Tesla to extend furlough for some employees by another week: internal email – Reuters

Posted on by

FILE PHOTO: A view of Tesla Inc's U.S. vehicle factory in Fremont, California, U.S., March 18, 2020. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton/File Photo

(Reuters) - Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) told furloughed employees on Friday that they will remain out of work for at least another week, postponing a plan to resume normal operations on May 4 at its San Francisco vehicle-assembly plant, according to an internal email.

For furloughed employees, unless you are contacted by your manager about a start date, you will remain on furlough until further notice, at least for another week, the companys in-house counsel Valerie Capers Workman said in the email, which was sent to employees and seen by Reuters.

Tesla suspended production at its Fremont, California plant on March 24.

The extension comes days after health officials from San Francisco County, along with five other Bay Area counties, said they would revise shelter-in-place orders that are set to expire on Sunday.

The new orders will keep the restrictions in place and extend them through May, with limited easing for a small number of low-risk activities.

The company was not immediately available to a Reuters request for comment.

The electric carmaker last month furloughed all non-essential workers and implemented salary cuts during a shutdown of its U.S. production facilities because of the coronavirus outbreak.

Reporting by Aakriti Bhalla in Bengaluru and Tina Bellon in New York; Editing by Stephen Coates

Follow this link:

Tesla to extend furlough for some employees by another week: internal email - Reuters

VW admits Teslas lead in software and self-driving in internal leak – Electrek

Posted on by

Volkswagen CEO Hebert Diess has admitted that Tesla has a significant lead when it comes to software and its use in its self-driving program, according to leaked internal communications.

Tesla pioneered over-the-air software updates in the auto industry.

At first, it was touted more as a smartphone-like feature that enables your car to have a better user experience over time.

However, Teslas use of over-the-air software updates has evolved, and it is also now at the center of the automakers effort to achieve a fully self-driving system.

Volkswagen is recognizing that, and its CEO, Hebert Diess, is apparently worried about it.

The German magazine Automobilwoche obtained internal communications at Volkswagen from the CEO talking about Teslas software, which he admits is ahead of its own and any other automobile manufacturer.

In the internal communications, Diess says that Teslas lead gives him headaches.

He conceded that customers appear to love Teslas deep software integration with features like using your phone to control the vehicle and building the user experience around a center screen inside the car.

But what is of greater concern for VWs CEO is Teslas use of software in its Autopilot program:

What worries me the most is the capabilities in the assistance systems. 500,000 Teslas function as a neural network that continuously collects data and provides the customer a new driving experience every 14 days with improved properties. No other automobile manufacturer can do that today.

Diess is referencing the fact that unlike most automakers and tech companies working on autonomous driving, Tesla doesnt only rely on an internal test fleet or simulations to collect data for its Autopilot program, which it ultimately hopes will lead to a full self-driving system..

Tesla is leveraging its large customer fleet of electric vehicles equipped with an extensive array of sensors to collect data and improve its driver-assist features.

We recently reported on Tesla accumulating over 3 billion miles of Autopilot data.

In order to address Teslas software lead, the VW boss says that he is putting together a new software organization to implement the Tesla catch-up plan.

VW has already been building a lot of similar software features found in Tesla vehicles for its new ID3 electric car, but the German automaker is reportedly having massive software problems with the new electric car.

Some analysts believe that part of the reason why Tesla has a large valuation is that it is valued like a software company.

In the leaked communications about Diess concerns over Teslas software lead, the CEO presented his top managers with a graph that compared Teslas valuation to VWs, which happens to be about half of the California-based electric automakers.

And that despite our valuable brands like Porsche, Audi, VW, Bentley, and the others, added Diess.

The CEO admitted that they still have a long way to catch up to Tesla.

While he has never been as blunt about Teslas lead as in those new internal comments, Diess has talked about Teslas advantages in the past, but he always made it clear that he believes VW will catch up to the automaker.

Ive driven dozens of new EVs from established automakers, and its painfully clear that Tesla has a massive advantage when it comes to software-based user experience.

But I love to see those comments from VW. Yes, Tesla has a giant lead over the rest of the industry when it comes to software, but the first step for other automakers to close that lead is to admit that they are behind.

If you are to look up to someone in that space, it has to be Tesla.

As for using its fleet to gather data for autonomous driving, I think it might be the first time another automaker has admitted that this is a strong advantage.

Most, if not all, of them have been relying on test fleets and simulation.

Are we going to see VW and maybe even more automakers taking a similar approach as Tesla on that front? What do you think? Let us know in the comment section below.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Subscribe to Electrek on YouTube for exclusive videos and subscribe to the podcast.

Continue reading here:

VW admits Teslas lead in software and self-driving in internal leak - Electrek

Tesla stock is riding high as investors wait to hear effects of coronavirus – MarketWatch

Posted on by

This article is part of a series tracking the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on major businesses, and will be updated. It was originally published on April 15.

Tesla Inc. is benefiting from hopes that it is nimbler than its Detroit peers to weather the economic destruction ignited by the novel coronavirus.

Tesla TSLA, -10.30% shares have been on a tear in recent sessions, boosted by recent Wall Street upgrades even as the pandemic snuffs out near-term demand for vehicles and other big-ticket items. Investors have focused on still-healthy first-quarter vehicle deliveries, Teslas proxy for sales, and the announcement that production of the Model Y, a compact SUV, started in January and that the first few vehicles were delivered last month, ahead of schedule.

Business in the age of COVID-19: Read profiles of how other large companies will be affected by the coronavirus

They also seem heartened that the company tapped capital markets and cushioned its balance sheet at a crucial time fresh from reporting fourth-quarter GAAP and adjusted profit well above Wall Street expectations and just as the first few known U.S. cases of COVID-19 surfaced in February.

Moreover, the Street has kept the faith on the long-term growth trend toward electric vehicles, and Tesla is seen by many as the clear leader in terms of EV and battery technology. Analysts at Goldman Sachs said that they expect EV market penetration to increase from 2% last year to nearly 15% by 2030 even amid lower gas prices due to the ongoing crude-oil supply glut and lower demand.

There has been no word from Tesla about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic since the company shut down much of its production in late March. Investors will want to know how Model Y production and sales have been affected by factory stoppages and how Chief Executive Elon Musk believes the rest of the year will play out.

See also:Tesla stock extends rally, up 60% in the past seven days

Tesla did not rescind its guidance for the year of 500,000-plus deliveries in its first-quarter deliveries report. The company plans to report full first-quarter earnings on April 29.

Revenue: Analysts polled by FactSet estimate Tesla to report $6.16 billion in first-quarter sales, down from $6.6 billion expected in January. For the full year, the mid-April consensus outlook calls for $30.11 billion in 2020 sales, down from expectations of $32 billion in February.

Earnings: Analysts surveyed by FactSet expect Tesla to post a loss of 25 cents a share for the quarter; in January, the analysts were calling for adjusted per-share earnings of 93 cents. Tesla reported adjusted profits in the two previous quarters. Investors are still expecting Tesla to post a profit this year, to the tune of $3.61 a share, but were more optimistic on the companys 2020 prospects in late February, when the per-share expectation was around $8.60 a share.

Stock movement: Tesla has handily outperformed the S&P 500 index SPX, -2.80% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -2.55%. So far this year, the stock is up more than 80%, versus losses of 2% and 10% for the S&P and the Dow. The stock gained 25% in the January-to-March quarter, versus a loss of 20% for the S&P and 23% for the Dow. Tesla is also outperforming its Detroit peers; shares of General Motors Co GM, -6.23% and Ford Motor Co. F, -3.34% have fallen 41% and 46% this year, respectively.

Related:Ford is first auto maker to warn of lower sales, but unlikely to be last

Liquidity: The company had $6.3 billion in cash at the end of 2019 and before its $2.3 billion capital raise in February.

That is sufficient to successfully navigate an extended period of uncertainty, Tesla said in March. At the end of the fourth quarter, it had available credit lines worth about $3 billion, it said, including working-capital lines for all regions as well as financing for the expansion of its Shanghai factory.

Ford has said it would report a first-quarter loss as well as lower sales, but Tesla and GM have not provided preliminary quarterly numbers. Tesla said it will post first-quarter results after the market close on April 29.

Unit sales: Tesla surprised markets earlier this month when it released first-quarter production and delivery data close to the FactSet consensus and even above the expectations of many analysts tracking the company. But also to the surprise of many, it didnt reiterate or tweak its 2020 target to deliver more than 500,000 vehicles. Tesla announced temporary factory closures last month.

Tesla is the clear market leader in EVs in terms of battery range and market share (and we expect it to maintain a strong competitive position in the EV market long-term). While we expect the current industry downturn and the shutdown of Teslas Fremont factory due to COVID-19 to weigh on 2020 results, wed note that even using a $2 per gallon gas price assumption, we believe that the total cost of ownership (TCO) in the premium car market between a Model 3 and an internal combustion engine car is comparable, and Teslas cars offer strong performance (e.g., 0-60 acceleration) and safety (5-star safety ratings from NHTSA) features. We expect the TCO of EVs to continue to improve over time leading to significant long-term EV growth. Goldman Sachs analysts, who initiated their coverage of Tesla stock at a buy rating with a $864 price target.

Encouragingly, we do not expect Tesla to face any liquidity concerns from this crisis, partly thanks to its $2.3B capital raise in February. Toni Sacconaghi of Bernstein, who kept his rating on Tesla shares at the equivalent of hold with a $730 price target. The auto maker is unlikely to meet its sales goals for the year and its 2020 revenue may drop by about one fifth, but it has enough cash to survive the economic destruction wrought by the coronavirus pandemic, he said. Bernstein cut its 2020 Tesla deliveries estimate by 22% to 414,000 vehicles.

Tesla has more edge in the transition to electric vehicles, and the coronavirus disruption will make it more difficult for legacy auto makers to balance the long-term shift to EV in the face of near-term cycle disruption, Dan Levy of Credit Suisse, who upgraded his rating on Tesla shares to the equivalent of hold with a $580 price target. Despite the headwinds from the pandemic and near-term weakness to sales of electric vehicles, the longer-term commitment to electrification will remain intact, he said.

Tesla is a trailblazer in the electric vehicle market and could be successful as EV demand increases over time, but challenges include ongoing and future production challenges. John Murphy of BofA Securities. Other hurdles it faces are continued losses and cash burn from low production and deliveries, higher costs, and new facility construction; and the prospect of new competition and technology and model obsolescence, the analyst said. BofA downgraded Tesla to its equivalent of sell.

Theres a chance a recession helps (Tesla) extend its EV advantage over other OEMs, who may be forced to delay/halt their electrification plans. Ben Kallo of Baird Equity Research. A working capital build in the first quarter could be a drag on cash flow, but Teslas balance sheet is strong following the capital raise. Kallo has the equivalent of hold on Tesla shares with a price target of $535.

Of the 33 Tesla analysts who are polled by FactSet, eight rate Tesla stock a buy and 14 rate it a hold, with the remaining 11 rating it a sell. On average, the price target on the stock is $508.92, implying a downside around 30%.

Read this article:

Tesla stock is riding high as investors wait to hear effects of coronavirus - MarketWatch

Tesla GT Is the Muscle Car Frankenstein No One Asked For – autoevolution

Posted on by

Like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, muscle cars represent the perfect marriage of a compact, light body and a powerful, feisty and loud V8. Now, if youd like to imagine your sandwich with less flavor, you can simply take out the V8.

That said, what if? What if Teslas Elon Musk woke up one day and thought to himself, wouldnt it be great if we made a muscle car? Scott A. Barras from design firm SABARRAS imagines such a future and the kind of car that would result. He calls it the Tesla GT, the all-electric muscle car that pays homage to the glorious past of American automotive history, while looking towards a fully-electrified future.

Rendered both in hardtop and convertible forms, the Tesla GT takes some of the design language of the greatest muscle cars ever made, like the V8-powered ponies wearing the Camaro/Cuda/Challenger/Mustang nameplates, and repurposes it for a modern-day vehicle, keeping in mind modern proportions and aerodynamics, Barras explains. To further honor the inventor whose name the Tesla company is using, Barras included in the design of the GT Nikola Teslas obsession with the numbers 3, 6 and 9.

The goal was to create a mean-looking car in the styling of American muscle cars, while incorporating modern features like the battery pack and motors, regenerative braking and cameras inserted into the A-pillars instead of side mirrors.

To those asking themselves why anyone would come up with such a Frankenstein idea, Barras says this of his inspiration: These days, sober looking Tesla sedans and crossovers are able to out accelerate all but the most expensive hypercars. [] Modern Tesla sedans and crossovers consistently embarrass highly modified muscle cars during races from junction stops. This inspired me to design a muscular, all-American style of electric sports car to attract muscle car buyers by offering the contemporary experience of chest crushing acceleration with a style that more reflects their personality.

The question is now, would muscle car buyers go for an incomplete, perhaps not as tasty peanut and butter jelly sandwich instead of the real thing?

See more here:

Tesla GT Is the Muscle Car Frankenstein No One Asked For - autoevolution

Teslas are hard to steal, but three were stolen from a dealership on Friday – BGR

Posted on by

A group of thieves stole three Tesla vehicles from a dealership in Fairfax County, Virginia early on Friday morning. Police were quickly alerted to what was going on and a chase involving all three cars ensued.

According to reports from NBC4 Washington and WTOP News, police tried to stop one car as it attempted to enter an interstate highway. The car quickly crashed as it attempted to avoid police, prompting the thief to flee on foot.

While the thief got away, passengers or perhaps accomplices is more appropriate who happened to be in the car werent so lucky as they were arrested at the scene.

NBC4reports:

Officers tried to pull over the Tesla and a pursuit began, police say. Eventually, one of the drivers crashed on Leesburg Pike near the Beltway and ran away, police said.

The drivers of two other Teslas continued southbound on the highway and eventually left the cars near Route 236 and tried to outrun officers, police say.

A third suspect got away. Fairfax County Police say there were an unknown number of passengers in two of the cars.

One of the Tesla thieves was ultimately apprehended and, trying to think quickly on his feet, lied about his age and was trying to play it off as if he was a juvenile.

At this point, it remains unclear how the Tesla vehicles were stolen but we have to imagine Tesla is investigating the matter.

Generally speaking, Tesla vehicles are rarely stolen relative to other automotive brands. According to a report from the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) from August of 2019, Tesla vehicles are 90% less likely to be stolen than other cars. And while this could certainly have something to do with some of Teslas built-in safety mechanisms, there are other factors at play as well.

The report reads in part:

Two of the vehicles on the least-stolen list are the Tesla Model S and Model X. Their low theft rate may be related to the fact that, as electric vehicles, they are usually parked in garages or close to a house to be near a power supply.

Incidentally, electric vehicles in general tend to be stolen less frequently than other vehicles.

As a final point, you might recall a video from 2018 which showed thieves stealing a Model S with a key fob hack. Its worth noting, though, that Tesla has a few layers of security such as requiring a four-digit pin that the Model S owner in question didnt employ at the time of the theft.

Image Source: David Zalubowski/AP/Shutterstock

A life long Mac user and Apple enthusiast, Yoni Heisler has been writing about Apple and the tech industry at large for over 6 years. His writing has appeared in Edible Apple, Network World, MacLife, Macworld UK, and most recently, TUAW. When not writing about and analyzing the latest happenings with Apple, Yoni enjoys catching Improv shows in Chicago, playing soccer, and cultivating new TV show addictions, the most recent examples being The Walking Dead and Broad City.

Read this article:

Teslas are hard to steal, but three were stolen from a dealership on Friday - BGR

Readers React: Are the reopen protests about free speech or presidential politics? – The San Diego Union-Tribune

Posted on by

Re New Mexico takes more drastic measures against virus hotspot (May 2): On the same day people protested in San Diego, the governor of New Mexico had to declare an emergency, blocking roads into the city of Gallup as the virus surged overwhelmingly its hospitals. Gallup now has 14 times the number of COVID-19 cases than New Mexicos largest cities.

I pray the actions of San Diego protesters did not endanger themselves and others by unknowingly spreading the virus to participants and those they come in contact with.

We need less protest and more common sense. Lets not make Americas finest city the next Gallup.

Robert Tormey

Escondido

President Donald Trump has stated that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, he gave the highest award a citizen can get to a radio broadcaster who incites hatred. We do have freedom of speech, but when is someone who encourages hate deserving of receiving a presidential medal at a State of the Union Address?

As a moderate, I respect the conservative perspective, but shouldnt we be encouraging cooperation between liberals and conservatives to reach a balance?

If Trump wants to receive a Nobel Peace Prize, maybe he should not encourage his supporters to demonstrate during this pandemic. He claims to be a wartime president, yet he hasnt procured sufficient ammunition. Shouldnt our pro-life president prioritize life with tests, swabs and personal protective equipment for all? That may help him get his prize.

Jo Powers

North Clairemont

Opinion resources

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters.

News reports on the protests against stay-at-home orders have mentioned that there are sizable numbers of Trump supporters in the groups. They need to redirect their protests toward the White House.

Epidemiologists have consistently said that a large increase in testing, along with contact tracing, is essential to lifting our isolation. Trump has refused to use the Defense Production Act to increase testing supplies and shown no understanding that doing so would aid in getting businesses open again.

These protests are doubly counter-productive. They increase the possibility of creating more cases while doing nothing to get the government to assist in meeting its own guidelines for opening up.

Susan Schock

Mira Mesa

Re San Diego should reopen to the young and healthy, and focus more on those at risk for coronavirus (April 24): Chris Brewsters analysis of how to re-open things and simultaneously help solve the pandemic problem is an important idea. Many people dont know Brewsters background and accomplishments, but the important thing isnt who wrote that opinion. Whats important is what was said, the analysis, and the ideas.

The numbers and facts appear to be correct, and they lead to his conclusions and suggestions. They are a little radical compared to what our leaders are discussing, but it appears that they would do a better job at both achieving herd immunity and getting the economy going again. I hope many of our leaders read this analysis, dig into the ideas, and consider them carefully.

Laury Flora

Valley Center

Chris Brewsters opinion piece belonged under letters to the editor, not next to Fleischers.

Paul Jester

Miramar

Some who protest the measures put in place to combat COVID-19 see these measures as violations of their Constitutional rights and an instance of Big Government intruding in their lives. Some show up at rallies inexplicably armed to the teeth. Some even harass medical workers battling the virus.

I can only assume, then, that none of these folks will cash their $1200 bail-out checks from the government and will also assert their rights as individuals to care for themselves if they or their families contract COVID-19.

Rick KeenanSan Carlos

If the current approach to disease management - to sharply curtail economic activity - continues, it will cost roughly $500 billion per month in lost income nationwide (that is, about 30 percent of monthly GDP). That is catastrophic, of course, not only to those who are hit hardest (net of stimulus checks and rent holidays), but to future generations who are being saddled with unprecedented debt.

The bottom line is: we just cannot afford to keep doing what we are doing. The hard truth is that we are just going to have to learn how to live with this. We must not rush into a complete reopening (because, lets be clear, that is the same as doing nothing at all), but we must have a clear, and clearly communicated, plan, a path forward, that all can see and buy into and understand. There are trade offs here, just as there are when we decide to drive a car, fly in a plane, eat unhealthy foods, smoke, ride a bike, and in general live our lives. Lets get on with it.

Don Billings

Rancho Santa Fe

Huge headlines about protests and yet the article states 90 percent of the people support the stay-at-home measures. Why do you give credence and publicity to these few.

Yes, an article about them but 2-inch headlines? The media helped get Trump elected for doing this very thing, focusing on the drama instead of the real issues. You are better than this.

Joan Camana

La Mesa

As I look at the picture of the protesters, completely understanding where theyre coming from, I cant help thinking about the risks theyre putting on their children and grandparents (Not many masks in that crowd!).

It profusely reminds us of the genuine heroes who unselfishly risk their lives daily:

The nurses and doctors working in impossible conditions. Twelve hour shifts, the daily disinfecting nightmare, over-nighting in garages, hotel rooms, and cars so as not to infect their families (No hugs allowed!).

The grocery workers, the bus drivers, the police officers, the farm workers, all valiantly performing their obligations while trying to protect their families.

We owe them more than our thanks.

Steve Blumenschein

Clairemont

During this pandemic, I feel privileged to have a stable retirement income and a nice house. In my career as a social worker, I was exposed to people with much less privilege, many of whom probably did not get their nails and eyebrows done or go to a gym, rarely ate out except for fast food, and probably rarely got to go to the beach.

Instead of protesting for the right to go to the beach, wouldnt it be better to be protesting about the inadequate federal response to this crisis for the working people who have not received promised income relief and loans to keep their small businesses going?

Wouldnt it be nice to look back on our own behavior and be grateful that we behaved with grace and patience, that we showed compassion for the least fortunate, and that we were willing to sacrifice for the greater good?

Tom Packard

Encinitas

See the original post here:

Readers React: Are the reopen protests about free speech or presidential politics? - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Scotland’s SNP proposes new law that would deal a massive blow to free speech – Reclaim The Net

Posted on by

Scotlands government, led by the pro-EU SNP party, has joined the ranks of many others around the world who are actively working on constraining free speech by amending existing laws and coming up with new solutions.

UKs Spiked magazine says that currently a law regulating what is known as hate crimes is modeled after that in England, covering threats, abuse, and insults.

But based on whats described as a hard-line report from 2018, Scotlands upgraded Hate Crime and Public Order Bill proposed by parliament now looks to change that and introduce three new offenses, the report says.

The first will enable for prosecution of doing anything, or communicating any material, which is threatening or abusive and is intended or likely to engender hatred based on age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender or intersex identity.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

In addition, having material of this kind in ones possession meant to be in any way communicated to others will in itself now be a crime, and finally, managers in organizations of any type not acting to prevent the new set of criminalized behaviors will be criminalized themselves.

The proposals critics say it is anti-liberal and must not be allowed to pass, pointing out that the bill takes the focus away from punishing acts of hostility based on their gravity regardless of who they target, and instead introduces a tiered approach, depending on groups that are designated as particularly vulnerable and therefore more worthy of the victimhood status.

The proposed law is seen as too broad and blunt, particularly compared to a similar one in force in England now, as it would seek to legally punish not only behavior that is stirring up actual threats, but also what is merely abusive.

Regardless, pressure groups will continue to inundate Scotlands police with reports complaining about speech as hate speech, but this type of law might sadly prove to he helpful to both, as it is likely to have self-censorship as one of its chilling effects.

Campaigning organizations supporting unpopular causes for example, attacking transgender orthodoxy may well feel they have to tone down what they say. It is depressingly easy to imagine editors and campaigners engaging in a good deal of self-censorship to avoid trouble with the police, Andrew Tettenborn writes.

Read the original post:

Scotland's SNP proposes new law that would deal a massive blow to free speech - Reclaim The Net

The SNPs war on free speech – Spiked

Posted on by

The Scottish government wants to modernise and consolidate the law on what people are permitted to say to each other. The Scottish administrations Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, introduced in Holyrood last week, aims to extend considerably the category of banned speech. This should ring loud alarm bells.

At present, Scots hate-crime law largely parallels the English law (actually it is slightly narrower). It criminalises the stirring up of racial hatred by any behaviour that is threatening, abusive or insulting, and it requires heavier sentencing for a number of crimes if they are aggravated by hostility towards the victims race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender status. Unlike English law, however, Scots law does not yet penalise the stirring up of anti-religious or anti-gay hatred.

In 2017, the SNP government decided this had to change. It appointed Lord Bracadale, a far from libertarian Scottish appeal judge, to review the matter. His spectacularly hardline report was published a year later. Based on this report, Holyrood now proposes leaving racial-hatred law largely alone while introducing, in effect, three new offences.

First: a general crime of doing anything, or communicating any material, which is threatening or abusive and is intended or likely to engender hatred based on age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender or intersex identity. Second: a crime of merely possessing any such material, if you hold it with a view to communicating it that is, in any way to anyone either in public or in private (such as showing a computer file to a friend over a dram). Third: criminal sanctions on anyone involved in the management of any organisation who fails to take steps to prevent any of the above. The penalty in all the above cases is up to seven years inside. And in addition to all this, the government proposes stiffer sentencing for hate crimes based on age.

There is so much wrong with these proposals. For one thing, the whole idea that hostility should aggravate an offence in relation to certain characteristics but not others needs reining in, not extending. To say that assaulting someone because he is old (and within the charmed circle of victim categories) deserves a heavier sentence than assaulting a teenager because he is the teachers pet (and therefore outside it) is discriminatory, grotesque and insulting. It is the hostility that matters, not whether the target falls within a group which has managed to persuade a government that it deserves victimhood status.

For another, the proposed new stand-alone offences not only carry an enormous potential sentence, but are intentionally vastly broader than those in force south of the border. In England, the stirring up offence is limited to religion and sexual orientation (and the latter was only introduced in 2008). Further, this offence is carefully and deliberately circumscribed, applying only to the deliberate fomentation of hatred, and requiring threatening words or behaviour.

The Scottish government has no patience with such softness. Its proposals would outlaw behaviour that is not threatening but merely abusive. According to the very revealing notes attached to the bill, this apparently strikes the right balance between criminalisation and freedom of speech.

The notes also say that requiring intent to stir up hatred is unacceptable because this would make it prohibitively restrictive in practice for prosecutors who might find it difficult to prove intent. Or, to put it another way, the English solicitude for the rights of the defendant makes it too hard for police and prosecutors to tell people with awkward views to put up or shut up.

Holyrood also admits that, with the exception of hostility to religion, there is actually no evidence of either any serious problem or pressing need to extend the criminal law to cover characteristics like sexual orientation, age, disability, transgender or intersex identity. But no matter. The introduction of a suite of stirring-up offences covering all of them, it is said, will introduce a measure of justified parity. This will allow the law to serve an important symbolic and educative function, sending a clear message that this type of behaviour attracts particular condemnation by society and will not be tolerated. In other words, it is now apparently the function of Scots criminal law to punish behaviour simply to make a virtue-signalling point, and to provide as many identitarian pressure-groups as possible with an equal chance to suppress speech and behaviour they do not like.

The law does include a defence of reasonableness, but what reasonable may mean to some impatient and humourless sheriff-depute on a wet Friday in Falkirk is anyones guess. There are also some token protections for the freedom to express religious views or argue intellectually about the morality of sexual practices. Nevertheless, these new laws are likely to have a considerable chilling effect.

There is no doubt that pressure groups, whether gay activist, born-again Christian or rampant anti-TERF, will keep up a steady stream of complaints to Police Scotland about behaviour which they would like suppressed in the media, on social media or elsewhere. There is equally little doubt that police officers will try to keep these groups off their backs by advising all and sundry that it is safer to avoid controversy. If all else fails, police will pressure the Procurator Fiscal to prosecute any refuseniks in order to keep them quiet in future.

For that matter, such prosecutions may often be unnecessary: laws like this breed self-censorship. Campaigning organisations supporting unpopular causes for example, attacking transgender orthodoxy may well feel they have to tone down what they say. It is depressingly easy to imagine editors and campaigners engaging in a good deal of self-censorship to avoid trouble with the police.

Indeed, this may not even be limited to editors in Scotland. Put yourself in the position of someone running a paper, magazine or blog which is published in England but read both sides of the border. If you are told that something which would never be prosecuted in England might lead the police to visit your Edinburgh distributors or even possibly land your company in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court, you are likely to modify your conduct accordingly.

Put bluntly, these are terrible proposals. The Scottish government has no interest whatsoever in freedom of speech. Instead it wants to project a comforting, woke image to professionals and other supporters in Pollokshields and Bruntsfield.

These laws must be opposed. Not only are they appallingly illiberal in themselves, but if passed they will not be the last word. Indeed, the bill itself envisages going further still: it contains a sinister power for the Scottish government to extend its effect in future so as to criminalise misogynistic speech, too. This would open yet another can of worms.

Nor is this only an issue for Scotland. The Law Commission in England is currently consulting on a possible expansion in English hate-crime law. If the Scottish proposals get the go-ahead, the omens in England are not good. You have been warned.

Andrew Tettenborn is a professor of commercial law and a former Cambridge admissions officer.

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Follow this link:

The SNPs war on free speech - Spiked

Handful of armed protesters gather in Raleigh to promote free speech and gun rights – Greensboro News & Record

Posted on by

On Friday, about a dozen demonstrators marched around the old Capitol in Raleigh. As many as six had visible firearms, the Associated Press reported, including one with a pistol and several with long guns. The group marched peacefully and left in the afternoon about two hours after marching.

The small group of protesters, most of them carrying guns, gathered first at a cemetery near downtown, the News & Observer of Raleigh reported.

One of the men in the group told the News & Observer he thought Gov. Roy Cooper's stay-home order was unconstitutional, although it was not completely clear what the people were protesting. A Facebook post calling for a rally said it was to promote free speech and gun rights, the Associated Press reported.

A group of mostly armed demonstrators march around downtown Raleigh on Friday.

People with weapons march across a street in Raleigh on Friday. About a dozen demonstrators marched Friday afternoon around the area of the Old Capitol, Legislative Building and Executive Mansion. Several had visible firearms. It was not immediately clear what specific issues they were protesting, as none carried signs. A Facebook post calling for a rally on Friday morning had said it was to promote Constitutional free speech and gun rights. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

People hold weapons stand on a street corner in Raleigh on Friday. About a dozen demonstrators marched Friday afternoon around the area of the Old Capitol, Legislative Building and Executive Mansion. Several had visible firearms. It was not immediately clear what specific issues they were protesting, as none carried signs. A Facebook post calling for a rally on Friday morning had said it was to promote constitutional free speech and gun rights. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

Read more here:

Handful of armed protesters gather in Raleigh to promote free speech and gun rights - Greensboro News & Record

The Dangers of COVID-19 Surveillance Proposals to the Future of Protest – EFF

Posted on by

Many of the new surveillance powers now sought by the government to address the COVID-19 crisis would harm our First Amendment rights for years to come. People will be chilled and deterred from speaking out, protesting in public places, and associating with like-minded advocates if they fear scrutiny from cameras, drones, face recognition, thermal imaging, and location trackers. It is all too easy for governments to redeploy the infrastructure of surveillance from pandemic containment to political spying. It won't be easy to get the government to suspend its newly acquired tech and surveillance powers.

When this wave of the public health emergency is over and it becomes safe for most people to leave their homes, they may find a world with even more political debate than when they left it. A likely global recession, a new election season, and re-energized social movements will provide an overwhelming incentive for record numbers of people to speak out, to demonstrate in public places, and to demand concessions of their governments. The pent-up urge to take to the streets may bring mass protests like we have not seen in years. And what impact would new surveillance tools, adopted in the name of public health, have on this new era of marches, demonstrations, and strikes?

The collection and sharing of phone location data that was sold and deployed in order to trace the spread of the virus could be used by a reigning administration to crack down on dissent. The government and vendors have yet to make a convincing argument for how this measure would contribute to the public health effort. Indeed, they cannot, because GPS data and cell site location information are not sufficiently granular to show whether two people were close enough together to transmit the virus (six feet). But this data is sufficiently precise to show whether a person attended a protest in a park, picketed in front of a factory, or traveled at night to the block where a dissident lives.

Many other technologies that should never be deployed to prevent the spread of the virus would also harm free speech. Vendors are seeking to sell face recognition cameras to the government to alert authorities if someone in mandatory quarantine went grocery shopping. They could just as easily be used to identify picketers opposing government initiatives or journalists meeting with confidential sources. For example, the infamous face surveillance company, Clearview AI, is in talks with the government to create a system that would use face recognition in public places to identify unknown people who may have been infected by a known carrier. This proposal would create a massive surveillance infrastructure, linked to billions of social media images, that could allow the government to readily identify people in public spaces, including protesters, by scanning footage of them against images found online. Likewise, thermal imagining cameras in public places will not be an effective means of finding people with a fever, given the high error rate when calculating a persons temperature at a distance. But police might be able to use such cameras to find protesters that have fled on foot from police engaged in excessive force against peaceful gatherings.

The U.S. government is not known for its inclination to give back surveillance powers seized during extraordinary moments. Once used in acute circumstances, a tool stays in the toolbox until it is taken away. The government did not relinquish the power to tear gas protesters after the National Guard was called in to break up the Bonus Marchers assembled in the capitol during the Great Depression. Only after decades of clandestine use did the American people learn about the ways the FBI misused the threat of Communism to justify the wholesale harassment, surveillance, and sabotage of civil rights leaders and anti-war protesters. The revelation of these activities resulted in Sen. Frank Churchs investigations into U.S. surveillance in the mid-1970s, the type of forceful oversight of intelligence agencies we need more of today. And the massive surveillance apparatus created by the PATRIOT Act after 9/11 remains mostly intact and operational even after revelations of its overreach, law-breaking, and large-scale data collection on U.S. persons.

Even more proportionate technologies could be converted to less benign purposes than COVID-19 containment. Bluetooth-based proximity tracking apps are being used to trace the distance between two peoples' phones in an attempt to follow potential transmission of the virus. Done with privacy as a priority, these apps may be able to conceal the identities of people who come into contact with each other. Done wrong, these apps could be used to crack down on political expression. If police know that Alice was at a protest planning meeting, and police learn from the proximity app that Alice was near Bob that day, then police could infer that Bob was also at the meeting. Some versions of these apps also collect identifiers or geolocations, which could further be used to identify and track participants in protest planning meetings.

Done without collecting identifying information and minimizing storage, measures like aggregate geolocation tracking might assist public health response and be difficult to weaponize against protestors. But done with deliberate intention to survey demonstrations, aggregate location data might be disaggregated, merged with other data, and used to identify individual people. For example, police could single out individual protestors in a public plaza, track them to their respective homes and workplaces once the demonstration is over, and thereby identify them.

Free speech and political participation are chilled when governments put protests, protestors, activists, and organizers under surveillance. Studies have found that when people are aware of surveillance, theyre less likely to engage in political speech or debate the important issues of the day. The First Amendment also protects the right of association for purposes of collective expression. This right is threatened if people are worried that they will be put under surveillance for joining or meeting with specific people or groups. Suddenly a persons movements, correspondence, or personal relationships are scrutinized by strangers within the government. At a moment when our society is desperate to find innovative solutions to daunting political problems, we should loudly condemn any surveillance efforts which might chill our ability to freely discuss and associate about pressing issues.

EFF has clear guidelines for how we evaluate a piece of surveillance technology proposed as a tool of public health: Would it work? Is it too invasive? Are their sufficient safeguards? One of the biggest concerns is that new powers introduced at this current moment will long outstay their necessity, experience mission creep, and by overtly redeployed for other purposes. Now, more than ever, we must stay vigilant about any new surveillance powers, technologies, and public-private relationships.

Visit link:

The Dangers of COVID-19 Surveillance Proposals to the Future of Protest - EFF

California City Official Ousted After Saying COVID-19 Could ‘Fix’ Burdens on Society If Allowed to Spread – TIME

Posted on by

A California city planning commissioner has been removed from his office after posting on social media that COVID-19 should be permitted to spread and possibly infect people who are elderly, mentally ill, homeless or others he said are drains on our resources.

The city council for Antioch, Calif., unanimously voted on Friday during a special council meeting to remove city Planning Commission Chair Kenneth Turnage II in response to a pointed Facebook post the commissioner wrote on April 23. The council members sharply criticized Turnages statements and cited a public outcry for the need to address them. Council Member Lori Ogorchock said that she found Turnages comments to be very insensitive and callous, especially towards the elderly and that she had heard concerns about them from older residents.

In Turnages statement, which was re-posted by East County Today, he called for an end to stay at home orders, which are intended to curb the spread of the coronavirus, and to let nature run its course. Turnage compared the virus to a forest fire, which will destroy part of the forest that drain the resources of the forest and [cause] it to be unhealthy. Turnage said that while many elderly people would be lost to the virus, that would reduce burdens in our defunct Social Security System, health care cost (once the wave subsided), make jobs available for others and it would also free up housing in which we are in dire need of.

This would run rampant through [the homeless] and yes I am sorry but this would fix what is a significant burden on our society and resources that can be used, Turnage concluded, In my opinion we need to adapt a herd mentality. A herd gathers it ranks, it allows the sick, the old, the injured to meet its natural course in nature.

Turnage defended his comments during the special council meeting as free speech intended to spark a debate. He argued that there is a scientific basis for the principal of ecological balance and accused council members of engaging in race-bating, and of violating his First Amendment rights.

My personal opinion had nothing to do with the city, or my position on the planning commission. So to try to somehow link them or create a nexus to further your political agendas is shameful, Turnage said. He said that he was sorry that he could have chosen different analogies.

City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, who had recommended that the city remove Turnage, said that the question at hand was not Turnages First Amendment rights, but the reaction and the impact that this speech has had on the residents of Antioch and the confidence and the trust in the government. Smith noted that because Turnage is an appointed official, not an elected one, it is the responsibility of the city council to hold him accountable.

During the public comment period of the meeting, multiple members of the public expressed concern that Turnage had sullied Antiochs reputation and had expressed a lack of empathy for the elderly, homeless and mentally ill. One member of the public described Turnages worldview as sociopathic and Nazi-like, especially because his position is responsible for helping to provide seniors with housing.

Others have expressed concern that Turnage is being silenced. Mike Burkholder, publisher of East County Today, defended Turnage in an opinion piece, while acknowledged Turnage is a friend of his.

Turnage did not immediately respond to a request from TIME for comment.

Thank you! For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder.

Write to Tara Law at tara.law@time.com.

Go here to read the rest:

California City Official Ousted After Saying COVID-19 Could 'Fix' Burdens on Society If Allowed to Spread - TIME

Scientist Warns of Catastrophe Worse Than the Dinosaur Extinction – Free Speech TV

Posted on by

Dr. Andrew Glikson joins the Thom Hartmann program with a warning about the future of humanity and the earth. Glikson, an Earth and paleo-climate scientist, studied geology at the University of Jerusalem and graduated at the University of Western Australia in 1968

Can humanity atop capitalism from destroying the environment before it is too late? Are we already looking at the extinction of the human race?

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Glikson Capitalism Catastrophe Climate Change Dinosaur Environment Extinction Global Warming Insects The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann

See the original post here:

Scientist Warns of Catastrophe Worse Than the Dinosaur Extinction - Free Speech TV

Other Papers Say: Fines needed in big-money races – The Columbian

Posted on by

The following editorial originally appeared in The Seattle Times:

Washingtons Supreme Court strongly reinforced the longstanding principle of political financial transparency this month. However, supporters of public disclosure law must remain on alert. The same 5-4 decision that endorses the publics right to information also shows an opening for a challenge to the accountability mechanism that makes the system function.

With the fresh ruling that political transparency requirements dont violate the Constitutional right of free speech, Attorney General Bob Ferguson must carefully preserve the states full power to punish offenders. Political cycles run faster than the courts can fairly operate, so keeping future campaigns honest requires a penalty for breaking rules that outweighs the benefits of winning an election.

In 2013, the Grocery Manufacturers Association blatantly attempted to conceal the donors PepsiCo, Nestle and Coca-Cola, among others that spent millions on a campaign against Initiative 522. That proposal would have given Washington the nations first requirement to label all foods made with genetically-modified ingredients. It lost, 51.1 percent to 48.9 percent.

It leads one to wonder: if full disclosure had been made, would that have made the difference? said David Ammons, a longtime Associated Press reporter who now chairs the state Public Disclosure Commission. They wanted it to fail, and it did fail by a whisper. Thats the power of money.

Without registering as a political committee until the state filed a lawsuit, the trade group funneled $11 million into the No on 522 effort. A judge found the scheme so egregious, she imposed a $6 million fine, then tripled it for intentionally breaking state law. The $18 million penalty is the largest for a campaign-finance violation in American history and shows future campaigns that Washington rigorously enforces its gold-standard disclosure laws.

Read the rest here:

Other Papers Say: Fines needed in big-money races - The Columbian

Jerry Moore: Army shouldn’t play show-and-tell concerning religion – NNY360

Posted on by

WATERTOWN In reading their essays, it doesnt take long to figure out where some writers stand on the removal last month of several videos posted on a social media platform representing Fort Drum soldiers.

U.S. Army Maj. Scott Ingram and Capt. Amy Smith, two chaplains who serve on the post, put two videos each onto the official Facebook page of the 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade. Eight soldiers expressed their objections to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which contacted Fort Drum leadership and requested the videos be removed. The MRFF said the videos violated the U.S. Constitutions Establishment Clause.

Mikey Weinstein, MMRFs founder and president, called them illicit proselytizing videos that should not have been posted to the official command Facebook page of the 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade. Fort Drum leaders deemed the videos inappropriate and ordered them to be removed.

Chris Rodda, MMRFs senior research director, made an interesting point in an article published April 20 by DailyKos.com. She wrote: The Fort Drum Chapel Facebook page has only 348 followers. The Facebook page of Fort Drums 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade has 7,828 followers. If you were a chaplain bent on proselytizing, which page would you want your videos on? Youd want those 7,828 soldiers and family members to get your message to walk with God while asking God, where are you, where are you in the midst of this COVID-19? Since the start of the COVID-19 crisis, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has been seeing an uptick in a particular type of complaint overt proselytizing videos on official military Facebook pages.

Chaplains in the armed forces have a job to do, and the novel coronavirus pandemic has everyone worried. So its understandable that ministers will use whatever assets they have available to reach out to military personnel.

But the MMRF raised a valid point about where these videos appeared. To the extent that its proper for the government to dedicate resources for spiritual purposes, its vital that this not be construed as an endorsement of any religious beliefs. So the Fort Drum Chapel Facebook page would have been a better spot for these videos rather than the site for the 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade.

However, not everyone agrees with this assessment.

The U.S. Armys 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade has acquiesced to demands from a secular advocacy group to remove prayer videos by its chaplains from the brigades main Facebook page, wrote Calvin Freiburger on Monday in a post for LifeSiteNews.com. Claiming to have received complaints about the videos from eight active-duty soldiers in the Division, the so-called Military Religious Freedom Foundation sent a complaint demanding that the illicit proselytizing videos be removed from the main page (which has more than 7,800 followers) and relegated to the Fort Hill Chapel Facebook page (which has fewer than 400). The MRFF is most well-known for pressuring the U.S. military to quash benign, non-coercive expressions of faith. It has taken credit for getting Bibles removed from Missing Man Tables across the country, demanded punishment for chaplains who wore their uniforms to an event hosted by a religious liberty group and agitated for heavy restrictions on proselytizing by military chaplains.

Catholic League President Bill Donohue commented: Weinstein complained to officers of the U.S. Armys 10th Mountain Division, and they yielded. Yet they had no need to they were deceived by the false arguments made by Weinstein. There is nothing illicit about the mere invocation of God by military chaplains. Had an atheist religion-hating member of the armed forces posted a video on Facebook celebrating Lucifer, Weinstein would have defended it as freedom of speech. Military chaplains do not lose their twin First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech by posting religious commentary on a private media outlet. Moreover, the separation of church and state provision of the First Amendment only applies to what government cannot do. Every president, acting as commander in chief, has invoked God, beginning with George Washington. To say that military chaplains have no right to identify themselves as officers when they engage in religious commentary is to say they have no public right to exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Only fascists think this way.

In an April 24 blog post on Patheos.com, Bethany Blankley wrote: Facebook has been censoring for a while, no longer allowing free speech, and targeting Christians specifically. This time, they took down U.S. Army chaplains messages of encouragement to viewers. Four recent videos involving chaplains posting messages were taken down after a complaint was filed stating that the messages ironically violated the First Amendment, the very amendment that protects such speech.

Writing April 25 for the Washington Sentinel, Warner Todd Huston proclaimed: Facebook has removed several prayers posted by several chaplains in the U.S. Army after a Christian-hating group complained that they represented illicit proselytizing of Christianity. Facebook removed four videos recorded by chaplains Capt. Amy Smith and Maj. Scott Ingram which had been posted to the Facebook page of the Armys 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade at Fort Drum, New York. Facebook moved to delete the offensive prayers after the anti-Christian group Military Religious Freedom Foundation demanded that the social media giant remove them. The group falsely claimed that the videos were a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution gives us all freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

To correct claims by both Blankley and Huston, Facebook did not remove these videos. They were taken down by members of the Fort Drum command team.

Donohue was mistaken by claiming that the videos appeared on a private media outlet. This is the official Facebook page for the 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade, which is a public entity and represents all its members many of whom are not religious.

Donohue wrote that the separation of church and state provision of the First Amendment only applies to what government cannot do. Yes! And it prohibits the government from endorsing any religious beliefs.

For Huston to write, The Constitution gives us all freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, is to misunderstand its meaning. There is no such thing as freedom of religious if we cant choose freedom from religion.

Governments that favor some religious expressions over others will ultimately discriminate against those who do not share these views. So to enforce the separation of church and state, its essential for the government to take an agnostic stance on the matter.

Thats what the U.S. Constitution does. We know this is true because some of the most vocal opponents to our nations charter when it was first proposed were Christians. They denounced it as a godless document that left spiritual questions to be decided by private citizens for themselves.

The MMRF was justified in objecting to the placement of these videos on the 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigades Facebook page. This doesnt address all the problems that result from the governments improper flirtation with religion, but its a step in the right direction.

Jerry Moore is the editorial page editor for the Watertown Daily Times. Readers may call him at 315-661-2369 or send emails to jmoore@wdt.net.

Visit link:

Jerry Moore: Army shouldn't play show-and-tell concerning religion - NNY360

Where Did We Find All That Stimulus Money? – Free Speech TV

Posted on by

Stephanie Kelton joins David Pakman to discuss the recent multi-trillion dollar coronavirus stimulus passed by the federal government. Kelton is an American economist and one of the world's leading experts in Modern Monetary Theory. She is a professor at Stony Brook University. She also served as an advisor to Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign.

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

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

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

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

Bernie Sanders Coronavirus COVID-19 David Pakman Stephanie Kelton Stimulus Stony Brook University The David Pakman Show

See the rest here:

Where Did We Find All That Stimulus Money? - Free Speech TV

What if We Loved Them Both? – The Dispatch

Posted on by

Once again, our nation is faced with the painful process of sorting through grave sexual assault allegations against a powerful man. Once again, the public assessment of the veracity of those claims is lining up all-too-neatly with the partisan needs of the moment. Those who object to the rush to judgment against the accused will often ask if how wed respond if, say, Joe Biden or Brett Kavanaugh was someone you loved. What if he was your father or grandfather. Would you feel like theyd been treated fairly?

The counter is quick. What if Tara Reade or Christine Blasey Ford was someone you loved? Can you imagine how youd feel as they mustered up the courage to tell a dreadful story and then you watched them endure the inevitable slings and arrows of scorn, hatred, and mockery?

But theres a different, better construct. What would the world look like if an imperfect population that possessed imperfect knowledge loved them both?

As some readers may know, last year I was cast into the middle of a comprehensive political argument about the future of conservatism. At issue was nothing less than the tactics, morality, and philosophy of the conservative movement. At issue was classical liberalism itself. On the one side were those who argued that the American system of governmentconceived as it was (however imperfectly) in libertywas destructive tothe common good. The injustices and immorality that exist all around us (drag queen story hours were used as Exhibit A of the failure of the American system) were evidence of the degrading effects of a political philosophy that emphasized freedom and individuality.

I must confess that I was not prepared to be thrust into the middle of a debate about the future of the American form of government. My training isnt in philosophy but in law. Others were better equipped to defend liberalism as conceived. My entire lifes work was liberalism as applied. In other words, as a civil liberties litigator, my work centered around putting the legal flesh on the philosophical bones of the great pronunciations of American revolutionary and constitutional history.

Moreover, given that professional history, I perhaps erred in focusing relentlessly practical arguments (whats your alternative to current First Amendment jurisprudence?) as opposed to more fully explaining the fundamental justice of the American system and how so very many of our great failings have occurred when weve departed from our constitutional ideals, not when weve complied with them.

Even more importantly, its worth explaining how the social compact outlined in the Bill of Rightsand amplified in the Civil War amendmentsis the closest thing the mind of man has devised to creating a biblically sound system of government in the modern history of the human race.

In my defense of the American founding, a number of Christian thinkers took issue with the importance I placed on liberty as a primary value. I have repeatedly and enthusiastically quoted these words from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

While these Christian thinkers appreciate the Declarations high view of humanity, they quite rightly dont look at Jeffersons work as equivalent to the word of God. Instead, they urged me to focus on the biblical mandate given to rulers time and time again in scripture. Protect liberty isnt the mandate. Instead, its to do justice.

For example, consider Micah 6:8, a scripture I quoted in my Sunday newsletter last week: He has told you, O man, what is good; andwhat does theLordrequire of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and towalk humbly with your God?

From Genesis 9 to Romans 13 and in many places in between, the emphasis on justice shines through. In a piece last September, Baptist scholar Jonathan Leeman provided multiple examples of exhortations to Israels kings that highlight the kings duty to do justice:

So David reigned over all Israel. And David administered justice and equity [righteousness] to all his people (2 Sam 8:15).

Israel stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him to do justice (1 Kings 3:28).

Because the Lord loved Israel forever, he has made you king, that you may execute justice and righteousness (1 Kings 10:9).

Byjusticea king builds up the land (Prov. 29:4).

This is an entirely fair pointbut its worth noting that protecting liberty is not only just on its own terms, protecting liberty also facilitates and protects the continued quest for the more perfect union.

Lets put it this waythe Declaration of Independence was American classical liberalism conceived. The Constitution is American classical liberalism operationalized. The Bill of Rights and the Civil War amendments represent the indispensable foundation of American justice.

(By the way, Im going to get back to Joe Biden and Brett Kavanaugh. I promise.)

Lets start with the concept of equalitynot that all men and women are entitled to equal station in life (there is only one greatest basketball player of all time, and his name is LeBron), but rather that all men and women are of equal worth. All men are created equal says Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The 14th Amendment then operationalizes that principle by declaring that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To say that all men and women enjoy equal protection does not tell us what is the best health care policy or tax structure for advancing the common good. It does, however, establish a principle of justicethat policy should be oriented towards the reality of equal human worthas well as an obligation of law, that states cannot invidiously discriminate against their own citizens.

Jefferson enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as mankinds unalienable rights. The Bill of Rights operationalizes that declaration by protecting rights of free speech and religious liberty from state encroachment, and protecting life and liberty from arbitrary state punishment or from state cruelty and malice.

Again, preserving equal access to those rights isnt merely just by its own terms, it facilitates the pursuit of justice and the common good. Lets take free speech, for example. There are those who decry the First Amendment when it protects speech they dont like or find hateful or blasphemous, but the marketplace of ideas is also where we expose hate and unreason to critique and defeat.

There is a reason why the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass called free speech the great moral renovator of society and government. He continued to say free speech, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants ... Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence.

Due process is just, and its indispensable to the pursuit of justice. It is the answer to the question at the start of this newsletterin the most fraught of claims and the most vicious of crimesWhat if we loved them both? What if both accused and accuser were of equal worth? When we consider the right to bring a claim, the requirements of evidence, and even the time limits imposed on cases (given the difficulty of both defending against and proving very old allegations), we not only humbly acknowledge our inability to peer into a persons soul to discern truth, we also acknowledge that even the mightiest man can and should be brought low when the evidence dictates.

But protecting due process (like protecting free speech) is hard. Just as permitting bad speech is a necessity for maintaining the larger, just legal structure of free speechindividual injustices can also protect the larger, necessary structure of due process. This is what happens when a murderer walks free after his own constitutional rights were violated, or when even meritorious claims are barred by statutes of limitation.

Resting behind each one of the key assertions of liberty in the Bill of Rights is the implicit declaration, I am not God. I cant look into a mans soul and discern guilt or innocence. I cannot look at the complexities of law and policy and unerringly discern the common good. Complying with the Constitution is how fallen people both preserve and seek justice when truth is difficult to discern.

Now, lets bring this back to Joe Biden and Brett Kavanaughto Tara Reade and Christine Blasey Ford. I know that neither controversy was or will be resolved in a court of law, where due process is formalized and mandatory. But I also know that the obligation to seek justice is personal and cultural as well as political and legal. The core elements of justice in our American systemwhich rest in eternal truths of human worth and human fallibilityare also applicable to our moral obligations as citizens when we judge these public disputes.

Each person involved in the controversy is of equal worth, a human being created in Gods image. That means the accusers have a right to bring their claim and be heard, respectfully and fully. That means the accused have their own rights to defend themselves, and a presumption of innocence is wise. Our own extreme fallibility and inability to peer into a human soul means that we should diligently seek external evidence that corroborates or rebuts any allegation or defense.

Moreover, the difficulty in proving or defending old allegations, means that we should ask adults to make complaints on a reasonably timely basis, even when filing complaints takes courage.

It is true that our culture has frequently failed women. It has failed in the obligation to treat them with respect or to fully hear or fairly consider their claims of terrible crimes. It is also true that our culture has also failed men, especially black men. There are simply too many terribly tragic tales of men dying at the hands of a mob in the face of an unsubstantiated claim of sexual misconduct. Even today, there are echoes of that awful injustice in the way in which black men are treated in campus courts.

But the answer to historical injustice isnt another, equal and opposite injustice. Thats the score-settling that leads to endless ideological and partisan conflict. Instead, the answer is to discern the correct standard, and hew to it as closely as we can. Conservatives should not seek revenge for Brett Kavanaugh. Progressives should not give in to the temptation of believing a Democrat through highly-subjective judgments of demeanor or temperament. Thats the Gods-eye view. And human beings are terrible at playing God.

Due process is just. It concretely recognizes the equal worth of every member of the American family. Due process is also how we seek justice. Its our best method of discerning the truth of contentious claims. The principles of the Bill of Rights represent the way in which a fallen people pursue a divine command.

One last thing ...

Im not sure why, but lately Ive been listening to music that I listened to years agoincluding songs by the late Rich Mullins, old songs by Michael Card, and this song. Its by Robin Mark, and I remember listening to it at the bedside of a dear friend as he lay dying from cancer. Its beautiful and meaningful, especially at a time when death and disease still stalk our land:

Photograph of Joe Biden by Getty Images. Photograph of Tara Reade by the Associated Press.

View original post here:

What if We Loved Them Both? - The Dispatch

For Justin Rohrwasser, the controversy about his tattoo started soon after being drafted by Patriots – msnNOW

Posted on by

Sholten Singer Justin Rohrwasser was hand-picked by Bill Belichick to follow in the footsteps of Stephen Gostkowski and Adam Vinatieri.

Justin Rohrwasser was driving across New York state last Sunday, from Buffalo to his home outside of Albany, when his emotions overwhelmed him.

He just broke down crying in the car, said John Barber, Rohrwassers high school football coach. My first reaction was, Where are you? Ill come get you. He said, No, Im fine, Im driving home.

They were supposed to be tears of joy for Rohrwasser, who last Saturday realized his dream of getting drafted into the NFL. After a college career that took him from the University of Rhode Island to Erie (N.Y.) Community College to Marshall University, Rohrwasser was the first kicker drafted into the NFL this year, taken in the fifth round by the Patriots. Coach Bill Belichick handpicked Rohrwasser to be the possible successor to Stephen Gostkowski and Adam Vinatieri.

Instead, Rohrwasser was crying tears of pain. And fear. And disappointment.

Not long after Rohrwasser was drafted, one of his tattoos caught the attention of social media.

On his left forearm is the Roman numeral III encircled by 13 stars a logo of a group called the Three Percenters.

The organization is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-government group." Anti-government groups, according to the center, advocate or adhere to extreme anti-government doctrines, but do not necessarily advocate for violence or racism.

Members of the Three Percenters have made news in recent years for harassing Muslims and Mexicans; for planning to detonate a car bomb in Oklahoma City; for occupying an Oregon wildlife refuge for five weeks in 2016; and for having a presence at the Charlottesville, Va., white supremacy rally in 2017.

The group says on its website that it is very pro-government, so long as the government abides by the Constitution." Its members view themselves as defenders of the Constitution, who fight for small government, free speech, and gun ownership rights, according to previous reporting on the subject.

The Three Percenters got national notice when some of their members traveled to Charlottesville in 2017 intending to help keep the peace and defend both the white supremacists and their counter-protesters right to free speech. After the bloody clash, the Three Percenters national council ordered a stand-down order, saying, We will not align ourselves with any type of racist group.

Rohrwasser got the tattoo when he was in college. A review of photographs on his social-media profiles suggests that he had it as early as December 2015, when he was a freshman at Rhode Island.

He said after being drafted last week that he didnt fully understand what the group represented to the public.

I have a lot of family in the military," he said. "I thought it stood for a military support symbol at the time. Obviously, its evolved into something that I do not want to represent.

"When I look back on it, I should have done way more research before I put any mark or symbol like that on my body, and its not something I ever want to represent. It will be covered.

Rohrwasser told WBZ the next day that he will completely remove the tattoo instead of covering it up.

Exactly when and why Rohrwasser got the tattoo could not be determined. The Patriots did not let Rohrwasser and his family be interviewed for this story. Belichick was not asked about the tattoo during his post-draft media availability and was not made available for this story.

Rohrwassers world came crashing down last Saturday. His Twitter and Instagram feeds were scoured, turning up tweets and likes of Rohrwasser supporting President Donald Trump, controversial right-wing figures such as author Ayn Rand, and anti-political correctness psychologist Jordan Peterson.

For him to be called a racist thug and a Nazi and Hitler, it just turns my stomach, because thats not who he is, said Barber. What shouldve been the best day of his life people that Im trying to be polite they dont understand the full story of who he is, just want to take something out of context and destroy a kid, which wasnt called for.

Kicking his ticket

Rohrwasser, 23, grew up in Clifton Park, N.Y., about 20 miles north of Albany. Listed now at 6 feet 3 inches and 230 pounds, he was a standout soccer and football player who attended Catholic Central in Troy, and played for a co-op team called Holy Trinity. He was the starting quarterback, kicker, and punter during his senior season, and led the Crusaders to a 5-3 record. In one game, he quarterbacked his team down the field in the closing seconds, then kicked the winning 37-yard field goal.

Rohrwasser knew that kicking was his ticket. In the winter, he kicked in the schools indoor batting cage. In the summer, his father and coach shagged balls for him.

Every kickoff was through the end zone, Barber said. His extra points and field goals were just automatic. He had that pop on the ball.

It all led to a partial scholarship at Rhode Island, where he kicked in the 2015 and 2016 seasons.

He was tremendous, a great kid in the program, Rhode Island head coach Jim Fleming said. I thought he was an intelligent, well-spoken, good dude. Kids liked him. He wasnt a normal introverted kicker. He had some personality to him.

Fleming said he never noticed the III tattoo, but said he would often engage in political discussions with Rohrwasser, who wasnt shy about his conservative beliefs. In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, Rohrwasser often wore a red Make America Great Again hat, according to Fleming.

He was an interesting cat to talk to, Fleming said. We dont let the hats in meetings, but hed wear it in the hallway, on campus. Id joke, You take that freakin hat off, and then wed have conversations about it.

And he was a very mature kid. We had some interesting conversations about what he thought and why he liked Trump and those kinds of things. As I remember it, he always came back to the economic component; that made him jump on the Trump bandwagon more than anything else.

"I was not concerned whatsoever about him dividing the team. So I feel bad for the kid right now. Hell weather the storm, hopefully.

Rohrwasser connected on 15 of 20 field goal attempts in his two seasons, with a long of 42, but the Rams won just three games and Rohrwasser wasnt getting many opportunities.

He transferred to a community college near Buffalo, then received a scholarship offer at Marshall for the 2018 and 2019 seasons.

Rohrwasser thrived at Marshall. He hit on 15 of 21 field goal attempts as a junior, then 18 of 21 his senior year, earning first-team All-Conference USA honors and drawing buzz as an NFL prospect. Rohrwassers finest moment came at the end of a win over Western Kentucky last season when he lined up for a winning 53-yard kick. He wound up attempting the kick three times because WKU iced him twice with timeouts, and he nailed all three.

I was probably more nervous than he was, holder Jackson White said. I remember I looked back at him on the third kick, he gave me the nod and he just smiled at me. I was like, Oh, hes going to crush this kick. It was amazing.

Several of Rohrwassers Marshall teammates said they never heard him speak about his tattoo or make uncomfortable political statements.

We have lockers next to each other," long snapper Matt Beardall said. "Ive seen the tattoo a thousand times and had no idea what it stood for or what it meant.

"Justin did love to talk politics and stuff, but it was never to this extent or what the tattoo stands for. If something happened in D.C., you could go to Justin and he would tell you what happened because he would follow the politics from both sides of things. It was never left or right, he was always in the middle and he just wanted to understand everyones point of view.

Hes not an extremist like everyone is calling him to be, and its really sad that some people who dont know him are calling him names and making judgments.

Among Rohrwassers other tattoos are an American flag, one stating Liberty or death, and another that states, Dont tread on me. He also has tattoos of the all-seeing eye, the Dave Matthews Band, and one with a black spade that reads, Born to lose, Live to win, a symbol and motto often attributed to heavy metal singer Lemmy of Motorhead. Rohrwasser previously told the Marshall website that the tattoos are all random.

Marshall running back Brenden Knox, who is Black, said he and Rohrwasser became close friends while attending community events together, like speaking at local elementary schools and visiting the hospital before the Gasparilla Bowl. Knox said he never felt threatened by Rohrwassers political views.

We sat together a lot on buses, and when I first saw [the tattoo] I honestly did not think twice about it. I thought it was Illuminati stuff or something like that, Knox said. A lot of times were around our teammates more than our friends and family back home and you really get to know a guy. And I never got any type of vibe that set me off on edge. A guy like that, you want to stand up for him when everybody else is saying things that arent true.

Best foot forward

Rohrwasser was fortunate that Marshall held its Pro Day on March 11, before the NFL shut down all travel because of COVID-19. Performing in front of about 16 NFL teams, Rohrwasser nailed 12 of 13 kicks, with a long of 58. The only kick he missed was from 66 yards, but it had the distance and barely missed.

Patriots special teams coordinator Cameron Achord was in attendance, intently taking notes and speaking with Rohrwasser after the event.

Only the people that were at Pro Day knew the interest the Patriots had in Justin, Beardall said. I was like, This guy really, really wants him. He was their sleeper, and they knew he wasnt a sleeper.

Rohrwasser wasnt ranked highly by most scouting analysts, and ESPN didnt have any footage of him for its broadcast. But Beardall had a hunch the Patriots would draft him on Day 3.

Hes like, Ill probably just sign an undrafted rookie contract with the Patriots, Beardall said. Then when the fifth round came around, I was sitting on the couch talking to my brother. I was like, What if they pull the trigger on Justin right here? And the next thing you know, they did.

But Rohrwassers celebration quickly turned to a nightmare as his social media accounts (since locked) were scoured and his name became associated with the alt-right and white nationalism.

It was very hard, just to see that and things that are being said about him and some of the backlash came at me also, said Barber, the high school coach. His senior year, he dated my niece for five to six months. Hes a good kid. When we talked on Sunday, he broke right down crying. So it was difficult.

Some of Rohrwassers ex-teammates and coaches came to his defense this past week. Marshall junior defensive end Koby Cumberlander, who is Black, said on Twitter, Im going to keep defending my dawg, crazy how people are quick to judge someone they dont even know.

White, the holder, said he believes Rohrwasser that he didnt fully understand the associations made with the Three Percenters.

I believe in him. I dont think hes part of anything, White said. I know for a fact that hes very passionate about supporting the military. Hes a conservative guy, hell tell you that. But I was looking on Twitter and people were ragging on him about the tweets that he liked about Trump. I think its crazy theyre trying to destroy his career.

His friends believe that the controversy will eventually subside, and Rohrwasser will be a benefit to the Patriots.

All of the Patriots fans have only heard the untrue stories about Justin, said Beardall. Theres so many true, great stories about him that theyre going to see once he starts. Hes going to interact in the community, hes going to read to elementary schools thats what we did on Wednesdays. Hes a stand up dude.

I totally know hell be fine once he puts his pads on. Hell go out there and kick and make the Patriots fans super happy.

See the original post here:

For Justin Rohrwasser, the controversy about his tattoo started soon after being drafted by Patriots - msnNOW

Maybe it’s time to rethink allowing guns in Michigan Capitol, officials say – Bridge Michigan

Posted on by

Sen. Sylvia Santana, D-Detroit, said the scene made her so fearful she wore a bulletproof vest at her desk. It makes the work environment very, just, temperamental when youre trying to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, she told Bridge Magazine Friday.

While there was no physical violence, and most of the hundreds of demonstrators were not armed, at least one protester held a sign encouraging violence against Whitmer: Tyrants Get The Rope. Another brought a Confederate flag outside the Capitol in apparent ode to the Civil War.

Whitmer called the protest disturbing.

Senate Majority Leader MIke Shirkey, a Second Amendment champion who has encouraged demonstrations against the governor, on Friday denounced some among the protesters as a bunch of jackasses.

Many protested safely and responsibly, and I respect and appreciate their efforts, Shirkey, R-Clarklake, said in a statement. Several other so-called protestors, used intimidation and the threat of physical harm to stir up fear and feed rancor. I condemn their behavior and denounce their tactics.

Michigan is among a handful of state capitols with no rules prohibiting firearms or requiring visitors to pass through metal detectors. Visitors are, however, banned from bringing signs or posters inside, a policy ostensibly designed to prevent damage to walls of the historic building.

Its been that way for as long as John Lindstrom can remember.

The recently retired publisher of the Gongwer subscription newsletter, a journalist who spent 42 years covering the Capitol, recalls only a handful of instances where stronger regulations were temporarily put in place.

You can't carry a gun into a courthouse, you cant even carry a phone into a courthouse, and yet we are literally operating with people hovering over us with their weapons. Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield

In 1999, for instance, House Republican leadership installed a metal detector outside the gallery amid protests over Republican Gov. John Englers plan to take over struggling public schools in Detroit.

It was mostly protesters from the city, and there were a lot of objections to that, Lindstrom said, referencing the predominantly African-American city. A lot of (protesters) were very upset and argued they were being discriminated against, treated badly, because they were forced to go through a metal detector.

There were no similar safeguards when an overwhelmingly white group of protestors rushed into the Capitol on Thursday.

In late 2012, Michigan State Police closed the entire Capitol building to visitors amid a massive protest over controversial right to work legislation after arresting eight people who they said attempted to push past troopers and rush the Senate floor.

The longstanding ban on signs, which sparked free speech complaints, may date back to the 1980s, when someone in a union protest over workers compensation changes damaged a painting of former Gov. Kim Sigler, according to Linstrom.

An awful lot of states have put restrictions on how people can get into their capitols and what they can bring in with them, Lindstrom said. But Michigan is one of the few that is basically still a wide open building.

The Michigan Capitol Commission writes rules for visitors to the building but has not adopted any regulations on firearms, citing Constitutional guarantees. The makeup of the commission is largely decided by legislative leaders, currently Republicans, who effectively appoint four of six members.

We have been following the statutes, said Michigan Capitol Commissioner John Truscott, who served as press secretary to GOP Gov. Engler. He noted there are not any laws prohibiting firearms at the building.

But Truscott acknowledged commissioners are reviewing open-carry laws and discussing whether regulations at the Capitol are in order.

With this being thrust in the national spotlight, it's raising a lot of questions, he told Bridge Magazine.

Metal detectors have been used during presidential visits in the past, Truscott said. Then-President Bill Clinton, for instance, spoke at the building in the 1990s, and the Secret Service implemented several strict security measures at the time.

But in general, our goal has been to keep the building as open as possible to the public, he said.

In recent years, Democrats have proposed banning guns in the Capitol, but they have had no luck as the minority party in both the House and Senate since 2010.

Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield, said he hopes this weeks scene at the Michigan Capitol will renew interest in legislation he has sponsored with Rep. Robert Wittenberg, D-Huntington Woods, that would prohibit guns in the Capitol but allow signs.

Armed demonstrators shouting at lawmakers from the Senate gallery Thursday had a clear motive, he said: It was intimidation.

I don't even think they knew who they were yelling at, Moss said, noting the Senate went in and out of recess several times as GOP leaders worked on legislation attempting to limit the governors emergency authority. They were heckling Democrats because they knew what our position was, but they were also calling the Republicans spineless for delaying the action.

While he waited for Republicans to begin voting, Moss said his social media feeds were flooded with questions from users across the country wondering about the armed protesters.

How can this happen? they asked, according to Moss. You can't carry a gun into a courthouse, you cant even carry a phone into a courthouse, and yet we are literally operating with people hovering over us with their weapons.

Tom Lambert, legislative director for Michigan Open Carry Inc., has lobbied lawmakers against limiting guns at the state Capitol and said it would be a mistake to change rules even if some legislators felt threatened this week.

If that's the standard we're going to use for things, where does that stop? he said. Do we limit constitutionally protected assembly based on a subjective fear, especially one where no one has ever been harmed? I get there's the possibility out there. But we don't take these big steps based on possibilities.

From pictures he saw from Thursdays protest, Lambert said the armed protesters did not appear to brandish their weapons, according to state law, which defines brandishing as pointing, waiving or displaying a firearm in a threatening manner with the intent to induce fear in a reasonable person.

Simply displaying a firearm, simply carrying a firearm is not intended to cause fear, Lambert said.

Santana said she was afraid Thursday, and not just because of the armed protesters.

She was already on edge after watching demonstrators at a previous April rally waive Confederate flags, invoking memories of legal slavery, and angry that a Republican Senate colleague had worn what appeared to be a Confederate-print facemask on the floor the week before.

Santana introduced legislation this week that would prohibit Confederate flag displays on Michigan Capitol property and said she also thinks its time to revisit building firearm rules.

There was no way that I was going to come and do the business of the day and work in a bipartisan fashion with the fear of somebody having the ability to shoot, she said.

RESOURCES:

See the article here:

Maybe it's time to rethink allowing guns in Michigan Capitol, officials say - Bridge Michigan

‘NASA at Home’ is bringing space to you daily with incredible resources for all ages – Space.com

Posted on by

Stuck at home? You can now explore the cosmos from the comfort of your living room.

NASA has taken to social media to engage and educate people across the world with a new initiative called NASA at Home. This is a free online resource for people of all ages looking to learn and get excited about science and space while staying at home.

NASA at Home has activities and resources for people of all ages and is designed to be a helpful tool for families and students. It's an online platform made up of a wealth of videos, podcasts, e-books, instructions for at-home projects and features virtual tours of incredible technology like NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and the International Space Station. The initiative also includes access to formal lesson plans and amazing images and stories about space and science. The platform even includes an app that allows you to virtually pilot a NASA aircraft!

Visit the NASA at Home website for daily space activities!

More details:

"We know people everywhere, especially students, are looking for ways to get out of the house without leaving their house," Bettina Incln, the associate administrator for NASA's Office of Communications, said in a NASA statement. "NASA has a way for them to look to the skies and see themselves in space with their feet planted safely on the ground, but their imaginations are free to explore everywhere we go. We've put that information at their fingertips. We hope everyone takes a few moments to explore NASA at Home."

For older students or adults looking to get involved, the initiative includes citizen scientist opportunities that allow you to contribute to real, ongoing research. You can search for everything from alien planets to signs of life out in the solar system.

NASA at Home also includes videos that will air on NASA Television every weekday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. EDT (1400 to 2000 GMT). The initiative will also run videos on Instagram live. Every weekday starting at 4 p.m. EDT (2000 GMT), record-breaking NASA astronaut Christina Koch reads children's books on Instagram live.

To keep up with all that NASA at Home has to offer, you can check-in at their website here or always search the hashtag #NASAatHome.

Follow Chelsea Gohd on Twitter @chelsea_gohd. Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook.

Read more:

'NASA at Home' is bringing space to you daily with incredible resources for all ages - Space.com

NASA Has Translated a Hubble Photo Into Music, And It’s Absolutely Chilling – ScienceAlert

Posted on by

The Universe is a wondrous place, full of vast numbers of planets to explore, unsolved mysteries, and even 'superbubbles' blown by black holes.

But there's one thing that space really isn't: loud. Without Earth's air molecules to help you hear, out there in space you'd be listening to a whole lot of silence.

Luckily, that didn't stop NASA from figuring out a way to produce sound in the soundlessness of space back in 2019 - by 'sonifying' the above image taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.

Yep, move over music, podcasts, or audio-books - the new thing to listen to is Hubble images.

The image NASA used for this project was taken by the Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys and Wide-Field Camera 3 back in August 2018.

The guys working with Hubble call the image a 'galactic treasure chest' because of the number of galaxies splattered across it.

"Each visible speck of a galaxy is home to countless stars," NASA explained about the image.

"A few stars closer to home shine brightly in the foreground, while a massive galaxy cluster nestles at the very centre of the image; an immense collection of maybe thousands of galaxies, all held together by the relentless force of gravity."

But as beautiful as this image already is, it just reached a new level, once transformed into a stunningly eerie musical composition.

The team that created the sonified image explains that the different locations and elements of the image produce different sounds.

Stars and compact galaxies are represented by short and clear sounds, while the spiralling galaxies emit more complex, longer notes.

"Time flows left to right, and the frequency of sound changes from bottom to top, ranging from 30 to 1,000 hertz," NASA explained in comments accompanying the video.

"Objects near the bottom of the image produce lower notes, while those near the top produce higher ones."

And although it might sound a little eerie at first, the 'sounds' of this picture create a rather beautiful melody, especially near the middle, when the sound reaches a galaxy cluster called RXC J0142.9+4438.

"The higher density of galaxies near the centre of the image," the team explained, "results in a swell of mid-range tones halfway through the video."

So there you have it: an entirely new way to enjoy the Universe.

A version of this article was first published in March 2019.

Read the original here:

NASA Has Translated a Hubble Photo Into Music, And It's Absolutely Chilling - ScienceAlert