P raises awareness about the impact of prohibition on families with children. Theyre advocating for those with chronic and/or terminal conditions whod benefit from the plants medicinal properties. Their work helps families with cannabis-related issues through education, direct action, and organizational support.

The ASA is a large and well-established nonprofit with a long list of historical policy changes under their belt. Not only do they advocate for the rights of medical cannabis patients at the federal and state level, but they also built the worlds first International Cannabis and Cannabinoid Institute. They support medical professionals and patients by offering accredited education programs, as well.

The NCIA takes a business-centered approach to advocacy. Their aim is to help business owners navigate the relatively new landscape of the legal cannabis industry. As more jurisdictions do away with cannabis prohibition, licensed business owners in states with legalization in place still find themselves operating in a legal gray area, federally speaking. This can pose several significant challenges to start-ups. NCIAs advocates want business owners to have a seat at the table when it comes to new policies that will affect their businesses.

Legalization is a great first step, but cannabis advocacy doesnt end there. One of the greatest challenges for marginalized communities and those affected by the heavy hand of prohibition is accessibility, includinglimited-to-no insurance coverage for medical cannabisin states such as Arizona. Financial assistance for those in need of an MMJ card or who are unable to afford their medicine is available. They also guide new patients through the process of applying for their card.

Shifting the focus to international effortsFields of Green for All is a South African nonprofit that put out a publication titled: Cannabis, the Peoples Plant - A Full Spectrum Manifesto for Policy Reform. In addition to the manifesto, they maintain an active blog and advocate for policy reforms that will benefit the majority of South Africans.

See Also:How 20 African Americans From Illinois Are Working Together To File For Cannabis Licenses

Georgia is one of the most restrictive states for cannabis in the U.S.More than one ounce can lead to a possible felony charge. Major cities such as Atlanta have decriminalized it, but residents of rural counties in the state still face an uphill battle. Georgia CARE Project provides information foractivists, interested citizens, patients, and journalists.

As the new decade kicks off, America is closer to full legalization than ever before and other countries, such as South Africa, are taking notice. Theres still plenty of work to do, however. With the help of these organizations, cannabis prohibition may soon become a dark and hazy memory of our collective past.

7 Nonprofits On The Front Lines Of Cannabis Progress - Benzinga

Ending the Flynn False-Statement Case Was the Right Judgment – National Review

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn departs U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., December 1, 2017. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)The Flynn case should never have been brought and was properly disposed of.

Judgments and rules are two different things. Rules are, or should be, clear bright lines that can produce yes-or-no answers. Judgments are more complicated than that. They need not be as standardless as Potter Stewarts famous definition of pornography (I know it when I see it), but judgments typically involve a good deal more weighing and balancing of multiple factors, sometimes in ways that dont reduce to a mathematical formula. The Justice Departments decision to drop the Michael Flynn false-statement prosecution, three years after he pleaded guilty, might not pass muster as a rules-based decision, which is why Flynn faced an uphill battle trying to convince a court to vacate his plea. But as a judgment, it was the right one.

To start with, remember prosecutorial discretion. It is attractive as a rhetorical strategy to pretend that all violations of the law should be, and normally are, always prosecuted. In the real world, however, that is not how it works. Judgments are always made: about the strength of the evidence, the strength of the legal arguments, the seriousness of the actual crime, the nature of the offender, and the resources needed to pursue the case. These are not judgments that should be made without standards, or they become arbitrary at best, discriminatory at worst. But if your argument in the Flynn case is simply he should be prosecuted if the law allows it, youre not dealing seriously with the world as it is.

That is especially so given the Justice Departments refusal to prosecute former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, who was found by the DOJ inspector general to have lied to investigators; or President Obamas director of national intelligence James Clapper, who lied under oath to the Senate about warrantless surveillance; or Obamas CIA director John Brennan, who lied under oath about CIA drone strikes and spying on Congress; or, for that matter, Democratic National Committee chair Thomas Perez, who was reprimanded by Congress for multiple lies and concealment while serving as assistant attorney general for civil rights. Were a long way here from let justice be done, though the heavens fall.

Flynn, of course, has already been charged and pleaded guilty. The decision to allow him to withdraw his plea and walk away is harder than a decision not to prosecute in the first place. His admission of guilt is itself a sworn statement to a court (albeit one that most likely would not be admissible evidence in a future prosecution). The decision is, however, still an exercise of the kind of judgment that prosecutors are expected to apply throughout the life of a criminal case.

To understand why abandoning the Flynn prosecution was the right move, consider not a single factor but six factors taken together:

First, Flynn was prosecuted only for a process crime: lying to the FBI about his conversation with the Russian ambassador. He was not charged with any underlying wrongdoing regarding Russia. His crime would never even have happened if the FBI had not chosen to interview him. Now, I do not take the rules-based view that we should never prosecute process crimes such as perjury, obstruction, or lies to investigators without an underlying crime. The rules protecting judicial proceedings (trials, grand juries, civil depositions) and warrant applications are especially important, since false testimony there has a legal effect. Nor do I argue that we should entirely abolish lying to federal investigators as a criminal offense (though some rules-based reforms of the statute are overdue). Sometimes, we need to prosecute lies and obstruction precisely because they prevent a crime from being discovered or proven. Still, there is undoubtedly more room for exercising judgment when dealing with a solely process-based crime, and everyone knows that such cases are often not pursued when they could be.

Second, Flynns false statements were completely victimless. The FBI agents he lied to already knew the truth about his conversation with the Russian ambassador; they had him on tape. No neutral judge or jury was misled. No facts were effectively concealed. No inquiry was impeded. As a matter of rules, the legal requirement that lies be material to an investigation can arguably be met in those circumstances: The materiality standard is about what information would affect an investigation, not whether it actually did. As a matter of rules, Flynn would not meet the high test for entrapment, or for a perjury trap, even if you applied that doctrine to a lies-to-investigators case. But again, when you move from rules to judgments, this is the most marginal of lies, in a situation created by the investigators.

Third, misconduct in investigating and prosecuting a case matters more when the investigators and prosecutors are the only victims in the first place. Misconduct plainly happened here, in failing to turn over exculpatory information to Flynns defense. More broadly, the investigation was conducted as a sting operation against a target who was not under legitimate suspicion of any prosecutable crime. This is not a case where dropping the prosecution because the constable blundered would be unjust to a victim of violence, theft, or fraud. If youre going to base a prosecution entirely on the integrity of the process, you cannot very well hand-wave away your own violations of the integrity of the process.

Fourth, the FBI didnt initiate an investigation of Flynn because it reasonably suspected a crime. Flynn was originally investigated as part of a national-security investigation, in which less rigorous standards are involved because, ordinarily, such investigations never go public. That is how the FBI got to listen to his call with the Russian ambassador. That investigation, at least as far as Flynn was concerned, had wound down by the time he was interviewed. Theres a reason for that: National-security investigations exist, ultimately, to inform decisions by the president. The circumstances of his interview rather clearly suggest that the FBI talked to Flynn not because the agents thought that President Trump should know what his national-security adviser had been up to, but precisely because they were worried that Trump approved of it. Thats his responsibility, not theirs.

Fifth, there is a grave issue of selective enforcement of the law behind the Flynn interview. The pretext for keeping the Flynn investigation open long enough to interview him was that he might have violated the Logan Act. As I have explained before, however, the Logan Act has been on the books since 1799 without a single conviction; nobody has even been indicted under it since 1852, and not for a lack of publicly notorious violations. Moreover, if you were going to test the enforceability after all these years of the Logan Acts ban on talking to foreign governments without authority of the United States, the worst possible test case would be against a member of the national-security team of an incoming presidential administration, over conversations held during the presidential transition period. The people who interviewed Flynn knew perfectly well that they did not have a snowballs chance in hell of successfully prosecuting him under the Logan Act.

Sixth, the Flynn investigation was political. Investigating a top national-security official for a foreign-policy call is inherently political. The broader context of the investigation was drenched in politics. Even on the most harmless interpretation of the recently revealed notes discussing the interview, it is clear that the FBI investigators were well aware that they were treading on politically sensitive turf where they might well have more success in getting Flynn fired from the White House (as they did) than in building a legal case. The political nature of an investigation is not a defense to crime. But it is surely a reason for Attorney General Barr whose decision was also unavoidably political to conclude that there was no outcome in the Flynn case that could be characterized as upholding the law without fear or favor.

No one of these six factors demands dismissal of the Flynn false statement case. But all six of them together represent a perfect storm of overreach.

***

General Flynn does not walk away from this an exonerated man, nor should he, as David French has detailed at greater length. He is not, in fact, an innocent man. He lied to the FBI and admitted doing so. He lied to the vice president, for which he was properly fired. I am glad that Flynn is out of government.

Flynn also admitted in his plea to filing false Foreign Agent Registration Act disclosure forms concealing his work with the Turkish government. He was never charged under FARA, and there are competing theories as to why Flynn pleaded guilty only to the false-statement charge. I leave to others the question of the strength of the FARA charge and whether it would have been unfair to pursue one, given that FARA itself had not previously been enforced very vigorously. If the Justice Department had the goods to prosecute Flynn (or his son) for FARA disclosure violations, it should have done so years ago. It would have been quite late in the day for the Justice Department to switch theories and restart this case now solely as a FARA prosecution.

In either event, Flynns false-statement prosecution simply pushed the envelope to its limits in too many directions at once, and Bill Barr did the right thing in ending it. That is true whether or not you like or trust Barr, Flynn, or Trump.

As to rules, I have argued for years that we should not seek to impose vague, complex, or elastic laws against our political enemies if we do not want them used against our friends. The Flynn prosecution should prompt a rethinking of some of our rules to ensure that others be they Democrats or ordinary people far less prominent than General Flynn are not similarly targeted. That should start with repealing the absurd and constitutionally dubious Logan Act, but it shouldnt end there. The false-statements law, section 1001, should also come under review by Congress; as then-Judge Kavanaugh wrote a decade ago, of the ever-metastasizing 1001:

As many others have noted, 1001 prosecutions can pose a risk of abuse and injustice. In part, thats because 1001 applies to virtually any statement an individual makes to virtually any federal government officialeven when the individual making the statement is not under oath (unlike in perjury cases) or otherwise aware that criminal punishment can result from a false statement.

There is also a case to be made for clearer boundaries regarding the difference between national-security and criminal investigations, especially when conducting politically sensitive investigations of government officials although we should be wary of reconstructing the artificial separations that obstructed sharing of information about terrorism in the run-up to 9/11. Finally, as I have argued before, we should restructure the process for investigating government officials by establishing a cabinet-level Inspector General outside of the Justice Department.

Reforms of this nature would be forward-looking, and ideally would reduce the need to depend solely upon prosecutorial judgment to avoid injustice and abuse. But in applying that judgment, the Flynn case should never have been brought, and was properly disposed of.

Follow this link:

Ending the Flynn False-Statement Case Was the Right Judgment - National Review

Vietnams Government Is Using COVID-19 to Crack Down on Freedom of Expression – Slate

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

Musician and activist Mai Khoi, a dissident musician known as Vietnams Lady Gaga, in San Francisco on Oct. 19, 2018.

Corentin Soibinet/Getty Images

In the wake of COVID-19s spread across the world, countries are dealing with the rise of both intentional fake news and well-meaning misinformation about the virus. Some hard-hit countries have enacted new laws related to the spread of misinformation, while others are reckoning with constitutional limits on free speech. For instance, a recent court challenge forced the French government to take down its own website debunking COVID-19 related fake news. Even more countries facing major outbreaks are using existing laws to crack down on alleged spreaders of misinformation like in India and Morocco.

Though many Asian nations are dealing with very serious outbreaks, Vietnam appears to be one of the most successful in halting the spread of the infection. As of May 8, it has reported just 288 cases, 241 recoveries, and a remarkable zero deaths. While there have been suspicions that China may be underreporting its infected and death rates, there have not been any major accusations of Vietnam doing the same. In fact, many media outlets have praised the Vietnamese governments aggressive measures, which have included early restrictions on travel, quarantining affected villages, providing free masks, and even writing viral songs. However, the efforts to fight COVID-19 misinformation and fake news online, including with a law enacted in April, reveal the darker side to public awareness efforts in Vietnamone that stems from a long history of censorship and authoritarianism.

In addition to proactive physical measures, Vietnam has been active in setting up online public health resources like websites and a mobile app in order to more efficiently disseminate accurate information as well as speed up testing. At the same time, the government has taken a hard-line stance on the spread of rumors and misinformation, instituting a hefty fine for the posting of fake news on social media. The governments censorship apparatus has allowed it to quickly stem the spread of rumors and act against people profiteering off supplies.

Vietnam has long censored its press and the ability of laypeople to express opinions contrary to the official state or party line. Its a one-party state, and any criticism of government officials or policy positions is strictly curtailed. Official state media outlets are heavily edited, and private social media platforms are routinely censored. Theres also a history of arresting dissidents for their posts on Facebook, such as prominent blogger prominent blogger Ho Van Hais 2016 arrest for propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Many topics of discussion and ideas are forbidden, though somesuch as anti-Chinese sentimentare too widely popular for the government to censor entirely, as Vietnam and China officially remain allies, even in light of increased political and military tensions.

One example of the Vietnamese governments attempts to censor online discussion over controversial events happened earlier this year. In January, an ongoing land dispute between the government and Dong Tam, a small village near the capital of Hanoi, erupted into a deadly incident that allegedly resulted in the deaths of the elderly village leader and several police officers. Anti-government Facebook posts, including a statement from the village leaders widow, were censored, and several dissidents were arrested over posts they had made about the incident. The Vietnamese governments social media brigade mass-reported Facebook profiles of dissidents to take them down and flooded the platform with pro-government sentiments.

The Vietnamese government censorship apparatus works hand in hand with private companies, as we found out in April. Reuters reported that earlier this year, state-owned telecom companies throttled traffic to Facebook, rendering access to the platform impossible at times, until Facebook agreed to take down content the Vietnamese government deems anti-state. (In a statement emailed to Reuters, Facebook acknowledged the governments request and said it complied in order to to ensure our services remain available and usable for millions of people in Vietnam, who rely on them every day.) As one of the fastest-growing social media networks in the country, Facebook is well-positioned to assist with public health awareness efforts. But the Vietnamese government has been accused of continually throttling access, blocking the website entirely, and even having government agents spy on dissidents.

In April, Amnesty International reported that between January and March, 654 people were detained by police to attend working sessions related to their virus-related Facebook posts. In these sessions, posters are forced to admit that their posts contained false information about COVID-19 in Vietnam, delete them, and pledge not to reoffend. The content of the posts included claims that there have been deaths in the country and suggest corruption in the government response efforts. Some smear the leadership of the Party and the state, according to state media.

Central to this debate is Viet Tan, a political opposition group that is illegal inside Vietnam. Viet Tan has questioned the efficacy of the governments COVID-19 measures and the truthfulness of its COVID-19 reporting, and it has amplified suggestions that China is ultimately responsible for the spread of the pandemic. Viet Tan is a frequent critic of the regime, and long before the Amnesty International report, it spoke out against Facebooks alleged complicity in taking down dissident voices. The Vietnamese government considers Viet Tan a terrorist organization, stemming from its origins as a violent revolutionary organization based in the United States.

Although it is suppressed within the country, Viet Tan continues to serve as an outlet and mouthpiece for dissident voices operating both within and outside of Vietnam, many of whom rely on Facebook and other social media platforms to get their messages out. Facebooks latest act of cooperation with the government comes at a key moment in the country: the 2021 elections. In January, the Communist Party of Vietnam will hold its the 13th National Congress, and the National Assembly will hold its elections in May. Vietnam holds direct elections for its National Assembly, but the top positions in government are elected by the legislative body, not citizens. Those top four leadership positions, the four pillars, are the party secretary general, the state president, the prime minister, and the chairperson of the national assembly. Vietnam is no stranger to restricting free expression ahead of elections, and so this clampdown of COVID-19 fake news appears to be perfectly timed.

Key to these suppression is the April 15 decree outlawing fake news. In addition to banning COVID-19 related misinformation, it restricts all social media posts that share banned books and publications, documents deemed to be state secrets, or even maps and charts failing to show the Vietnamese claims in the South China Sea. The crackdown on COVID-19 fake news and Vietnams use of nationalism to unite the country against the virus have been the primary focus of much of the media attention surrounding this decree. But the broad terms by which fake news is being defined provides yet another potent weapon in the Vietnamese authorities arsenal of online repression, Tanya OCarroll, director of tech at Amnesty International, told Reuters.

With a public health crisis as an excuse, the Vietnamese government is maintaining its suppression of dissident speech. And although this digital silencing is becoming more common, Vietnam continues to clamp down on free expression in all other forms, such as its harassment of Mai Khoi, dubbed the Lady Gaga of Vietnam. She is currently renting a secret apartment from a friend after getting evicted for holding up a banner that read PeacePiss on you Trump during the U.S. presidents visit to Vietnam. (This was not the first time she has been evicted for voicing protests against political figures.) Vietnams long history of repression and censorship should cause one to suspect that Vietnam is not just fighting COVID-19, but also free expression.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Visit link:

Vietnams Government Is Using COVID-19 to Crack Down on Freedom of Expression - Slate

Justices weigh whether US requirements on overseas NGOs violate free speech | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

The Supreme Court on Tuesday weighed whether Congress can legally require that foreign affiliates of U.S. groups fighting AIDS overseas explicitly oppose prostitution and sex trafficking as a condition for receiving federal funding.

The justices previously ruled that Congresss funding requirement violated the First Amendment when it applied to U.S. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) engaged in the global fight against HIV and AIDS.

Following the Supreme Courts 2013 ruling, several American NGOs filed a second lawsuit seeking to have those protections extended to their foreign partners.

David Bowker, who argued the case on behalf of the NGOs, said free speech rights should apply equally to U.S. groups and their foreign affiliates because of the closeness of their relationship. Applying different requirements could run the risk of doublespeak and undermine the groups mission, he said.

There can be a risk of attribution across corporate lines, where the entities in question are so clearly identified as they are here, Bowker said, emphasizing the close connection, when those entities speak together with one voice and make their speech and policy decisions together.

Chris Michel, an assistant U.S. solicitor general, said that while lawmakers cannot require the American groups to disavow the international sex trade, imposing such requirements on their foreign affiliates is a lawful exercise of Congresss power of the purse.

Respondents themselves are not subject to a funding condition so they can't have an unconstitutional conditions claim, he said. And the foreign entities that are subject to the funding condition have no constitutional rights, so they can't have an unconstitutional conditions claim either.

The law in question is a 2003 statute known as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act. The law originally said only U.S. NGOs with a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking were eligible for funding, before the justices struck down that provision.

See the original post here:

Justices weigh whether US requirements on overseas NGOs violate free speech | TheHill - The Hill

Free Speech at Oxford (updated with an important correction) – Daily Nous

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

Flying around social media yesterdaywere cheersthat Oxford University had issued a Statement on the Importance of Free Speech in response to a motion from the Oxford Student Union allegedly to ban ableist, classist and misogynist reading lists.

Heres Richard Dawkins on Twitter, for example:

I checked out the widely circulatedOxford Blue article linked to in Dawkins and others tweets, as well as theOxford Studentarticle first reporting on the Student Union motion. Though there were a few snippets here and there, neither article included or linked to the whole text of the motion, or even a substantial block of it.

And what of the Statement on the Importance of Free Speech that Oxford University released, according to the May 3rdOxford Blue article? Fortunately, the authors ofthe article included the entire text of that statement. However, it appears to be the exact same text already posted last year on at least a couple of Oxford sitesand released at least as early as May, 2017. Its not clear what actually happened here. Perhaps the university simply referred the journalists atOxford Blue to this pre-existing statement. [Update: according to the reporter, yes, this is what happened.]

Oxford Blue also reports that the university (they dont specify who) said, I can confirm that the University has no plans to censor reading materials assigned by our academics.

Censor reading materials? Is that what the students were calling for? Not exactly.

Jenny Saville, Stare III (detail)

A fellow twitterer answered my request for the actual motion, and from the looks of it, the students were basically aiming forfour things:

What to make of these demands? The first thing to note is that none of this is censorship. So, for the university to say that it has no plans to censor reading materials is not, strictly speaking, to reject the student union motion. The closest we get to censorship in the motion is in the condemnation called for in #4, above. That isnt technically censorship, but it may have similar effects (I dont know, as I dont know anything about those particular offices or whether Oxford faculty care aboutwhether they condemn their reading selections). [Note: in light of the correction of #4, above, I think it is safe to say that #4 does not come close to constituting censorship.] #2 might strike some as censorship but it seems pro-freedom to me, for if its effect would be to give students more choicehere, not to take a course they otherwise would have been required to.

(In one line in the original document, the students complain about the lack of criminalization of certain forms of biased speech, but what they end up calling for from Oxford isnt the criminalization of speech.)

The extent to which these demands are anti-free speech turns in part on what material is actually covered by it. I dont know enough about the legal context to know exactly what kinds of texts would be picked out by intended or likely to stir up hatred. Are historical documents and older writings ever included here? Has the assignment of a hateful text for the purposes of study ever been the target of the Public Order of 1986 or university policies based on it? Readers, help us out.

Heres the actual text of the motion (courtesy of Eric Sheng):

As you can see, the studentsnamed one example of a text they think would fall under their expanded hate speech proposal: Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children by Julian Savulescu, which appeared inBioethicsin 2001. In this article, Savulescu argues that prospective parents should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information, which they took to be objectionably ableist.

I dont think the students did themselves any favors with this choice of example, in which Savulescu distinguishes betweenidentifying conditions, such as poor memory, that tend to make peoples lives worse(a claim he endorses) and saying that people with those conditions are less deserving of respect or are less valuable (a claim he rejects). Regardless of whether one thinks Savulescus argument is any good, this article is certainly neither intended to, nor likely to stir up, hatred against disabled persons.The students are just mistakenthat it is an example of hate speech.

Suppose, though, that they werent mistaken. Even if it were hate speech, note thatthe students are not calling for Oxford to ban Savulescus essay. Rather, they are arguing that students be given the option to take a course in which it is assigned, and that students be warned about its content. One way to put this is that theyre arguing for informed consent for encountering hate speech.

Unfortunately, they are also asking for administrators* [students actually; see the correction to #4, above] to condemn the assigning of the reading. Though I tend to favor more speech approaches to allegedly objectionable speech, withoutmeasures toseparatethe authoritys expressive actions from its coercive ones (a la Brettschneider), this is an overreach. [Note: in light of the correction of #4, above, which makes clear that it is students, not administrators, being asked to condemn the readings, I retract this criticism.]

So what to think about all of this? Here are three takeaways (feel free to add your own):

(a) The students care about the welfare of the vulnerable among them and are pointing out what they take to be a problem of arbitrariness in law and policy (that thereare protections on the basis of, say, race and religion but not gender and class).

(b) The students are arguing for a more-freedom, more-information, and more-speech approach to solving this problem, rather than censorship.

I think (a) is good, (b) is a mixed bag owing to the vague call forofficial condemnations and [see the correction to #4, above] the confused language of criminalization, and (c) is not terrible but not good, either.

The problem with (c) is not really the legal point, but rather an apparent tendency towards a kind of affirming the consequent. Heres an example. We might expect an atheist to criticize the ontological argument for the existence of God, but someone who criticizes the ontological argument for the existence of God is not necessarily an atheist.That is, it doesnt follow from ones making an argument an atheist would make that one is an atheistit depends on the argument (among other things). Similarly, it doesnt follow from ones making an argument a racist or sexist or classist would make that one is a racist or sexist or classistit depends on the argument (among other things). For example, we might expect a racist to argue against affirmative action, but it doesnt follow that one is a racist in virtue of arguing against affirmative action.

It isnt surprising that students are susceptible to thismistaken reasoning. For one thing, theyre still learning how to think carefully. For another, its not always a mistake to reason this way, and in some contexts (or for people with certain backgrounds) it could be a reasonable heuristic to employ.

Ironically, thiskind of reasoning might have been in play in the widely shared descriptions and attitudes expressed about this story, which framed the students as censors. We might think that someone who favors censorship might express the same kinds of concerns the Oxford Student Union did in their motion. But it would be a mistake to conclude, as many seemed to do, that because they expressed such concerns, the studentswere calling for censorship. They werent.

I suppose an additional takeaway would be that, as with some other disputes over speech, the combatants may have more in common than they realize.

Read the rest here:

Free Speech at Oxford (updated with an important correction) - Daily Nous

Its un-American and ineffective to ban speech – AL.com

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

Last week, a video titled The Plandemic popped up in a furious, urgent flood of posts in my Facebook feed.

People urged each other to watch the video before censors banned it from YouTube.

Wake up! wrote one friend.

Please watch this before they ban it! pleaded another.

So I watched it.

Although small sections of the film piqued my curiosity, it was simply another run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory -- rich in frightening charges yet poor in verifiable evidence.

And then I waited.

Sure enough, mere hours later, skeptics began posting comments and links to articles challenging the credibility of the videos subject -- Dr. Judy Mikovitz.

But just as sure enough, rather than letting viewers watch the video and debate its merits for themselves, YouTube removed it, stating that it violated the communitys guidelines.

I had to shake my head.

Surely the social media giants know the psychology behind banned material?

Take something away and it doesnt go away. It pops up elsewhere, this time having earned tantalizing new cache.

How many headlines scream: This was banned because they dont want you to know the truth!

Click.

Though now mainly observed on social media, this effect isnt anything new.

When a library in Concord, Mass., banned The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from its shelves, Mark Twain wrote with delight, They have expelled Huck from their library as trash and suitable only for the slums. That will sell 25,000 copies for us sure.

Whats that line about those who refuse to learn from history?

Facebook, YouTube and the big tech powers-that-be shouldnt censor material that doesnt break the law.

Even when someone thinks its questionable.

Even when someone thinks its dead wrong.

Even, I hate to say, when someone thinks its fake news.

Because the problem here and forever-after will be in determining just who the censor should be.

To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? asked the late Christopher Hitchens during a lecture on free speech, Or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the job of being the censor?

Is the answer a bunch of software engineers huddled together in a Silicon Valley conference room, or equally as bad, a committee of experts they hire to do the job for them?

They simply dont have to do anything of the sort platform users and social media communities already monitor information themselves in a much more transparent, democratic, free and American exchange of ideas.

This is America. We dont ban speech here. Or at least we shouldnt.

Still, if YouTube and Facebook dont ban controversial posts, will that mean that misleading, incomplete or inaccurate information will sometimes go viral?

Yes. Of course. Thats a problem.

Taking material down wont stop it from spreading and wont stop some people from believing it.

But it will remove our opportunity to openly debunk it.

Leaving it up gives others the opportunity to comment, challenge, educate and even apply peer pressure when appropriate since most of us want to avoid the stigma of sharing bad info. We dont want to be associated with being duped. There is a lot of community pressure to do your research, check your facts and be skeptical.

Censorship is troubling for another reason: It can silence small, minority, dissenting opinions that are true, that do point out corruption, that should be spread because they unearth information wed never know otherwise.

The fantastic Netflix documentary The Pharmacist is a perfect example. No doubt Dan Schneider seemed like a quack conspiracy theorist for calling out Purdue Pharma, OxyContin and corrupt pill-mill doctors in Louisiana.

That is, until millions of ruined lives later it turned out he was right.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Let people speak their minds. Bring ideas into the light where they can be discussed, debated, proved or disproved in the open.

If people are worried that the videos, articles and posts they want to share will be banned, they may be more likely to urgently and quickly fire them off with less pause.

And we really should pause.

Rachel Blackmon Bryars is a Huntsville-based columnist for Al.com, co-host of Belle Curve Podcast and managing partner of Bryars Communications, LLC. Keep up with her work on her Facebook page.

More articles about the pandemic by Rachel Blackmon Bryars:

Go here to see the original:

Its un-American and ineffective to ban speech - AL.com

No bailing out higher education without reform | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Danzig

Everybody wants a bailout. Higher education has its hand out, too.

The University of California alone suffered an estimated $558 million in unanticipated costs because of the coronavirus pandemic just for the month of March.The American Council of Education already has asked for $46.6 billion in federal bailout money. If they get it, theyll be back for more once it runs out.

Even on the right, which is justly wary of the higher education establishments inefficiency and partisan bias, millions of Americans acknowledge the value of college education done right.

Even on the left, millions of Americans ask whether their tax dollars should subsidize colleges that are bureaucratic, insulated and often anti-American. Even President Obama and former vice president Joe Biden, the Democrats presumptive nominee this year, criticize higher educations excessive political correctness.

Longtime professors such as myself ask whether Congress can support higher education without subsidizing segments of our universities that are dysfunctional, spendthrift and hostile to free speech. For some good answers, legislators and others concerned with higher education should read the new report from the National Association of Scholars (NAS).

The authors of the report, Critical Care: Policy Recommendations to Restore American Higher Education after the 2020 Coronavirus Shutdown, mainly former professors, understand the ivory towers strengths and its flaws. They argue that any bailout needs guiding principles:

The reports recommendations provide detailed guidance for applying these principles.

First, no taxpayer dollars should provide emergency relief to the 100 or so colleges and universities with the biggest endowments. As the ongoing college admissions scandals show, many elite institutions appear to have prioritized revenue over integrity for decades. In any case, they are fabulously well endowed, with the resources to take care of themselves.

Second, in recent decades the number of higher education administrators has increased far beyond what colleges need. Bureaucrats now hugely outnumber professors and instructors, and as Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt show in The Coddling of the American Mind, particularly regarding free speech and academic rigor, such bureaucrats often do more harm than good. Accordingly, institutions receiving bailouts should agree to a 50 percent cut in administrative overhead as a condition of aid. Generally, aid should reward colleges that keep tuition and fees low.

Third, bailouts should put students first. During this national emergency, we should freeze student loan repayments. Longer term, we must focus taxpayer funding on low income students, and make colleges pay back 30 percent of defaulted student loans, to keep colleges from accepting students with few prospects for success just to take their tuition money. Distance learning and traditional classrooms should get the same subsidies. To encourage academic rigor, we should refuse funding for colleges that award college credit for remedial courses.

Fourth, just as no federal funds go to colleges practicing racial discrimination, we should not bail out colleges that attack free speech and intellectual diversity with bureaucratic speech codes, bias response teams and ideological discrimination in faculty hiring and student admissions. Taxpayer funding should go only to colleges that encourage civil debate and discourage ideological bias.

Finally, the NAS proposes that bailout funds go only to U.S. colleges that promote American values, by subsidizing national security related disciplines, giving American students preferences over international students, limiting Chinese government influence, and cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), rather than having sanctuary campuses for those here illegally.

My own list of proposals would read a little differently. I would require colleges that receive a taxpayer bailout to endorse the Chicago principles on freedom of expression. Online classes are usually less academically rigorous, so why subsidize more distance education? Like NAS, I oppose sanctuary campuses since no college that flouts federal law should get federal funds; yet I also would suggest reforming immigration law because America benefits from admitting talented and hard-working people from around the world.

Notwithstanding those disagreements, I support most of the reforms in the NAS report. Most voters and elected officials will, too. When Congress considers bailing out higher education, the first thing they should read is Critical Care.

Robert Maranto is the 21st Century Chair in Leadership in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas. He served in the U.S. government in the Clinton administration, and co-edited The Politically Correct University.

View original post here:

No bailing out higher education without reform | TheHill - The Hill

Select Page ::