Cruise: Cruisers can enjoy discounts and exclusive experiences with this little known tip – Express

Posted on by

Cruise ships boast all kinds of amenities for holidaymakers to enjoy these days. Along with the traditional luxury spa, five-star restaurants, and on-deck swimming pool options, modern ships also boast an array of exciting amenities you wont find anywhere else. Royal Caribbean, for example, is home to an onboard surfing experience called the Flow Rider, meanwhile Celebrity Cruises recently introduced its own 2-story martini glass hot tubs to its Celebrity Edge ship.

However, with the latest ABTA report showing that cruise holidays are booming in popularity, ships filled with passengers can mean many travelers find themselves missing out on popular activities.

Luckily, two cruise experts have revealed a helpful hack that not only will give cruisers first-dibs on many of the most-loved amenities, they could also see some sizeable discounts.

Ben and David are a pair of cruise enthusiasts who run their own Youtube channel Cruise with Ben and David where they share their experiences sailing the high seas.

Having traveled on cruise ships countless times, they have amassed a host of tips that can increase the onboard experience.

READ MORE:Cruise: Travellers invited on Ponant Antarctic expedition [CRUISE]

And the spa also offers some really big discounts that most people dont know about; because there are not many people on the ship it's a great time to enjoy some of the amazing ship's facilities.

However, this doesnt mean that you have to miss out on the onshore excursions.

You dont have to do a full day, adds Ben.

You could even just do a half-day, so maybe get off the ship later in the afternoon or first thing in the morning and spend half the day on the ship enjoying the facilities by yourself.

David continues: On sea days and when people are between ports it can be really busy, all of the activities can be really busy: waterparks, the slides the climbing walls, the flow rider, whatever, can be really busy.

So it is a great opportunity to do these on a port day.

Passengers who dont want to miss out on a full day onshore, but still want to save money, are also in luck.

Ben Better, a cruise and travel expert, has revealed that cruisers can save up to 50 percent if they avoid taking part in excursions arranged by the cruise line.

In his book Secret Cruise Tips for the First Time Cruiser, he explains that cruise organised tours are significantly pricier than do it yourself tours.

He claims that they can be anywhere between 20 percent and 50 percent more expensive compared to DIY tours. Hence the main reasons why many people swear by DIY tours.

See the rest here:

Cruise: Cruisers can enjoy discounts and exclusive experiences with this little known tip - Express

15 Of The Best Holiday Treats From Disney Parks Around The World – Delish

Posted on by

It's no secret that the Disney parks have some amazing foods for the holidays (hello, have you seen this cotton candy Santa hat??) but it turns out if you're only looking at the stuff in the U.S. parks, you're sorely missing out. The Disney Parks Blog shared some of the most amazing holiday treats from the parks around the world, and they've given us some serious food envy. Here are just a few of our favorites.

1Minnies Puf Surprise, Disneyland Paris

Finally, Minnie gets her due with this beautiful vanilla choux pastry decorated with a wreath that is rocking her iconic bow on top.

2Sparkling Donuts, Disneyland Paris

You can snag one of these babies at some of the food carts and kiosks around the park.

3Cream Nougat Flavored White Chocolate, Shanghai Disney

Shanghai Disney is all about Frozen 2, and we can't get over this super cute drink made with marshmallow, cream, nougat syrup and white chocolate, with Olaf hanging out on top.

4Japanese Pancake with Vanilla Ice Cream, Shanghai Disney

All pancakes should be served with ice cream...and an Anna cut-out from Frozen 2.

5Orange Bird Christmas, Walt Disney World, US

Who could eat this? It's too beautiful! Although once you hear it's made with orange-scented white chocolate mousse filled with orange curd, citrus almond cream cake, and buttercream leaves, you kind of get it.

6Cinnamon-Apple Lunch Box Tart, Walt Disney World, US

This portable Christmas treat is made with cinnamon apple pie filling and topped with red cinnamon fondant featuring Santa himself.

7Tons of Treats, Hong Kong Disneyland

There is no shortage of sweets at Hong Kong Disneyland. Just pictured here, we have Snowman and Olaf cupcakes, Christmas, as well as Mickey and Minnie cookies and donuts.

8Mickey and Minnie Souffl Pancakes, Hong Kong Disneyland

You can practice your baking and decorating skills by filling these mini pancakes with sprinkles, chocolate, and pretty much anything delicious.

9Holiday Drinks, Hong Kong Disneyland

If you're thirsty in Hong Kong Disneyland, you can pick up a Christmas Coconut Mojito, made with coconut milk, lime, soda, mint leaves and pomegranate, or a Chamomile Pear Tea.

10Hot Chocolate Beignets, Disneyland, US

A winter take on a classic treat, these are served with hot chocolate sauce and whipped cream and can be found at, where else? Caf Orleans.

11Plant-Based Shepherds Upside-down Pie, Disneyland, US

This plant-based take on a classic is made with mashed potatoes and vegetables and topped with a mickey-shaped pie crust.

12Chocolate and Pistachio Mousse, Tokyo Disney

This sweet and chocolate treat is as decorative as it is decadent. I mean, look at that topper that features the Disney gang in Santa's sleigh!

13Strawberry Crpes, Toyko Disney

These sweet Strawberry and Cranberry Crpes are bright pink and even topped off with a Minnie bow.

14Christmas Tree Cakes, Disney Cruise Line

These are decorated better than most real Christmas trees.

15Santa Cupcakes, Disney Cruise Line

You can find these sweet Santa cupcakes if you venture out on the high seas this holiday season. They're toped with chocolate frosting a sweet rendering of St. Nick himself.

Read the rest here:

15 Of The Best Holiday Treats From Disney Parks Around The World - Delish

5 Times North Korea Provoked a Crisis (And Why They Keep Doing It) – The National Interest Online

Posted on by

Key point:Pyongyang uses threats to gain concessions and make other powers take them seriously.

Lets get one thing out of the way. North Korea is not crazy.

News pundits, talking heads and headline writers love to deride the North Korean leadershipand leaders Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un in particularas crazy, whacko or just plain insane.

The leadership is a lot of things. Mass murderers, gangsters, terrorists and con artists come to mind. Crazy they are not.

The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is a different kind of place by design.

The state operates in an alternative universe in which engaging in shootouts on the high seas, bombarding islands and torpedoing shipsall meant as gesturesmake some kind of weird sense.

Everything Pyongyang does, it does for a reason. That includes the occasional killings of foreign sailors and marines.

What follows isnt a comprehensive account, but its the story of North Koreas deadliest recent attacks, and the curious events that might have triggered Pyongyang into risking all-out war.

The First Battle of Yeonpyeong:

It began with bumping. It ended with shooting. On June 8, 1999, seven North Korean gunboats repeatedly crossed the two countries sea boundary near Yeonpyeong Island.

Seoul sent 16 patrol boats to eject the North Koreans, but the tiny flotilla initially pulled back to avoid a confrontation.

The next day, the incident escalated into physical bumping between the two sides, as South Korean ships attempted to forcefully push the North Korean vessels back across the border. This damaged four North Korean ships, two of them seriously, while three South Korean ships took damage.

On June 15, the shooting began. The day started with more bumping between North and South Korean patrol vessels. Suddenly, one North Korean gunboat, PT-381, found itself double-teamed by two South Korean warships. PT-381 opened fire with its machine guns and 25-millimeter cannon.

The larger, better-armed South Korean ships returned fire with a 76-millimeter Oto Melara cannon, 40-millimeter No Bong dual-purpose guns and 20-millimeter Gatling guns, the same gun installed on U.S. Navy ships.

Heavily outgunned, the North Korean sailors paid dearly for striking first. The South Korean ships sank one North Korean torpedo boat and damaged five others, including a 420-ton patrol ship. At least 30 North Korean sailors died.

The shootout damaged five South Korean ships. Nine sailors suffered injuries.

What triggered the attack? A difference of opinion on where the sea boundary between North and South Korea actually lay. Decades before the battle, Washington and Seoul jointly agreed on the Northern Limit Linea sea border between North and South on the west coast of the Korean peninsula. The NLL extends three miles from the North Korean coastline.

North Korea recognizes a line much farther south in which five islands inhabited by southerners, including Yeonpyeong, are within its territorial waters.

Neither the U.S. nor South Korea consulted North Korea when drawing up the NLL, and Pyongyang has been unhappy about it ever since. In 1999, it began pushing its sea boundary claim, with violence as its method. North Korean patrol vessels and fishing boats began making forays south of the NLL. A clash was inevitable.

The Second Battle of Yeonpyeong:

The North Korean military doesnt forget its lossesit learns from them and finds ways to strike back.

On June 29, 2002, two North Korean patrol boats crossed the Northern Limit Line and opened fire on two Chamsuri-class South Korean patrol boats. One of the DPRK boats, armed with an 85-millimeter deck gun, opened fire at a distance of 500 yards.

The South Koreans, outgunned this time, returned fire with 20-millimeter and 30-millimeter cannons. The two boats fought for their lives, many of the crew on PKM-357 badly wounded from a direct 85-millimeter hit to the ships cabin. Within minutes, two South Korean Pohang-class corvettes arrived to turn the tide of battle, and the North Korean ships withdrew.

Patrol boat PKM-357 succumbed to damage and sank. South Korean casualties amounted to six killed and 18 wounded. The navy alleged the North Korean patrol boat 684 caught fire and may have sank, with 13 sailors killed and 25 wounded.

For its part, the North Korean navy denied any of casualties or damage to its own forces.

Pyongyang carried out a premeditated ambush at sea. But why would the regime risk a major war?

At the time of the attack, South Korea was co-hosting the 2002 FIFA World Cup. It was yet another confirmation of South Koreas status as a developed nation, a recognition of how far the country had come in the 49 years since the end of the Korean War.

Pyongyang hates it when Seoul looks good internationally. If it can, the regime often plans provocations in such a way to steal the limelight or embarrass its southern neighbor.

The second battle of Yeonpyeong was no different. Handing South Korea a defeatduring the World Cup no lesswould show the world who the stronger Korea was. Thats at least how North Korean officials would see it, if they were the rest of the world.

There were also rumors that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il had been plotting revenge for the losses his navy incurred three years earlier.

The Sinking of ROKS Cheonan:

By far the most deadly attack by North Korea in recent history was the torpedo ambush and sinking of the ROKS Cheonan.

A Pohang-class corvette of the kind that saved the day at the first battle of Yeonpyeong, Cheonan was on patrol off the coast of Baengnyeong Island on March 26, 2010, when the South Korean navys Second Fleet Command sent a warning to the ship.

A North Korean submarine and six support ships had disappeared from the port of Nampo.

Submarines is why ships like the Cheonan exist. An anti-submarine corvette, the ship was 289 feet long, displaced 1,200 tons and had a crew of 95 sailors. Cheonan packed a 76-millimeter gun, four Harpoon anti-ship missiles and six Mk.46 anti-submarine torpedoes. Plus depth charges.

Then at 9:22 p.m. local time, the rear of the warship exploded. Within five minutes of the blast, Cheonan broke in half and sank. Forty-six sailors died.

A South Korean investigation into the attack placed the blame on Pyongyang. In particular, they found fragments of a CHT-02D guided torpedo with No.1 written on it in Hangul, the Korean alphabet.

Government sources told South Koreas Chosun Ilbo newspaper that two North Korean miniature submarines also took part in the attack.

North Korea denied responsibility, but the general consensus among international experts solidified around North Korea being responsible. But why would it sink a corvette? There are two possible reasons.

At the time of the attack, South Korea and the U.S. were holding the annual Foal Eagle and Key Resolve military exercises. North Korea objects to exercises because they strengthen U.S.-South Korean defense cooperation. Attacking a ship such as Cheonan makes the argument that the alliance cannot protect Seoul from attack.

Another theory proposed that Kim Jong Un planned the attack as a way of padding his military resume. Although he is a marshal of the North Korean army and supreme commander of its military, he has no actual military service.

Writing a resume with blood isnt an unprecedented move in North Korean history. His father similarly masterminded the 1987 bombing of Korean Airlines Flight 858 to give himself credibility in state and military matters.

The Shelling of Yeonpyeong Island:

In 2010, North Korea again turned its focus toward Yeonpyeong Island. This time with an artillery bombardment.

There were plenty of targets on the tiny island. Yeonpyeong is a mere 2.8 square miles in size, with a civilian population of 1,780 and a garrison of 1,000 South Korean marines.

On November 21, South Korean intelligence detected the movement of a North Korean battalion armed with multiple-rocket launchers to within firing range of Yeonpyeong. The battalion possessed 18 122-millimeter multiple rocket launchers mounted onto trucks, similar to the Soviet Katyusha weapon systems made famous during World War II.

At 2:34 p.m. on Nov. 23, the battalion unleashed a barrage containing an estimated 150 rockets. In military terminology, the shelling was a time on target attack, a technique pioneered by the U.S. Army in World War II. In such an attack, the gunners coordinate their shells and rockets so that instead of landing in a steady pattern, they impact all at once.

After a 15-minute pause, a second barrage of 20 rockets again struck the island. Each rocket carried a high-explosive warhead weighing 41 pounds. A fire swept the island, destroying several civilian buildings.

The marine garrison, equipped with six K-9 Thunder 155-millimeter howitzers, and an American-made AN/TPQ-37 artillery-locating radar, swung into action.

But unfortunately for the marines, two of their howitzers were out of commission for repairs, and the radarwhich can track rockets and artillery shells to their sourcefailed to work.

The four working howitzers executed a pre-planned strike on mainland targets. The radar then came back online, and the marines identified the source of the North Korean barrage. The marines shifted targets and began firing on the multiple-rocket launchers.

See more here:

5 Times North Korea Provoked a Crisis (And Why They Keep Doing It) - The National Interest Online

The Role of the Arctic in Chinese Naval Strategy – The Jamestown Foundation

Posted on by

Introduction

In her recent China Brief article, Dr. Anne-Marie Brady examined the prospect of China deploying military power to the Arctic (China Brief, December 10). Applying the methods she used in her pathbreaking 2017 book, Brady draws from authoritative Chinese sources to demonstrate the growing importance of the Arctic in Chinas strategic calculus. [1] She also cites a host of other indications that Beijing intends to send naval forcesespecially submarinesnorth through the Bering Strait. Her research provides important context for an oracular 2019 U.S. Department of Defense claim that China could be laying the foundation for naval operations in the Arctic (Department of Defense, May 2).

Building on the excellent work done by Brady and others, this article argues that the available evidence allows for more categorical conclusions about Chinas Arctic intentions. Specifically, the Chinese Navy has formally decided to incorporate Arctic ambitions into its naval strategy, and Chinese scientists and engineers are already conducting research to help it realize these ambitions.

From the Near Seas to the Two Poles

In China, naval strategy (, haijun zhanle) serves two key purposes. It defines the principles guiding how the fleet will be used today, and it outlines the plans for building the capabilities needed to meet the requirements of tomorrow. [2] Chinas first official naval strategy dates to the mid-1980s, when the services chief preoccupation was restoration of Chinese-claimed islands (including Taiwan). Called near seas defense (, jinhai fangyu), it instructed the Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) to prepare to seize and maintain command of the sea in waters within the first island chain, a capability the PLAN already possessed vis--vis its weakest neighbors. It also catalogued the equipment and training needed to enable the service to achieve these wartime aims in scenarios involving more capable navies. [3]

By 2015, Chinas naval strategy had officially changed to near seas defense, far seas protection (/ / jinhai fangyu, yuanhai fangwei/huwei). [4] The new strategy reflected trends that had been evident for years. The PLANs maritime defense mission remained preeminent. But the service was also increasingly tasked with operating in waters beyond East Asia, in the far seas. This began with an epochal 2008 decision to send successive task forces to counter Somali piracy in the Gulf of Aden, but soon extended to a whole range of other functions, often lumped under the rubric of protecting overseas interests.

The Arctic did not figure in either of these strategies. But we now know that it will in the next strategy. This fact was omitted from Chinas 2018 White Paper on Arctic Policy (State Council Information Office, January 26, 2018) and its 2019 National Defense White Paper (State Council Information Office, July 24) authoritative documents largely meant for foreign consumption. However, the political commissar of Dalian Naval Academy, Senior Captain Yu Wenbing (), revealed the name of the next strategy in a July 2018 essay. Published in the PLANs official newspaper, Yus essay discussed his institutes role in training and educating the leaders of the future navy. To provide context for his advocacy, he pointed out that the PLANs strategy was transitioning to a new concept: near seas defense, far seas protection, oceanic presence, and expansion into the two poles (, jinhai fangyu, yuanhai fangwei, dayang cunzai, liangji tuozhan ). [5]

Senior Captain Yu did not indicate when this transition would be completebut a more recent source does. In mid-2019, Ni Hua (), a PLAN engineer posted to the Military Representative Office in Yichang City (Hubei Province) published an article about the need to boost Chinas ability to counter the threats posed by foreign sea mines. Ni began by discussing the strategic concerns shaping Chinas mine warfare needs. After citing the growing importance of the maritime domain to Chinese national security, he stated that by 2030 the navy willpromote the construction and development of equipment according to the strategic requirements of near seas defense, far seas protection, presence in the two oceans, expansion into the two poles. [6]

Most recently, the new strategic concept was broached during a presentation by Deng Aimin (), Director of the Ship Development and Design Center of the 701 Research Institute, part of the state-owned China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC). At an October 2019 event in Shenzhen, Deng spoke on the topic of Chinas planned nuclear-powered icebreaker, which his team was designing. He offered some brief remarks on the strategic drivers behind his work: Everyone should be fairly clear about our national strategy. One aspect is the strategic position of the poles. Another is expansion into the two poles [7]

Clearly, then, the PLA has decided that the next naval strategy will bring the service to the Arctic. Perhaps as a result of this decision, the PLA strategic studies community has grown increasingly candid about discussing the militarys future role in this new arena. For example, in a 2017 article, three analysts from the PLAN Submarine Academy examined the increasing out-of-area requirements of Chinas submarine force. They argued, Chinas submarine forces must not only operate in the Pacific Ocean; they must also operate in the Indian Ocean. In the future, they must even operate in the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Ocean. [8]

A more thorough treatment of this subject was published by PLAN Captain Zuo Pengfei (), a lecturer at Chinas National Defense University. In his 2018 volume entitled A Study of Polar Strategy, Captain Zuo forthrightly discusses the military value of the Arctic to China and calls for deploying Chinese naval forces to the region. He writes, As the world becomes hotter, the Arctic passages will increasingly become important areas for the operations of Chinas maritime forces. Once [Chinese] forces normalize their presence in this region, they will not only be able to effectively pin down great powers like the U.S. and Russia; they will greatly reduce pressure from primary opponents in our other strategic directions. [9]

Possible PLAN Missions

Broadly speaking, the PLAN would have two missions in the Arctic. The first mission would be to protect Chinas maritime rights/interests in the Arctic Ocean. As Brady writes, these include Chinas interest in unfettered navigation through Arctic waters, and access to living and non-living resources in high seas areas. PLA sources no longer demur from discussing the need to be able to protect these interests. For example, the 2015 edition of Science of Military Strategy, an authoritative volume published by Chinas National Defense University, has several chapters discussing military struggle in the new domains (, xin xing lingyu) of Chinese national security, including the polar regions. The authors state that The poles have become important directions in which Chinas national interests have expanded overseas and into new and distant frontiers, and they have presented new topics and tasks for our employment of military forces. [10] Just three months after this book was published, China revised its national security law, charging the PLA with responsibility for protecting Chinese interests in the polar regions. In the section on tasks for safeguarding national security, the law declared that China persists insafeguarding the security of our nations activities, assets, and other interests in outer space, international seabed areas, and the polar regions (Ministry of National Defense, July 1, 2015).

The PLANs second mission would be to conduct nuclear deterrence patrols. This has nothing to do with Arctic interests per se. Rather, it offers a means for China to better ensure its second-strike capability. The Science of Military Strategy describes the Arctic as an ideal hiding place for strategic nuclear submarines. [11] Captain Zuo discusses this point at length. Operating under the Arctic could improve the survivability of Chinese submarines. In his words, The Arctics bad weather and thick ice prevents all sensors from tracking and monitoring the situation under the ice. This [would] enable our ballistic missile submarines to operate with stealth, improve their survivability, and help to increase our second-strike capability. He also writes, Once our forces achieve forward presence in the Arctic, well be able to increase the suddenness of our strikes and increase difficulties for the adversarys strategic early-warning.This will reduce the strategic pressure posed by Americas missile defense systems. [12]

Science in the Service of Strategy

Chinese scientists and engineers are already conducting the research needed to make possible PLAN operations in the Arctic. Brady highlights the need for bathymetric surveys to produce navigational charts. This is the most dual-use of Arctic activities: yes, future naval forces will need them, but so will Chinese civilians operating in the arctic for commercial and scientific purposes. However, Chinese scientists are also conducting research that is much more closely associated with military purposes.

One area of research is Arctic acoustics. To be effective, submarine forces require a detailed knowledge of the underwater acoustic environment in a given area of operations. Sound propagates differently through water depending on a number of factors, such as temperature, depth, and salinity. To maximize the performance of PLAN sonar in the Arctic, Chinese scientists need to develop models for sound propagation and improve them with in situ data. They must also reckon with acoustic phenomena that are particular to the Arctic Ocean. The Arctic ice pack generates lots of background (or ambient) sound, which can pose challenges when trying to listen for the much quieter signals emitted by enemy submarines.

Chinese scientists have only just started researching Arctic acoustics. In the November 2014 issue of the Journal of Applied Acoustics, ten Chinese acousticians published a call to arms entitled Arctic Underwater Acoustics: An Attractive New Topic in Ocean Acoustics. The authors cited the military importance of this new field. In their words, Conducting research on Arctic acousticsis a major capability requirement for ensuring our navys information advantage in future mobile operations in the Arctic and an important basic research requirement for our submarines to conduct nuclear deterrence patrols and ensure the navigational safety of our warships in the Arctic [13] The first author of this article was Dr. Li Qihu (), a Princeton-educated acoustician at the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) whose career has largely focused on applied acoustics for national defense. [14]

When Li et al. submitted their article, Chinese scientists were just then completing the countrys first Arctic experiments. [15] From July to September 2014, members of the sixth Arctic Expedition, operating from Chinas only icebreaker, the Xuelong, collected basic data required for acoustics modeling. [16] Members of the seventh Arctic Expedition (2016) conducted more sophisticated experiments, led by scientists from the CAS Institute of Acoustics. At least one PLA scientist was involved in experiment design. [17] In 2018 (Chinas eighth Arctic Expedition), an expert named Han Xiao () from the Harbin Engineering University collected under-ice sound velocity profile data (China Ocean News, October 15, 2018). Harbin Engineering University is a key center of undersea warfare research for the PLAN, and Han has personally received awards for his national defense acoustics research (Harbin Engineering University, undated).

Conclusion

Chinese naval strategy has evolved through two periods. Each period has brought PLAN ships, boats, and planes further away from the Chinese coast. Chinas military strategists have clearly decided that the third period will bring the service to the Arctic Ocean. PLAN ships and boats will go there to show Beijings commitment to protecting its claimed rights and interests in the Arctic Ocean. This prospect is not remote, as Chinese warships have already operated in the Bering Sea in 2015 and 2017 (Department of Defense, May 2018). In time, Chinese submarines could also sail to the Arctic Ocean to conduct nuclear deterrence patrols. This prospect is more remote, as Chinese ballistic missile submarines have yet to conduct a deterrence patrol in Chinas coastal waterslet alone the remote Arctic. But with intensifying strategic competition with the United States, it is probably the more urgent of the two Arctic missions. Before this can happen, Chinese scientists will need to overcome a number of scientific and engineering challenges. This process has already begun in earnest. With the commissioning of Xuelong 2 and a third ice-breaker on the way, these efforts should accelerate in the coming years.

Ryan D. Martinson is a researcher in the China Maritime Studies Institute at the Naval War College. He holds a masters degree from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and a bachelors of science from Union College. Martinson has also studied at Fudan University, the Beijing Language and Culture University, and the Hopkins-Nanjing Center. The views expressed here are his own, and are not intended to represent those of any U.S. Government institution.

Notes

[1] Anne-Marie Brady, China as a Polar Great Power (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017)

[2] [PLA Dictionary of Military Terms] (Beijing: Academy of Military Science Press, September 2011), p. 888.

[3] Zhang Xiaolin, [Mao Zedongs Active Defense Strategic Thinking and Chinas Near Seas Defense Naval Strategy] [Military History Research], No. 2 (1992), pp. 13-19.

[4] The 2015 National Defense White Paper uses the term . The 2019 National Defense White paper uses the term . Both can be translated as far seas protection.

[5] Yu Wenbing, [Take Advantage of the Situation to Build a World-class Military Command College] [Peoples Navy] July 13, 2018, p. 3.

[6] Ni published this article with several experts from the CSICs 710 Research Institute, which is also located in Yichang city. Ni Hua, Zhao Zhiping, Guan Hong, and Ai Yanhui, [Discussion of Capacity Building of Chinas Mine Countermeasure Support Ships] [Digital Ocean & Underwater Warfare] No. 2 (2019), p. 2.

[7] Deng spoke at a forum held as part of the 2019 Marine Economy Expo. The author attended this event.

[8] Hu Dongying, Huang Rui and Cai Guangyou, [Several Thoughts on Advancing the Submarine Force to the Ocean], [Ship Electronic Engineering] No. 1 (2017), p. 2.

[9] Zuo Pengfei, [A Study of Polar Strategy] (Beijing: Shishi Press, December 2018), p. 14.

[10] Xiao Tianliang, ed. [Science of Military Strategy] (Beijing: National Defense Univ. Press, 2015), p. 157.

[11] Xiao Tianliang, ed. Science of Military Strategy, p. 158.

[12] Zuo Pengfei, A Study of Polar Strategy, pp 14-15.

[13] Li Qihu, Wang Ning, Zhao Jinping, Huang Haining, Yin Li, Huang Yong, Li Yu, Xue Shanhua, Ren Xinmin, and Li Tao, : [Arctic Underwater Acoustics: An Attractive New Topic in Ocean Acoustics] [Journal of Applied Acoustics] No. 6 (2014), p. 475.

[14] Zhang Chunhua, [The Maturation of an Acoustician in New China] [Physics] No. 12 (2009), p. 926.

[15] Li Qihu, Huang Haining, Yin Li, Wei Chonghua, Li Yu, Xue Shanhua, and Luan Jingde, [New Progress and Trends in Arctic Acoustic Research ] [Acta Acustica] No. 4 (2018), p. 428. Co-author Luan Jingde works at the Naval Research Institute.

[16] Liu Hongning, Lv Liangang, Liu Na, Yang Guangbing, Jiang Ying, Yang Chunmei, Liu Zongwei, and Lin Lina, [Study of Volume Backscattering Strength in Summer Marginal Ice Zone of the Canada Basin] [Acta Oceanologica Sinica] No. 11 (2015), pp. 127-134.

[17] Co-author Xu Quanjun works at the PLA Special Office of the Marine Environment. Wei Chonghua, Huang Haining, Yin Li, Liu Na, Yang Chenghao, Xu Quanjun, and Li Qihu [Analysis of Low-Frequency Environmental Noise Distribution in Dual-duct Waveguide] [Acta Acustica] No. 4 (2019), pp 418-428.

Excerpt from:

The Role of the Arctic in Chinese Naval Strategy - The Jamestown Foundation

Top 10 photography shows of 2019 | Culture – The Guardian

Posted on by

10Eamonn Doyle: Made in Dublin

Photo London, Somerset HouseAlongside his creative collaborators production designer Niall Sweeney and sound artist David Donohoe Irish photographer Eamonn Doyle created an ambitious nine-screen projection for Photo London. It was an immersive experience that threatened to overwhelm, but, once surrendered to, unfolded to its visceral soundtrack at a furious pace. Looming figures flitted across the viewers vision in constantly unfolding juxtapositions, making Doyles native city seem more Ballardian than Joycean.

Marian Goodman, LondonA long-awaited major London show for Nan Goldin, her first since the Whitechapel Gallery retrospective in 2002, Sirens is shadowed by her recent addiction to Oxycontin and the direct action anti-Sackler activism she has embraced since her recovery. Two of her new works, Sirens and the viscerally unsettling slideshow Memory Lost, draw deeply on lived experience. The latter in particular uses her signature diaristic approach to explore memory, mourning, death and dislocation. Tough, heartbreaking and utterly compelling. On until 11 January. Read the full review.

Tate Modern, LondonAn ambitious, sprawling and constantly surprising retrospective of an artist too long considered in the reflective light of Pablo Picasso, with whom she had a turbulent relationship. Her career began in earnest in 1932, when Henriette Markovitch, painter, became Dora Maar, photographer. The creative trajectory that followed took her from fashion to portraiture to street photography and on into surrealist-inspired experiments in photomontage and camera-less photography. An expansive portrait of a restless spirit. On until 15 March. Read the full review.

Tate Britain, LondonBritains most famous living photographer drew the crowds to Tate Britain for this expansive retrospective, drawn from an archive that stretches back 60 years. Best known for his war photography, the show reminded us of the wealth of other defining documentary images from closer to home: post-war working class life in Londons East End, the declining landscapes of the industrial north, poverty and homeless in the capital. Comprising over 250 photographs, all hand-printed by McCullin in his darkroom, it was a celebration of, and an elegy for, a time when photojournalism and documentary photography indelibly shaped our view of the world. Read the full review.

Les Rencontres dArlesOn the back of her acclaimed first book, Ex-Voto, which merged landscapes of contemporary sites of religious pilgrimage with starkly haunting portraits of latter-day pilgrims, the young English artist won the Audience Award at Arles for The Faithful. Here, the central subject of stark monochrome prints and a quietly compelling film was a young Orthodox nun named Vera, who works with captive wild horses in a convent in rural Belarus. The end result was another austere and affecting exploration of contemporary religious devotion.

Jeu de Paume, ParisPeter Hujars reputation has risen steadily since his death in 1987, his often deftly composed portraits possessed of an acutely intimate undertow. Hujar came of age in the downtown art scene in New York, his creative life bookended by two defining cultural moments: the Stonewall riots in 1969 and the Aids crisis of the 1980s. He once described his approach as uncomplicated, direct photographs of complicated and difficult subjects. They include avant-garde artists, gay activists, intellectuals and drag queens; among the most celebrated are a reclining Susan Sontag and, posing languorously on her deathbed, Warhol superstar Candy Darling. On until 19 January.

Hayward Gallery, LondonDevoted to the formative years in which Diane Arbus honed her dark vision, In the Beginning showed how her sensibility and signature style a crucial shift from 35mm to square format took shape on the streets of New York. Around two thirds of the 100 plus prints on view had not been seen before in the UK; what they revealed was a precocious talent for the eccentric and the perverse, whether tattooed strong men, circus performers, self-styled outsiders or passing strangers. Still unsettling, still singular. Read the full review.

The Photographers Gallery, LondonFor all their quiet stillness, Dave Heaths portraits possess an intensity that is by turns melancholic and unsettling. In that most exuberant of decades, the 60s, Heath emerged almost unseen as a master of solitude and introspection. His images, as this deftly-curated exhibition highlighted, instil a thoughtful silence in the space around them. An illuminating survey of a quiet American photographer who was a master of mood and sequence.

National Portrait Gallery, LondonA long overdue British retrospective showed the full range of Shermans work, from the iconic early series Untitled Film Stills (1977-80) to the more elaborately constructed Sex Pictures, which still shock in terms of their sheer grotesquery. She is a conceptual shapeshifter, whose one brilliant idea turning the camera on her transformed self in order to exaggerate and illuminate myriad female archetypes is one of the most fascinating creative journeys of our time. Read the full review.

Les Rencontres dArlesIn the 1970s and 80s, self-taught Czech photographer Libue Jarcovjkov relentlessly chronicled her wild life during a time of political repression. The results, shot in edgy monochrome, were one of the revelations of this years Arles photo festival. Jarcovjkovs diaristic approach brilliantly captures the low rent hedonism and self destructiveness of a semi-clandestine bohemian milieu. But there is something energetic, even joyful, in her laying bare of her own reckless life. Often, she is her own subject, the captions a kind of defiantly nihilist manifesto: I understand nothing and dont care. Life is pelting along too fast to understand. Im rarely sober. Elsewhere, she shot on the nocturnal streets and in dive bars, parties and scuzzy bedrooms, capturing the long nights and hungover days of a repressive, and thus doggedly dissolute, time in her homeland. Uncompromising and grittily poetic, Evokativ took me by complete surprise and stayed with me for days afterwards.

Original post:

Top 10 photography shows of 2019 | Culture - The Guardian

FPI says it found condoms and alcohol at DWP, wants Governor Anies to ban EDM festival in the future – Coconuts

Posted on by

Despite protests by hardline groups, Djakarta Warehouse Project (DWP), one of the largest EDM music festivals in Asia, went ahead smoothly last weekend so smooth that condoms and alcohol were found at the venue, according to one hardline group who were evidently displeased by the discovery.

According to the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), who were among those who criticized Governor Anies Baswedan for allowing immorality into the capital through events like DWP, its members found evidence to support its claim in the shape of condoms and alcohol at DWP, which was held in JIExpo Kemayoran, Central Jakarta.

Related:

FPI slams Governor Anies Baswedan for allowing DWP and giving Colosseum an award

Pro-pribumi group protests EDM fest DWP, tells Governor Anies to cancel event and not betray them

There was alcohol, condoms, and a few other things. The objects are with us, FPI Secretary General Munarman told Detik today.

FPI and several ulemas met with the Jakarta governor on Tuesday, and we showed the evidence of the haram (forbidden by consumption or use by Muslims) goods that were sold at the DWP venue.

Munarman added that FPI have asked Anies to ban DWP and other events that promoted hedonism and morality from taking place in Jakarta in the future.

Neither Anies nor Ismaya Live, the festivals promoter, have issued any public statements in response to FPIs demand.

See the original post:

FPI says it found condoms and alcohol at DWP, wants Governor Anies to ban EDM festival in the future - Coconuts

The Raiders franchise will never be the same after their move from Oakland – ClutchPoints

Posted on by

The NFL is all about money and the Oakland Raiders are making a financial decision by moving to Las Vegas. However, their decision could end up being a big mistake that may hurt the franchise forever.

After moving to Las Vegas, it will mark the second time that the Raiders have moved out of Oakland with the first being to Los Angeles. Of course, the Raiders later decided to move back to Oakland after their stint in Los Angeles. If the Raiders are smart, they will decide to follow suit after relocating to Las Vegas and get back to Oakland as soon as possible.

The biggest issue for the Raiders is they are leaving behind their most loyal fans. The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum isnt a great NFL stadium, but that was part of the lure of the team. Going into the black hole was something no team wanted to do, and they had one of the best home-field advantages in all of football. Dieter Kurtenbach of The Mercury News put the issues with moving to Las Vegas best.

Raiders fans comprise the only fanbase in sports that can rightly call itself a nation. Such is their nomadic history, their decentralization, and devotion to the squad. Raiders fans will travel from the Bay, from Los Angeles (where there are still millions of fans), and everywhere else the first few years in the desert.

But I dont think that will last long.

Theyll go. Theyll see it. And after that, theyll stay home. Televisions are pretty great these days.

And why go back? There will be no tailgating scene in Las Vegas; they didnt build enough parking lots. No Black Hole in the stadium, either; that might scare off tourists.

This new stadium couldnt be a starker departure from the Coliseum. The Coliseum was a den of hedonism for the common man. It was featureless and amenity-free, a place youd go only if you were so into football and drinking that youd forget the home team played only one playoff game in the last 17 years.

Raiders fans supported their team no matter if the team had 12 wins or two wins. In Las Vegas, its going to be hard to find that same type of loyalty and fans will quickly turn. Its worth noting, Las Vegas is also a great travel city so there will be plenty of fans from other cities flying in to see their favorite team.

After the first couple of seasons, dont be shocked if Raiders home games resemble how some of the Los Angeles Chargers home games have appeared the last couple of seasons with many fans of the away team in attendance.

See more here:

The Raiders franchise will never be the same after their move from Oakland - ClutchPoints

Kurtenbach: The Raiders are leaving behind a fanbase with a passion you cannot buy – East Bay Times

Posted on by

CLICK HERE if you are having a problem viewing the photos or video on a mobile device

OAKLAND We are long past the point of fighting the inevitable, of forlorn thoughts of what could have no, what should have been.

The Raiders are gone.

They havent packed up yet the team facility in Alameda will be operational for a few more weeks but Sundays game, a 20-16 last-minute loss to the Jacksonville Jaguars, marked the final moment that the Raiders belonged to Oakland, the symbolic end of an era.

They soon will soon fill up some boxes, put them in trucks, and head to Las Vegas to a new stadium, a new team facility, and what they think will be a brighter, more lucrative future.

But in that 560-mile move, the Raiders will be leaving their soul behind.

Things in Nevada will never be as good as they were in Oakland. At best, it will be a novelty in a city that has endless entertainment options.

And Ill bet dollars to cents that in a few years the Raiders will be the ones pushing forlorn thoughts what could have no, what should have been.

The Raiders have been fixing to leave Oakland for so long that no one not even those who booed them off the field Sunday and showered them with bottles can blame the team for finally exiting. The citys pension crisis and performative politics combined with Mark Davis leadership of the franchise created impossible barriers to an East Bay future for the Raiders, and when the state of Nevada likely duped offered nearly a billion dollars and the NFL agreed to back the move in a more-than-emotional capacity, the relocation to the desert became a no-brainer.

The NFL is big business after all, and in Las Vegas, the Raiders who reportedly ranked last in the league in revenue this past season will no longer be the leagues pauper.

Davis, who will be able to keep the family business in the family, is thrilled, though tact required him to push mixed feelings in public for the next few weeks. The NFL is thrilled, too. The cartels little-brother franchise will soon be able to live on its own, and the league will have access to Las Vegas for big events. All Roger Goodell had to do was co-sign a loan. (Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group)

The Raiders new Las Vegas stadium is being pushed as a place to see and to be seen.

Raiders fans comprise the only fanbase in sports that can rightly call itself a nation. Such is their nomadic history, their decentralization, and devotion to the squad. Raiders fans will travel from the Bay, from Los Angeles (where there are still millions of fans), and everywhere else the first few years in the desert.

But I dont think that will last long.

Theyll go. Theyll see it. And after that, theyll stay home. Televisions are pretty great these days.

And why go back? There will be no tailgating scene in Las Vegas; they didnt build enough parking lots. No Black Hole in the stadium, either; that might scare off tourists.

This new stadium couldnt be a starker departure from the Coliseum. The Coliseum was a den of hedonism for the common man. It was featureless and amenity-free, a place youd go only if you were so into football and drinking that youd forget the home team played only one playoff game in the last 17 years.

No, this new stadium will be a den of hedonism for a different clientele the whales of Las Vegas. The new digs will be full of the club levels, VIP seats, and luxury experiences that have left the 50-yard-line seats at Levis Stadium empty and a good chunk of fans in bunkers (away from the poors) at Chase Center. The Raiders dont want blue-collar in Las Vegas, they want the fans in the upper deck to be blue with envy.

Anecdotally, it seems as if the die-hard Raiders fans who would come to all eight (thats the one preseason and seven regular-season) home games at the Coliseum are going to make the trip to Vegas once, maybe twice a year.

Eventually, people will stop making trips even that infrequently.

The money that was usually spent on gas, meat for the grill, and beer (and a bottle of something hard to pass around the tailgate) will be spent at the casino. How many Saturday night crap-outs will have to happen before those field trips to Vegas become more and more infrequent?

Meanwhile, the new local market is smaller than Sacramento. But Im sure it will make up the difference, though (Aric Crabb/Bay Area News Group)

The Raiders move to Las Vegas has all the makings of a second Chargers debacle. The Bolts have played 16 road games a year since moving to Los Angeles, and the Rams arent doing much better. But the NFL is scrambling to figure out how to solve that problem now theyre inviting a second problem to form.

The Coliseum wasnt even filled for Sundays final game and that was with the tarp still on Mt. Davis.

Once the novelty of the new Vegas digs wears off once whats left of the fanbase visits the desert I expect that there will be plentyof Broncos orange, Chiefs red, and whatever-the-visiting-fanbases color is in Las Vegas. Itll be a blast of a field trip for them.

The success of the NHLs Vegas Golden Knights, who sell out the 17,000-plus seats at T-Mobile Arena 41 nights (but mostly weeknights) a season, is often cited as a reason why the Raiders will be successful in Nevada. But I dont think that analysis is taking into account that the Knights were first to market (a huge advantage in any business), were wildly successful the first year in town (making the Stanley Cup Final), and that new Raiders stadium holds nearly four times the people and will be used mostly on Sunday afternoons.

Have you ever been in Las Vegas on a Sunday afternoon? Its a somber scene with people heading to the airport and a few trying to win back what was lost. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

The kind of fans who would show up to this East Bay dump might have dwindled in number over the years, but you cant say that those who stuck around didnt care. They cared more than any of us could know.

It was the kind of passion, the kind of devotion, you cant buy.

But now the team is gone and the traditions and rituals that came with watching them here the things that made a Raiders game the last bastion of old-school football culture will have nowhere to be channeled. The Raiders just wont be The Raiders anymore.

Try as they might, theyll never be able to recreate what they had here.

Visit link:

Kurtenbach: The Raiders are leaving behind a fanbase with a passion you cannot buy - East Bay Times

A Stunning Vote Reversal in a Controversial First Amendment Case – The Atlantic

Posted on by

Garrett Epps: Dont let the First Amendment forget DeRay Mckesson

This is a theory of liability unknown to the First Amendment. In an important case arising from the civil-rights movement, the Court held in 1982 that protest leaders cant be sued for the violent actions of others unless the plaintiffs can show that the leaders themselves either engaged in violence or incited or directed the violence. Doe alleged incitement, but made no real attempt to show it.

Garrett Epps: Dont let the First Amendment forget DeRay Mckesson

The First Amendment and civil-liberties communities were shocked by the Fifth Circuits original decision, issued in April, which brushed aside the First Amendment with the breezy bromide that the First Amendment does not protect violence. The decision was unanimousWillett was on the panel, but the opinion was written by Judge E. Grady Jolly. (Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod was the third member.) That opinion was a dagger pointed at the heart of the treasured American right to protest against government action. If protest organizers can be sued, and possibly ruined, by lawsuits if anyone at their protest (even, say, an undercover police officer) turns violent, no ordinary citizen would dare organize protests.

Mckessons lawyers asked the Fifth Circuit to rehear the case en banc (as a full court); in response, the same panel withdrew its original opinion and substituted a new one that said, in legal verbiage, We agree with ourselves and by golly, we are right.

The case landed in the Supreme Courts inbox on December 6. Mckessons petition for the Court to hear the case, written by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, pointed out that the Fifth Circuit panel decision flatly defied the Courts own precedent in a landmark case called NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware. Advocates of free speech were holding their collective breath waiting to see whether this Court, which preens as a First Amendment champion when the rights of corporations or the rich are at issue, would call out the wayward panel or silently ratify its radical change in the law.

The latter course just got harder. Willett, a Trump appointee and former Texas Supreme Court justice, has now changed his vote and issued a full-throated defense of the idea that free speech covers even unruly protest.

I have had a judicial change of heart, Willett wrote. Admittedly, judges arent naturals at backtracking or about-facing. But I do so forthrightly. Consistency is a cardinal judicial virtue, but not the only virtue. In my judgment, earnest rethinking should underscore, rather than undermine, faith in the judicial process. As Justice Frankfurter elegantly put it 70 years ago, Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.

The words are true, and the practice of judicial self-examination is, while not unheard-of, regrettably rare. In this case, reexamination led Willett to see two gaping holes in the majoritys case. First, he pointed out, despite the panels earlier decision, its not clear that even Louisiana tort law would support a lawsuit against Mckesson. To reach that conclusion, the panel had to, in essence, make new Louisiana state law. Every second-year law student knows that is a practice courts of appeals are supposed to avoidespecially when doing so creates a federal constitutional issue.

The rest is here:

A Stunning Vote Reversal in a Controversial First Amendment Case - The Atlantic

Was This the Decade We Hit Peak Free Speech? – Reason

Posted on by

Speech has never been freer than it was in this decade. But only if you take a broad view of what free speech means, and only if you look at the right parts of the decade.

There is an argument that says free speech isn't just a matter of stopping direct government censorship, nor of keeping the state from indirectly chilling what we say. True freedom of expression, the theory goes, requires a broader culture of free speecha society where art, information, and commentary face fewer restraints of all kinds, not just the restraints that have the government's guns behind them.

Now, I'm not crazy about conflating the concept of free speech with those bigger, messier social questions. But they are undeniably linkeda culture hostile to open expression is surely more likely to pass legal limits on speechand those big social questions are worth thinking about in their own right. So let's roll with it. If by "free speech" you mean the capacity and willingness to speak, not just a shield from the institutions that could forcibly stop you from speaking, then the early to mid 2010s arguably saw the freest speech in history.

As the decade dawned, it was cheaper and easier than ever before to create and transmit a text, an image, or an audio or video recording. That transmission, in turn, had a bigger chance of reaching an audience. People didn't waste that opportunity: Both the volume and the variety of widely available speech exploded. Whole new media ecosystems appeared. Budding musicians did an end run around the record labels, sketch comics did an end run around cable TV, and YouTube DIYers did an end run around licensed plumbers and repairmen. In the political world, the Overton window widened and a flood of oddball ideological tribes poured insome of them rather unappealing, but that's how it goes with unfettered expression.

That in turn provoked a backlash, and for the last several years we've seen a series of efforts to clamp down on all that uncontrolled chatter. There have been heightened calls for censorship from the left, right, and center, sometimes directed at new sorts of speech (bots, code for printing weaponry) but usually aimed at targets that feel familiar (sex-work talk, terrorist propaganda, hate speech, marchers wearing masks), sometimes so familiar that they're moldy (pornography, Russian subversion). Beyond that, there was a broader feeling of brittleness around all that unfamiliar or unpleasant expression; even critics who would never call for censorship sometimes went overboard when attributing ill effects to speech they disliked. Meanwhile, the biggest conduit for all those emerging ecosystems of expressionthe internetseemed to be growing not just more censored but more centralized, more surveilled, more controlled. That was true not just in purely online spaces but in the dissident movements that at times use cyberspace to organize and communicate. Around the world, it became clear that it wasn't just protesters who were imitating and adapting each other's tactics; the regimes that they were protesting watched and learned from each other too.

All of that raises the question: Did we just witness Peak Free Speech? Will the first half of this decade be remembered not just as a time when speech was less fettered than ever before but as a time when it was less fettered than it will ever be again?

Freedom vs. Tolerance

I may have rushed too quickly past the question of what a "culture of free speech" is supposed to be. It's not a term that everyone uses the same way. The people who throw around that phrase often claim, or at least assume, that certain sorts of speech are more conducive to open expression than others. Some of them suggest that speech should be more civil; others think it ought to be more oppositional. Most of them want the speech, or at least the speakers, to be tolerant of other points of view.

But freedom and tolerance simply aren't the same thing. Both are valuable, but they're often going to be in tension with each other.

Civil libertarians need to be clear-eyed about that. Speech has always included gossip, shaming, and other tools for enforcing conformity. In the past those sorts of speech may have been confined to a single village or middle school, but now they have a global reach. Some testy "free speech" debates of the last decade have really just been battles between different collections of culture warriors, each circulating misleading screenshots as they try to shout the other side down. That may look like illiberal intolerance, but it also looks like a lot of lively speech. It's not a sort of speech that I like, but some form of it has always been a part of public life and it isn't likely to go away anytime soon.

The more important issue, at least as far as the future of free speech is concerned, is whether the institutional environment makes it easier or harder for intolerant people to muffle the speech they don't want to hear. And this is where the most significant change happened. From the '70s through the '00s, America's electronic media grew ever more decentralized and participatory. Not so in the '10s, as the social media services that made publishing so quick and easy also brought more of that publishing under consolidated corporate control. The result was the difference between getting kicked off an email list and getting kicked off a social media network: Both may be cases of a private association exercising its right not to give you a platform, but one has a much bigger impact than the other when it comes to whether your voice is heard.

This didn't mean we reverted to the bad old days of just three big TV networks, or even to the 500-channel universe of the late cable era. It was still ludicrously easy by 1990s standards to get a homemade piece of media in front of a substantial audience. But it was also more likely that your homemade media would suddenly be obscured. That might be because you broke a platform's rules; it might be because an algorithm mistook your photo of a nude sculpture for pornography and improperly assumed that you had broken a rule; it might be because you were mass-reported by the sorts of assholes that the rules were supposed to address. (Time and again, a social media company would create a system that was supposed to keep out the bigots and trolls who harass people, only to learn that the bigots and trolls had found a way to turn the system itself into a tool for harassment.) The result was more Brazil than 1984: a control apparatus full of leaks and loose wiring.

Governments encouraged the process, passing mandates that fostered both the proliferation of rules and a sloppy sort of enforcement. Germany, for example, started implementing a law last year that informed platforms that they had just 24 hours to take down "obviously unlawful" hate speech or face a steep fine. Inevitably, this combination of stiff penalties and narrow time windows prompted companies to suppress first and ask questions later, even if that meant excising speech that didn't actually violate the law. (In one infamous example, the nominally anti-racist statute was used to remove some anti-racist satire.) That's bad enough for the Germans, but in a global internet decisions made by the government of Germanyor any other wired nation, from Britain to Chinacan affect what people around the world can see.

Centralized platforms make the task that much easier. As Declan McCullagh wrote in Reason this year, they offer "a single convenient point of control for governments eager to experiment with censorship and surveillance." A culture of freer speech might require a technology of freer speecha more decentralized internet with fewer chokepoints, one built around protocols rather than platforms.

The Global Spring

All that said, there is one big reason to think the pendulum may already be swinging back in speech's direction. This year saw an astonishing level of public protest around the globe, adding up to a revolutionary moment on par with 1968. Unrest has swelled everywhere from France to Hong Kong, from Chile to Indonesia, from Iran to Ecuador, from Haiti to Spain. Such movements have already brought down governments in Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Sudan. In Bolivia, mass protests preceded the ousting of leftist president Evo Morales and then more mass protests greeted the new right-wing regime of Jeanine ez. Here in the U.S., last year saw the biggest strike wave in more than three decades, and we may be on track to top that in 2019.

These movements have been sparked by a wide variety of grievances. Their supporters come from a wide variety of ideologies. They use a wide variety of tactics, not all of them limited to nonviolent speech and assembly. It would probably be hard to find someone who backs every single one of them. But put together, they represent a surge in people's willingness not just to speak out but to take risks to do so. That too represents a sort of culture of free speech, even though many of these regimes have reacted to the unrest with a repression that does not remotely resemble free speech in the legal sense.

Those movements are learning from each other, too: When one of them figures out a way to evade censorship, surveillance, or police assaults, the others take heed. (We live in an era when Hongkongers can be recorded neutralizing tear gas in the summer, videos of the technique immediately circulate on social media, and by October protesters in Chile are doing the same thing.) After a decade of authoritarian governments adjusting themselves to the ways protesters organize themselves on- and offline, the momentum is with the dissidents again as they find ways to adjust their tactics in return.

A decade that began with the rise and fall of the Arab Spring is concluding with a Global Spring. And while that could conceivably end with the most vicious clampdown of all, it's also the best reason to hope that what looked like Peak Free Speech was really just a temporary speech recession.

See the rest here:

Was This the Decade We Hit Peak Free Speech? - Reason

Tory campus free speech bill would ‘stoke new culture war’ – Times Higher Education (THE)

Posted on by

The new Conservative government should legislate to create a national academic freedom champion, while restrictions on low-quality courses in universities could rebalance funding towards further education in a shift tailored to the Conservatives new electorate, according to a former Tory adviser and senior civil servant.

With the UKs general election having brought to power a Conservative government with a significant Commons majority, sector attention will focus on the partys manifesto commitments, which notably include pledges to strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities and to tackle the problem oflow-quality courses in England.

A paper published by Policy Exchange,titled The First Hundred Days: how the Government can implement the pledges in its 2019 election manifesto, says that ministers should move quickly to introduce an academic freedom and free speech on campus bill and thus adopt a plan advocated in arecent report on the issue by the thinktank.

Universities are a potential target if the Conservatives seek to bolster their increased support from working-class, largely non-graduate voters in towns across the Midlands and North by waging culture wars against institutions they perceive as hostile to Tory values.

Iain Mansfield, head of education, skills and science at Policy Exchange, formerly special adviser to Jo Johnson in his brief return as universities minister, said key recommendations in the thinktanks free speech report included extending the statutory duty on freedom of speech to include students and student unions as well as HEIs.

The report also recommended that the Office for Students should appoint a national academic freedom champion who would have the power to investigate allegations of academic freedom or free speech violations and then lead on sanctions where appropriate, he said.

Those would be two things which could be done by the new government, he told Times Higher Education.

Mr Mansfield, a former senior civil servant in the Department for Education, said a recent report by the Policy Institute at Kings College London had found that at least a third of Conservative or Leave-supporting students dont feel comfortable sharing their views at university.

ThePolicy Institute research also foundthat only a minority of UK students have heard about incidents where freedom of expression has been restricted in their own university.

Universities are already subject to requirements to protect freedom of expression under existing legislation.

Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute and a former Tory special adviser, said: Because the Tories did even better in the election than anybody expected, to then use that [campus free speech] as a way of stoking a new culture war, Im not sure who will benefit from that.

Its not clear to me that either the politicians or the universities benefit from pretending theres a bigger free speech problem in our universities than there really is.

And hurried legislation tends to be legislation that doesnt stand the test of time, he warned.

On the manifestos reference to low-quality courses, Mr Mansfield said this should be understood in conjunction with where the Conservatives have won seats.

I think that steers them very much towards a genuine wholesale rebalancing between HE and FE in terms of funding, numbers, esteem and so forth. I think that will have to be part of the solution [in] looking at low-quality courses.

There were a range of mechanisms for establishing which courses arent delivering, such as the teaching excellence framework, dropout rates and data on progression to employment, he said. Mr Mansfield added that he would favour the reintroduction of number caps for at least some institutions or courses.

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com

See original here:

Tory campus free speech bill would 'stoke new culture war' - Times Higher Education (THE)

Bioneers: Seeding the Field Erosion With Terry Tempest Williams Erosion With Terry Tempest Williams – Free Speech TV

Posted on by

Wind, water, and time are agents of erosion, evident from the Great Smokies to the Grand Canyon. But Terry Tempest Williams also sees another kind of erosion in America: erosion of democracy; erosion of science, and erosion of trust.

For over 30 years, #Bioneers has acted as a seed head for the game-changing social and scientific vision, knowledge and practices advancing the great transformation to a restored world. We do so through our annual national conference, award-winning media, local Bioneers conferences and initiatives, dynamic programs, and special projects.

#FreeSpeechTV is proud to partner with this outstanding organization and we are pleased to bring the wisdom of the world's brightest leaders to our viewers. For more Bioneer content subscribe to Free Speech TV Youtube channel or visit freespeech.org/shows/bioneers.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change. As the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments, and corporations, our network amplifies underrepresented voices and those working on the front lines of social, economic and environmental justice.

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

Bioneers 2019 Bioneers Seeding The Field Erosion FSTV@Bioneers2019 Nina Simons Terry Tempest Williams

Read the original:

Bioneers: Seeding the Field Erosion With Terry Tempest Williams Erosion With Terry Tempest Williams - Free Speech TV

Opinion: Are we about to have another ‘free speech’ debate in Denmark? If so, Ill pass – The Local Denmark

Posted on by

On Wednesday, sections of the country and its social media were up in arms after Pernille Vermund, leader of the stridently anti-immigration, right-wing Nye Borgerlige party, used the word perker the Danish languages quintessential ethnic slur in a television documentary.

READ ALSO: Danish party leader uses ethnic slur in TV documentary

Vermund subsequently doubled down on the remark, saying I don't regret it. Let's call things what they are. If you're a negro, you're a negro; if you're aperker, you're aperker, if you're an immigrant, you're an immigrant.

Understandably, that got a reaction.

Natasha al-Hariri, director of the youth organization of the Danish Refugee Council, has called for a broad rejection of Vermunds sentiments.

Should we not show the 400,000 people in Denmark who could be considered perkere that we dont accept this type of derisory, racist remark? It would actually be nice if someone bothered, al-Hariri tweeted.

She is of course completely correct, and as a target of such abuse has a lot more authority to speak on it than I do.

Politicians including Sikandar Siddique, immigration spokesperson with the environmentalist Alternative party, and Social Liberal deputy leader Sofie Carsten Nielsen have in fact spoken out against Vermund and to support al-Hariris view.

Weve been here before though, and the next steps are clear.

Vermund or a like-minded high-profile person will say she can say use the word or any other word she wishes to because in Denmark there is free speech, and that will never be curbed by any kind of censorship.

The 2005 Mohammed cartoons, still a high water mark for Danish cultural tunnel vision, and multiple defences of the use of other words with overtones of racial prejudice neger is the primary example provide the precedents for where were headed here.

READ ALSO:

Its fine, goes the logic, to be politically incorrect and say or do something which has an othering effect on a large segment of your own society, because free speech.

Even if it makes your advanced, stable, pragmatic democracy seem like a tribute act to 19th century parochialism, thats okay. Because free speech.

I get it. Denmark has free speech. Nothing is sacred. You can make distasteful jokes and laugh at inappropriate things. Im all for that, its part of the honest, straightforward mentality that makes Denmark unique.

Its not an excuse to piss people off for the sake of it. That is what Vermund is doing here and what Rasmus Paludan, the leader of a far-right group which, unlike Vermund's, was rejected by the electorate, was prepared to go to far more extreme lengths to achieve.

After making an unprovoked verbal attack on your chosen target community, you can then invoke free speech, make yourself a victim of political correctness and censorship, and use that to try and drive a wedge down the middle of the population.

Weve seen the long term outcome of that kind of thing in other Western democracies which I wont mention here (okay, maybe I will).

Last week did indeed see unpleasant opposing demonstrations in Copenhagen between an Islamophobic organization and counter protestors. But Denmark is too pragmatic overall and its political system too sensible and consensus-driven for it to go down the route of the US or UK.

Furthermore, the country is stable and, while of course far from perfect, doesnt have societal ills of a requisite magnitude that they can convincingly be blamed on any particular segment, either fairly or unfairly.

So retrograde, racially divisive language must instead by justified by the Denmark has free speech argument.

MPs and anyone else using this kind of language in the public debate should realize that what theyre doing is not plain talking. Its plain embarrassing, for them and for Denmark.

Read this article:

Opinion: Are we about to have another 'free speech' debate in Denmark? If so, Ill pass - The Local Denmark

There’s a new free speech crisis gripping the worldand governments aren’t helping – Prospect

Posted on by

A new study shows that artists across the world are facing greater threats to their free speechand safety. Photo: PA Images

Scottish playwright Jo Clifford is no stranger to controversy. Her play,The Gospel According to Jesus, Queen of Heaven, casts Jesus as a trans woman, andfirst aired at Glasgows Tron in 2009 to a reception of applauseand protest.But there is controversy, and then there is outright danger. The same play was on tour in Brazil until recently, when asmoke bombwas thrown into the performance space and armed police invaded the theatre. Brazil hasbecome a country where it is dangerous to perform, especially if your show does not tick the boxes set out by the new right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro, who haspushedfor local art to focus on Brazilian heroes.

The incident warns of a new threat sweeping the world right now: the censorship of the arts. Aspecial reportin the latestIndex on Censorshipmagazine published this week shows a rising hostile climate towards the arts, even in robust democracies. Artists from around the world, including Germany, Poland, Brazil, and the UK spoke of the increasing threats to their artistic freedom as a result of an emboldened right. Perhaps most startling was the frequencyof attacks in the field.Indexwent out expecting to find just a few examples. Instead, the list was endless.

A threat from the right

While the spotlightin recent years has been on censorship from the student left, with concerns about the rise of safe spaces, trigger warnings and no-platforming, real and increasing threats are coming from the right. They are taking away our libertiesand liberal arts.

We are on the front line of a culture war that will only deepen and strengthen as the ecological and financial crisis worsens and the right feel more fearfully they are losing their grip on power, saidThe Gospel According to Jesus playwright Clifford.She added that even in Scotland, her play can ruffle feathers.Last Christmas there was a run at Edinburghs Traverse Theatre. An online petition demanding the play be banned, she tells me, attracted a whopping 24,674 signatures.

Germany is particularly feeling the heat.The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has gone from newcomer on the political scene in 2013 to being the largest opposition party in the Bundestag today. They are eyeing up seats in parliamentand in the theatre. Marc Jongen, commonly regarded tobe

YOUVE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.But dont worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register well also send you a free e-bookWriting with punchwhich includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And well also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

11962887355dfef207b6ebc5.85908734

View post:

There's a new free speech crisis gripping the worldand governments aren't helping - Prospect

Readers sound off on campus free speech, impeachment and the death penalty – New York Daily News

Posted on by

Brooklyn: Just finished watching a fabulous show on CNN titled The Sixties." During that era, groups like the Stones, Beatles, Animals, Beach Boys, The Who, Dylan, etc., never thought about getting older. I am now in my seventies and am moving on with it. All these 60s people have to do the same. Sometimes when I see these groups at present time, I think, Leave us with the way you were, not who you are now. Its okay. Unfortunately, youth does not last forever, physically anyway. I still can get into the songs and stuff with my mind, but when I look in the mirror I see a different face. So, I will continue to watch and listen to my 60s people, but sometimes, its time to move on. Love all you guys. Rita Leslie

Read more:

Readers sound off on campus free speech, impeachment and the death penalty - New York Daily News

College hosts free speech training after harassment of conservative group – The College Fix

Posted on by

Incident at College of Lake County had targeted YAF club

After a College of Lake County adviser hung flyers accusing a conservative club on campus of being a hate group, the Illinois school hosted free speech trainings for faculty and staff.

In November, an employee of the college hung flyers stating hate groups are not welcome here and other materials accusing Young Americans for Freedom of being a hate group.

YAF student Chairman Rob Corn said in a Facebook post: Ive been going to this school for two years, and this isnt anything new. The intolerance of the left on our campus is rampant.

But after the incident, the college hosted free speech training sessions.

A student activities director told Corn that the first question discussed at these sessions was whether or not the YAF chapter was a hate group, to which the schools lawyers affirmed that the chapter was NOT a hate group, and has every right to exist on campus, YAF reported in a news release.

Faculty and advisers were also instructed to help students comply with free speech protocols on campus and assist them to navigate free speech issues, especially speech that may be controversial, according to YAF, which obtained the training documents.

The presentation also directed faculty to help students ensure that their free speech is not subject to regulation under the First Amendment.

Another slide instructed faculty and advisers to avoid treating protected speech as actionable misconduct and that expressions of hateful or offensive views do not constitute unlawful harassment, even if they offend listeners.

In an email to The College Fix, YAF spokesman Spencer Brown called the training another victory for YAFs student activists, and praised the campus YAF chapter for its boldness in confronting the administration.

The campus Lefts attempts to sideline and silence conservatives backfired when Young Americans for Freedom activists at CLC refused to give up, he said in the email. CLC is now taking steps to do what more universities should: train their staff and faculty to understand that the First Amendment must apply equally to all students, regardless of viewpoint.

MORE:As YAF president, Scott Walker vows to open the eyes of the next generation

IMAGE: Shutterstock

Read More

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

See the original post:

College hosts free speech training after harassment of conservative group - The College Fix

White House explains to Haaretz how its anti-Semitism executive order will work in practice – Haaretz

Posted on by

WASHINGTON The White House is pushing back against criticism of its new executive order on anti-Semitism, specifically with regards to accusations that it will harm free speech on U.S. campuses.

The executive order was signed by President Donald Trump last week and has drawn strong praise from leading mainstream Jewish-American organizations, but also criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union and from several progressive Jewish groups.

The first wave of criticism focused on media reports that characterized the executive order as redefining Jewishness as a nationality. That description was not based on the orders actual text, which states that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits federal funding of institutions that discriminate against a person or a group based on nationality, race or color will also include anti-Semitism.

The main reason for the Jewishness as nationality interpretation was because Title VI does not apply to religious groups. However, the U.S. government has been treating anti-Semitism as a form of discrimination that falls under Title VI for more than a decade, thanks to decisions taken by government agencies during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Jared Kushner, Trumps son-in-law and senior adviser, played a key role in getting the president to sign the executive order. He rejected that interpretation in a New York Times Op-Ed published last week. When news of the impending executive order leaked, many rushed to criticize it without understanding its purpose, Kushner wrote. The executive order does not define Jews as a nationality. It merely says that to the extent that Jews are discriminated against for ethnic, racial or national characteristics, they are entitled to protection by the anti-discrimination law.

The confusion over the nationality issue wasnt limited only to the executive orders critics but also to some of its supporters. Brooke Goldstein, executive director of The Lawfare Project an organization that uses lawsuits to fight the movement to boycott Israel and the settlements in the occupied territories praised Trump for a groundbreaking executive order that acknowledges Judaism as a nationality not just a religion.

The White House battled these interpretations following the initial news reports about the executive order, and the criticism lessened once the full text became available. (It was first published by journalist Jacob Kornbluh in Jewish Insider on December 11.)

We've got more newsletters we think you'll find interesting.

Please try again later.

The email address you have provided is already registered.

The executive order is still facing strong criticism, however, over concerns that it harms and limits freedom of speech on American campuses. That criticism centers around how the executive order defines anti-Semitism.

Israeli political discourse

The executive order essentially says that if the U.S. Department of Education gets a complaint under Title VI that a university receiving federal grants is discriminating against Jewish students for anti-Semitic reasons, the university can lose its funding. The main controversy is over what exactly constitutes anti-Semitic conduct.

The executive order relies on the definition of anti-Semitism that was published by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016. The IHRA defines anti-Semitism as a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The executive order refers to the IHRA working definition as non-legally binding, and says that when trying to determine whether a certain action is anti-Semitic, the U.S. Department of Education should consider this definition.

In addition, the executive order says the Department of Education should consider the contemporary examples of anti-Semitism that are part of the IHRA definition. These are what critics of the executive order are most concerned about.

The list of examples published by the IHRA includes examples that are indisputably anti-Semitic such as denying the facts of the Holocaust or calling for the killing or harming of Jews. Several examples, however, describe criticism against Israel. One such example is applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. Another example is comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of Nazi Germany.

These two specific examples are part of the political discourse within Israel itself, and are not limited to one side of the Israeli political divide. It is common for Israeli politicians to say that because Israel is a Jewish state, for example, it should be a light unto the nations and demand of itself higher standards than other countries.

As for comparisons with Nazi Germany, they have been made over the years by political figures from both the Israeli right and left, usually against each other, but also against state institutions such as the police and the military.

Haaretz asked the White House how these contemporary examples would, in practice, impact universities that receive federal grants from the government. Could, for example, a university lose federal grants if a student complained about a professor or guest lecturer saying in the classroom that something Israel did is reminiscent of actions taken by Nazi Germany? And could it lose funding over an event that supports an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories something a right-wing Jewish organization could describe as requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation?

Avi Berkowitz, a close adviser to Kushner and heavily involved in working on the executive order, says the answer is no. A complaint against a lecture as you describe would not trigger Title VI, he says. In order for Title VI to apply, there has to be actionable conduct. Title VI requires a certain level of conduct, and the executive order does not change that requirement. The lecture remains protected speech.

In other words, the Department of Education would not respond to a complaint about a statement alone. It would only respond to complaints about actionable conduct meaning an action that could count as discrimination.

The executive order is relevant if there is conduct that rises to the level of possible discriminatory action and the university needs to determine motive, Berkowitz says. For example, lets say a Jewish group, like Hillel, wants to reserve rooms for meetings but the administrator repeatedly refuses, so they cant meet and they suspect there is something underhanded about the process. They file a complaint. If during the investigative process it is discovered that the administrator has written emails saying that he/she would never reserve rooms for Jews, and that email includes anti-Semitic reasons, these emails may be relevant to show whether the conduct had a discriminatory motive, which is necessary for Title VI to apply.

Intimidation technique

Prof. Kenneth Stern has been one of the executive orders leading critics. He was previously the American Jewish Committees expert on anti-Semitism and is currently director of a program on hate at Bard College in New York. Following the executive orderspublication last week, he wrote an article in The Guardian warning about the threat it will pose to freedom of speech on campuses.

Stern explained that he was personally involved in writing an earlier anti-Semitism definition that was the basis for the 2016 IHRA definition. That definition, he wrote, was meant for the purpose of data collection and research. It was never intended to be a campus hate speech code, but thats what Donald Trumps executive order accomplished this week. This order is an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself.

Stern also wrote: If you think this isnt about suppressing political speech, contemplate a parallel. Theres no definition of anti-black racism that has the force of law when evaluating a Title VI case. If you were to craft one, would you include opposition to affirmative action? Opposing removal of Confederate statues?

Speaking with Haaretz this week, Stern says he is concerned that right-wing Jewish organizations will use the executive order to go after people they disagree with, using the IHRA definition to accuse people of anti-Semitism for political reasons. He compares that to a trend on the political left in the United States to come and tell universities, We need a safe space to protect us from ideas we disagree with. Thats not a good thing, and now the Jewish right-wing will try to do the same, basically saying: Protect us too.

In response to the same question Haaretz presented to the White House Could a university lose funding over something said in class by a professor? Stern says he could not rule it out completely, but its not very likely.

The main problem, in his view, is that youre going to have groups on the right using this to try and intimidate the universities because even if they file a complaint knowing theres a 99 percent chance it wont be accepted, would the university be willing to take the risk?

Stern adds that complaints like this basically accusing universities of anti-Semitism will also come with bad press coverage and public pressure. This could lead to self-censorship, just in order to avoid all the trouble. This is how you can stifle debate.

Stern refers to a comment made in 2013 by Kenneth Marcus a senior Department of Education official appointed by Trump who was personally involved in several attempts to present Title VI cases against universities prior to joining the White House. Marcus wrote that while most of those cases alleging anti-Semitic discrimination didnt lead to any federal action, the cases were still successful because of the damage they caused to those they were filed against: Getting caught up in a civil rights complaint is not a good way to build a rsum or impress a future employer, he wrote.

Fear of such a scenario was also mentioned in a public letter to Trump by the Middle East Studies Association last week: It is not difficult to imagine how this executive order could induce colleges and universities seeking to avoid investigation and possible sanction by the Department of Education to adopt measures that limit or suppress the unfettered expression of the full range of views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and advocacy for particular perspectives on it, it stated.

Under siege

Lara Friedman of the Foundation for Middle East Peacealso warned of a similar scenario, in an article published last week on the website Responsible Statecraft: The goal of this effort, and the ones that will certainly follow, is clear: To punish campuses that protect free speech on Israel-Palestine, and to have a chilling effect on academic institutions across the board, ensuring that campus administrators and donors choose to preemptively quash criticism and activism related to Israel rather than risk reputational harm, legal jeopardy, and potential loss of funding.

The White House rejects these arguments, explaining that any complaint based on speech and not actual conduct would be rejected, and that after one or two such complaints fail to succeed, it will be clear what the executive order can actually be used for and where it isnt relevant.

David Bernstein, a law professor at George Mason University, believes the executive order is mostly symbolic. However, he notes, Jewish students at many campuses really feel under siege, which is why it matters that groups like the Anti-Defamation League, that hate Trump, are supporting it.

After the executive order was signed, Jesse Singal in New York magazine used the following example to try to explain its potential impact: Imagine that a pro-Palestinian student group arouses the ire of a local Hillel chapter, and the Hillel members decide they are experiencing discrimination because the pro-Palestinian group is holding Israel to a double standard. The Department of Education agrees and threatens to yank the university in questions funding, and the university, backed into a corner, bans the club.

Bernstein tells Haaretz there is nothing in the law that would allow for this. First, lets recall that the IHRA definition only comes into play as evidence of discriminatory intent. You need to have an underlying illegal act. Holding Israel to a double standard may be anti-Semitic, but expressing anti-Semitic ideas is not illegal, under Title VI or otherwise.

According to Bernstein, The only plausible threat from the IHRA definition is that a university administrator will misinterpret it as applying to hostile environment liability. In such a scenario, a pro-Israel Jewish student could claim that the university is creating a hostile environment by allowing an organization that supports boycotting Israel or the settlements to have a presence on campus. However, Bernstein says, the executive order doesnt refer at all to the issue of hostile environment liability. In Bernsteins view, The ultimate problem is with the broad scope of hostile environment law, not the executive order.

Bard Colleges Stern is concerned that the executive order, regardless of its impact on free speech, will also have an adverse effect on the very issue of fighting anti-Semitism.

I think the real way to confront this is to educate people about anti-Semitism, and about Israel and Zionism and I say this as a Zionist, he says. This is what I want to see universities investing in. Suppressing speech we dont like isnt the solution to this problem.

Read more:

White House explains to Haaretz how its anti-Semitism executive order will work in practice - Haaretz

First Five: Were divided in new ways over core freedoms – McDowell News

Posted on by

The least-recognized of the amendments five freedoms assembly and petition are facing perhaps the most-immediate challenges, though freedoms of press, speech and religion dont escape unscathed.

At years end, First Amendment issues are as controversial and multi-faceted as anything in our fractured, divided society.

The least-recognized of the amendments five freedoms assembly and petition are facing perhaps the most-immediate challenges, though freedoms of press, speech and religion dont escape unscathed.

Most immediately, a Black Lives Matter activist faces a lawsuit from a Baton Rouge, La., police officer who blamed the activist for injuries he suffered at a 2016 protest over the police killing of a black man. The suit doesnt claim the activist threw or even encouraged the throwing of a rock; rather, it seeks damages because the man led others to block a highway where the violent incident occurred.

A recent Washington Post story notes that Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) plans to introduce legislation to hold protesters arrested during unpermitted demonstrations liable for police overtime and other fees around such demonstrations.

In more than a dozen states in recent years, from Oregon to Florida, lawmakers have faced proposals to increase penalties for obstructing streets and highways and to limit the financial liability of drivers whose cars injure protesters. In Arizona, a failed 2017 proposal rooted in that states racketeering laws would have permitted the arrest and seizure of homes and other assets of those whom simply plan a protest in which some act of violence occurs.

In a similar financial penalty vein, several major news operations face defamation lawsuits seeking massive damages over their coverage of news events claims certain to roil public debate once again about the role, credibility and performance of the nations free press. Critics also say such lawsuits even if unlikely to succeed are effectively attempts to chill reporting and intimidate corporate owners.

Prominent among those filing the lawsuits is Rep. Devin Nunes, (R-Calif.), who wants $435 million dollars from CNN for a report he says falsely linked him to events in the ongoing Ukraine-Biden investigation controversy. He also is seeking $150 million from The Fresno Bee over a report involving a workplace scandal at a winery in which Nunes has a stake, $75 million from Hearst over an Esquire article regarding a family farm in Iowa, with the claim the magazine has an axe to grind against him and a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter for what he says is its intentional effort to downplay conservative content as well as two parody accounts that mock him.

In the introduction to the most recent lawsuit, Nunes says CNN is the mother of fake news. It is the least trusted name. CNN is eroding the fabric of America, proselytizing, sowing distrust and disharmony. It must be held accountable.

Moving to another area of contention, campus free speech issues continue to vex collegiate communities, from complaints that conservative speech and views of faculty and staff are stifled, to a move by President Trump that he says will fight against anti-Semitism but that critics say is really intended to punish student or faculty advocacy for the BDS Movement boycotts, divestiture or sanctions aimed at ending international support for Israel.

Much like the campus controversies, interpretations of religious liberty regarding public policy continued to swirl through the year. As the Supreme Courts 2019-20 term began in October, at least eight cases touching on faith issues the most in recent years were scheduled to be heard. A number involved LGBTQ rights regarding employment or health benefits. While some cases do not directly involve religious organizations, the courts decisions would affect arguments over whether religious beliefs can negate claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.

An expansion of First Amendment protection for commercial speech (which at one time did not exist in law) continues, as courts at least give serious consideration to a variety of business arguments. In several instances, corporate lawyers are arguing that to force companies to make certain disclosures about product content or sources is an unacceptable requirement that violates the First Amendment by forcing companies to speak.

Other cases involve claims of free speech protection for hospitals facing a Trump administration rule requiring disclosure of secret rates. Industry groups filed a lawsuit earlier this month, also claiming it is compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.

New technology continues inexorably to challenge long-standing law. In a mix of free speech and public safety concerns, a Texas man was sentenced in February to eight years in prison for using a 3-D printer to construct a plastic handgun and ammunition in violation of a prior court order against owning of a firearm. Advocates for the so-called 3-D gun argue the computer instructions in such 3-D printing projects are speech and not subject to federal or state firearms regulations. Government officials say existing criminal law on issues such as possession and manufacturing should allow them to regulate or ban making or owning such weapons.

Government officials and social media critics continue to hammer operations such as Facebook and Twitter which are not government entities, but private concerns not governed by the First Amendment with regulatory threats over political advertising, hate speech and evidence of foreign election interference.

Threatened action ranges from using anti-trust legislation to break up the largest social media companies, to removal of what is known as Section 230 protection for companies (from the Communications Decency Act of 1996) that now permits them to avoid legal responsibility for content they simply carry, rather than material they create or significantly edit.

Opponents of watering down or removing Section 230 protection say either action would, in effect, end the web as we know it by shutting down the flow of information to the mere trickle of items or articles that could be independently verified by internet providers, or to bland factual accounts devoid of opinion or interpretation.

The year 2019 may well go down in First Amendment history as a turning point, in which those working to limit or control information avoided direct confrontations over First Amendment rights and turned to tactics designed to make it much more difficult, much too costly or even financially ruinous to exercise those rights.

Link:

First Five: Were divided in new ways over core freedoms - McDowell News

The Top 4 Rsum MythsBusted – Forbes

Posted on by

Shutterstock

When clients first contact me for rsum help, they often say things like I heard that you should never or I was told to always Most of these rules are just plain wrong, because they contradict the one Golden Rule of Rsum Writing: your why you should hire me message needs to jump off the page in the 15 seconds or less that your rsum is being reviewed (one study says your rsum is looked at for only 7.4 seconds).

Keeping the Golden Rule in mind, lets look at the top four rsum myths that Ive come across in my work with clients.

Your rsum should not be a literal list of all the things you did in your career. Instead, make it a document that quickly tells an employer how you can help them by using selective emphasis and inclusion. That is, keep the Golden Rule in mind. For example:

If you are too literal in describing your experiences, both you and your prospective employer might lose out, the latter because they wont truly understand your value.

Most rsum reviewers are not thinking oh this rsum is on two pages (or three pages), forget it. What they are thinking instead is I only have a few seconds to look at this and figure out if a conversation is worthwhile. You therefore need to prioritize ensuring that your rsum can be quickly scanned for value over having your rsum conform to a predefined length.

I too often see rsums with fonts that are too small, margins that are too narrow or space between jobs or experiences that is almost nonexistent all to make the rsum shorter. The result looks like a wall of tiny text thats difficult to quickly scan. Address these issues if present in your rsum, and make use of white space so that the reader can quickly skim through your rsum and pick out the key points.

Similarly, too many rsum writers leave out highly resonant accomplishments for the sake of one or two-pages, which is counterproductive. Dont hurt your case in service of a rule that most rsum reviewers arent thinking about!

The benefits of de-prioritizing page length in favor of these other factors have been evident in the results from my work with over a thousand clients, where their one page, two page or even three or four page rsums have landed them interviews. My career-coach colleagues longer yet concise rsums are similarly being selected for interviews and high praise as well. To take one of many examples, my work with universities enables me to see which undergrad rsums recruiters select out of a pile. Very often, they select the rsum that goes onto two pages out of a bunch of one-page rsums.

That said, ensure your rsum is as concise as possible (remember the Golden Rule). Make every word count. For example, when I see that a rsum is just over two pages, Im usually able to find and remove unnecessary words or phrases to get it onto two.

This myth violates the spirit of the Golden Rule, as you can see in these examples.

The bottom line: add experience to your rsum if it helps, take out or deemphasize experience if it doesnt.

Some jobseekers feel they need to use a different rsum format to hide issues with their experience. These issues include long gaps in employment, relevant experience that is old, or perceived experience gaps resulting from an attempt at a career or industry change.

Look, Im all for breaking convention when doing so will help you to get across your why hire me message more effectively. But dispensing with the reverse chronological format will have the opposite effect. The rsum reviewer will get confused by a different format than the reverse-chronological one that they see on 99% of rsums; they either wont take the time to figure out what youre doing, or they will think youre hiding something.

Theres a better way to handle problems, and its called a Summary Section. Place it at the top of your rsum (the first thing the reader sees), and think of it as your elevator speech or pitch.

Include: 1) your target position, i.e. what box you would fall into within an organization chart, 2) what differentiates you from your competition, and 3) your summarized greatest hits hard hitting bulleted accomplishments so they dont have to go searching on page two to find that amazing accomplishment you want them to see (you may repeat these accomplishments later in the rsum if appropriate).

By the way, the analysis of myths one and three applies equally to your LinkedIn profile.

Read more here:

The Top 4 Rsum MythsBusted - Forbes

Reptile Research – Avoiding the Snake Pit – Lexology

Posted on by

We made a statement in our recent Age of Reptiles post concerning the decision, Fitzpatrick v. Wendys Old Fashioned Hamburgers, ___ N.E.3d ___, 2019 WL 5792847 (Mass. App. Nov. 7, 2019), that we had to check. We described Fitzpatrick as the first appellate case we know of that has specifically addressed and declared certain reptile trial tactics improper. We certainly thought so, but to make sure we searched Westlaw since 2009 (when the first reptile theory book was published) for a combination of reptile theory, reptile strategy, and reptile tactics. It turned out that we were, indeed, right so we went with that description.

That research also turned up about 50 cases.

Why not take a look at those more generally?

So we did.

Kansas seems to be a reptilian hotbed. In the only instance that reptile litigation issues have produced a high-court decision, the Kansas Supreme Court held reptile litigation strategy (a phrase we hadnt searched previously) improper but harmless in Castleberry v. DeBrot, 424 P.3d 495, 508 (Kan. 2018).

The safe medicine or unsafe medicine argument [here] . . . invited the jury to determine whether [defendants] conduct met the standard of care based on whether it desired safe medicine or unsafe medicine, instead of the evidence and the law . . . . As phrased, the comment implied the jurys decision could reach beyond the confines of the case and impact medical care elsewhere. As presented in this case, the comments were error.

Id. Shortly after Castlebury, grant of an anti-reptile theory order in limine was affirmed in Perez v. Ramos, 429 P.3d 254, 2018 WL 5305614, at *9 (Kan. App. 2018) (table). While affirmance was largely based on plaintiffs failure to preserve an initial objection, Perez added some useful context about the reptile theorys improper intentions and trial tactics:

[T]he reptile theory . . . begins with the premise that neither reason (application of the law) nor sympathy (pity for the plaintiff) will motivate jurors to award a larger verdict. The only way to return such a favorable verdict is to appeal to jurors survival instincts (coined as their reptilian brains). The goal is to persuade jurors that their own safety is at risk and that a larger plaintiffs verdict will make them safer by making their community safer. When employing the reptile theory . . ., a plaintiffs lawyer tries to establish several generic safety rules such as rules of the road which may or may not have anything to do with the specific facts of the case. Reliance on these safety rules then activates the survival instinct of the jurors and prompts the jury to return a higher verdict.

Id. (citation omitted). See also Bryson v. Genesys Regional Medical Center, 2018 WL 1611438, at *18 (Mich. App. April 3, 2018) (while argument by plaintiff that the [defendants] residents did not act in the safest manner possible was improper use of reptile theory, the error was harmless). Cf. Ramirez v. Welch, 2018 WL 3725254, at *16 (Tex. App. Aug. 6, 2018) (affirming defense verdict; defense counsels argument explaining the plaintiffs lawyers trick called the reptile theory was proper); Johnson v. National Sea Products, Ltd., 35 F.3d 626, 632 (1st Cir. 1994) (proper standard of care was what is reasonable under the circumstances, not in the safest possible way) (pre-reptile) (applying Massachusetts law).

Most of the relevant decisions involve motions in limine seeking to preclude reptile-style antics in the courtroom. An outstanding example is Brooks v. Caterpillar Global Mining America, LLC, 2017 WL 3401476 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 8, 2017). Brooks accurately described the basic thrust of the reptile theory:

The Reptile Theory appears to be in use by the plaintiffs bar . . . as a way of showing the jury that the defendants conduct represents a danger to the survival of the jurors and their families. The Reptile Theory encourages plaintiffs to appeal to the passion, prejudice, and sentiment of the jury. Utilization of the Reptile Theory encourages jurors to decide a lawsuit based upon fear, generated by plaintiffs counsel, that a verdict in favor of the defendant will harm the safety of the community, and, thus, the juror.

Id. at *8 (citations and quotation marks omitted). With that introduction, Brooks granted in limine relief against reptile tactics:

Reptile Theory arguments appear to mirror the send the message or conscience of the community arguments discussed previously. . . . Similarly, any argument by Plaintiffs counsel that attempts to urge the jury to render a verdict against Defendant on the basis of fear for the safety of the community or fear for the safety of the jury and their families is inappropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may not properly argue that the lawsuit was brought to ensure or promote community safety.

Id. at *9 (citation omitted).

In Woulard v. Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc., 2019 WL 3318467 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 4, 2019), rather than attacking reptile tactics globally, the defendant sought to exclude any reference to safety rules, and other reference to generic safety guidelines. Id. at *2. That was sufficiently specific that the plaintiff caved. Thus:

To the extent Defendants seek to exclude non-specific safety rules or the so-called Reptile Theory, this request will be granted as unopposed. These items are not relevant to any issue in the present case, see Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and even if marginally relevant, the probative value of such evidence or argument would be substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, and wasting time, see Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence and argument related to non-specific safety rules or employing the Reptile Theory will be excluded at trial, including during voir dire.

Id. at *3. Further, any third-party safety guidelines will be excluded at trial, unless and until Plaintiff first demonstrates outside the presence of the jury how any such guidelines are relevant. Id. Plaintiff was reminded that it is the exclusive province of the Court, and not counsel, to instruct the jury on what law controls the outcome of this case. Id. See Compton v. Bach, 374 F. Supp.3d 1296, 1304 (N.D. Ga. 2019) (reptile strategy precluded to the extent Plaintiffs intend to argue damages should be set to punish Defendant or to send a message); Locke v. Swift Transportation Co., LLC, 2019 WL 6037666, at *1-2 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 14, 2019) (precluding attempts to supplant the required standard of care with appeals to the jurys emotion, barring questions, evidence, or arguments that the jury should send a message, protect the public, or punish, and prohibiting Golden Rule argument); J.B. v. Missouri Baptist Hospital, 2018 WL 746302, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 7, 2018) (granting in limine motion in medical malpractice case, which does not consider safety rules and community standards as a factor).

In Roman v. MSL Capital, LLC, 2019 WL 1449499 (C.D. Cal. March 29, 2019), an in limine motion to preclude reptilian arguments succeeded because the court equated them with prohibited golden rule arguments:

While Plaintiffs do not clearly define the Reptile Theory strategy, [defendants] motion suggests . . . arguments are those which ask the jury to place themselves in the shoes of a reasonable person.

Given the probability that golden rule arguments . . . would cause a jury to depart from impartiality, the Court finds that they are improper [under] Fed. R. Evid. 403. . . . As the Ninth Circuit . . ., courts have generally found arguments such as these improper, because a jury which has put itself in the shoes of one of the parties is no longer an impartial jury.

Id. at *5 (discussing Minato v. Scenic Airlines, Inc., 908 F. 2d 977 (9th Cir. 1990)). The golden rule argument has repeatedly succeeded against reptilian advocates, even when motions are otherwise denied. See Walden v. Maryland Casualty Co., 2018 WL 6445549, at *3 (D. Mont. Dec. 10, 2018) (partially granting motion as to the use of golden rule arguments that . . . request the jury to consider how much they would wish to receive in a similar situation); Grisham v. Longo, 2018 WL 4404069, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 14, 2018) (The court will not allow evidence in the form of testimony or otherwise or any questions intended to elicit such evidence regarding golden rule arguments, appeals to the jury as the conscience of the community, or any other reptile theory arguments.); Aidini v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2017 WL 10775082, at *1 (D. Nev. April 12, 2017) (counsel is prohibited from making statements that would place the jury in [plaintiffs] skin, or would otherwise violate the Golden Rule or any other applicable restriction on counsels arguments); Turner v. Salem, 2016 WL 4083225, at *3 (W.D.N.C. July 29, 2016) (The Court will not allow Golden Rule arguments. The Court also discourages Reptile Theory arguments, but only upon objection at trial); Colman v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2016 WL 4543119, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2016) (precluding reptile strategy amounting to golden rule arguments); Pracht v. Saga Freight Logistics, LLC, 2015 WL 6622877, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2015) (granting motion to prohibit any Golden Rule argument and/or Reptile Theory questions and argument).

A stellar trial court opinion from Colorado also caged the reptile. In Haste v. SCL Health Front Range, Inc., 2017 WL 4857748 (Colo. Dist. April 19, 2017), the court held that reptilian tactics emphasizing safety rules and the like were improper Golden Rule arguments dressed up in scaly disguise:

Strategies like this are in violation of well-settled, Colorado law, and are a transparent attempt to introduce prohibited Golden Rule evidence. . . . By painting Defendant as in violation of certain safety rules, or as a public threat that the jurors are uniquely positioned to prevent, Plaintiffs use of the Reptile trial strategy would impermissibly ask the jurors to place themselves in Plaintiffs shoes, to depart from neutrality and decide the case on the basis of personal interest, emotion, and bias rather than on the evidence, and to deter the alleged threat Defendant poses to the community before it can harm them, their loved ones, or the community at large. Such argument or implication is legally inappropriate and unduly prejudicial pursuant to C.R.E. 403.

Moreover, it shifts the focus from the evidence in the case . . ., and impermissibly broadens the case by replacing specific evidence of conduct with considerations of potential future threats to the community. The true charge of the jury is to resolve the specific claim between the litigants before it, not to attempt to enhance society-wide safety with each verdict. Therefore, the Court should enter an Order precluding Plaintiff from using the Reptilian trial strategy, or others like it, at trial.

Id. at *3 (citations, footnotes, and quotation marks omitted). In limine relief was particularly important, Haste held, because of the reptilian response to trial objections. [A]s REPTILE emphasizes, if defense counsel is forced to object when Plaintiffs counsel inappropriately uses these tactics at trial, the defense objection will imply theres something to hide. Id. (quoting Ball & Keenan, Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution, at 58 (Balloon Press 2009)). See Hopper v. Obergfell, 2013 Colo. Dist. Lexis 249, at *1 (Colo. Dist. Oct. 29, 2013) (precluding reptile tactics).

Numerous other trial court orders come to similar results, but often without much reasoning:

Arizona: Boyd v. Allied Van Lines Inc., 2019 WL 4575652, at *3 (Ariz. Super. June 21, 2019) (Plaintiffs or their counsel are precluded from making arguments, giving testimony, asking lines of questions, or making comments referencing the golden rule, general community safety or other reptilian tactics); Dumbrell v. Hanson, 2018 WL 6511113, at *1 (Ariz. Super. Oct. 8, 2018) (precluding reptile tactics).

California: Desautels v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 2019 WL 5680670, at *2 (Cal. Super. Oct. 21, 2019) (Granted as it pertains to a pure reptile theory concept of asking the jury to consider issues such as risks to the community, or to put themselves into the shoes of the Plaintiff.); Pawlowski v. GE Realprop, L.P., 2019 WL 5693511, at *1 (Cal. Super. Sept. 21, 2019) (precluding reptile tactics); Luo v. Rodriguez, 2019 WL 3246680, at *1 (Cal. Super. June 11, 2019) (precluding any and all evidence and argument based on the Reptile Theory including but not limited to evidence and argument that the defendants acts and/or omissions were not the safest); Bowman v. Bukata, 2019 WL 4854907, at *1 (Cal. Super. June 10, 2019) (precluding reptile tactics); Garcia v. Gray, 2019 WL 3246684, at *1 (Cal. Super. June 4, 2019) (same); Reyes v. Pick Up Stix, 2019 WL 4737911, at *1 (Cal. Super. May 28, 2019) (same); Arreguin-Topete v. Lonigro, 2019 WL 5860543, at *1 (Cal. Super. May 13, 2019) (same); Bonilla v. Chen, 2019 WL 3400874, at *2 (Cal. Super. April 25, 2019) (Plaintiff is not to assert community safety, reptilian theory, or violate the Golden Rule); Shahan v. Carter, 2019 WL 3239157, at *2 (Cal. Super. Feb. 26, 2019) (Plaintiff is not to assert community safety, reptilian theory, or violate the Golden Rule); Rubio v. Arias, 2019 WL 2137611, at *2 (Cal. Super. Feb. 20, 2019) (precluding reptile tactics); Darabi v. Levy, 2018 WL 7082332, at *1 (Cal. Super. Dec. 4, 2018) (Plaintiff is not to assert community safety, reptilian theory, or violate the Golden Rule); Zamani v. City of Redondo Beach, 2018 WL 6738132, at *1 (Cal. Super. Oct. 22, 2018) (precluding reptile tactics); Contreras v. HD Supply Inc., 2018 WL 6984894, at *1 (Cal. Super. Oct. 9, 2018) (same); Piemonte v. Sterling, 2018 WL 9491161, at *1 (Cal. Super. Sept. 26, 2018) (same); Zymblosky v. Moy, 2018 WL 3760678, at *1 (Cal. Super. June 4, 2018) (same); Doe v. Rose Bowl Aquatics Center, 2018 WL 3552312, at *1 (Cal. Super. May 31, 2018) (same); Johnson v. Hyundai Motor America, 2018 WL 3304503, at *6 (Cal. Super. May 2, 2018) (same); Bracamonte v. GHT, LLC, 2018 WL 4001541, at *1 (Cal. Super. April 23, 2018) (same); Estrada v. Francia Trucking, 2018 WL 4182561, at *1 (Cal. Super. April 18, 2018) (same); Romero v. Fullerton Surgical Center, 2018 WL 2119573, at *2 (Cal. Super. March 5, 2018) (same); Lee v. Tan, 2018 WL 1401023, at *1 (Cal. Super. Jan. 10, 2018) (same); Sanchez v. Sully-Miller Contracting Co., 2018 WL 1510301, at *1 (Cal. Super. Jan. 2, 2018) (same); Naieharvey v. Talai, 2017 WL 8235941, at *1 (Cal. Super. July 31, 2017) (same); McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation Inc., 2017 WL 9285360, at *1 (Cal. Super. June 5, 2017) (same); El-Togby v. Delamarter, 2017 WL 3611242, at *2 (Cal. Super. May 16, 2017) (same); Evans v. Kana Pipeline, Inc., 2017 WL 3868684, at *2 (Cal. Super. Feb. 27, 2017) (same); Emmons v. Jesa Investments, LLC, 2017 WL 1968140, at *1 (Cal. Super. Feb. 27, 2017) (same); Harris v. Oliva, 2016 WL 11479747, at *4 (Cal. Super. Oct. 14, 2016) (same); Salinas v. Target Corp., 2016 WL 9415557, at *1 (Cal. Super. June 6, 2016) (same); Riner v. Hayes, 2016 WL 3345501, at *1 (Cal. Super. Feb. 22, 2016) (same).

Florida: Ferreiro v. Weeks, 2016 WL 5871180, at *1 (Fla. Cir. Jan. 28, 2016) (Questions, statements, or comments regarding personal or community safety and protection are prohibited.); Sifuentes v. Savannah at Riverside Condominiums Assoc., 2015 WL 12803937, at *1 (Fla. Cir. May 20, 2015) (prohibiting reptile tactics during voir dire).

Illinois: Okic v. Fullerton Surgery Center, Ltd., 2017 WL 10486967, at *2 (Ill. Cir. Dec. 18, 2017) (same).

Indiana: Johnson v. Chahal Express, 2017 WL 9619159, at *1 (Ind. Super. Nov. 21, 2017) (precluding reptile tactics).

Iowa: James v. Junk, 2019 WL 5396101, at *9 (Iowa Dist. Sept. 6, 2019) (precluding suggest[ing] to jurors that Defendants alleged conduct endangers the safety of the community as a whole); Valles v. Mueting, 2018 WL 6515402, at *6 (Iowa Dist. Oct. 25, 2018) (Reptile tactics, emphasizing that the jury has the power to protect their own safety, the safety of their loved ones, and their communities through the discussion of improper standards/rules not otherwise applicable, fear-based techniques, or through violation of the Golden Rule will not be permitted); Valles v. Mueting, 2018 WL 6515397, at *6 (Iowa Dist. Oct. 26, 2018) (same).

Michigan: Girard v. Perez-Cruet, 2017 WL 10646880, at *1 (Mich. Cir. Dec. 15, 2017) (nor is Plaintiff permitted to elicit reptile testimony or argument).

Minnesota: Niemela v. Tri-County Hospital, Inc., 2018 WL 9943485, at *2 (Minn. Dist. Dec. 19, 2018) (precluding reptile tactics); Cafferty v. Mille Lacs Health System, 2018 WL 8809268, at *3 (Minn. Dist. Sept. 18, 2018) (Attempting to reduce the standard of care to an overly simplistic choice between safe and unsafe unduly depreciates standard of care and the state of the law concerning it.).

Missouri: Piatt v. Rosbrugh, 2019 WL 5491485, at *2 (Mo. Cir. Aug. 6, 2019) (precluding reptile tactics).

Nevada: Drye v. Mateo, 2018 WL 2398375, at *2 (Nev. Dist. April 23, 2018) (precluding reptile tactics).

Oklahoma: Cavitt v. Bayer Corp., 2016 WL 8648840, at *1 (Okla. Dist. Nov. 22, 2016) (precluding use of reptile tactics, references to golden rules, and patient safety rules).

Pennsylvania: Davitch v. CHHS Hospital Co., LLC, 2017 WL 2362442, at *1 (Pa. C.P. Jan. 12, 2017) (Plaintiffs are precluded from presenting argument or testimony regarding purported safety rules).

Virginia: Palmer v. Virginia Orthopaedic, P.C., 2015 WL 5311575, at *1 (Va. Cir. June 19, 2015) (same).

Washington: Kurtz v. State, 2019 WL 5196507, at *3 (Wash. Super. Aug. 5, 2019) (No Reptile tactics . . . such as patient safety, community protection, community values, etc.); Fortman v. Proliance Surgeons, Inc., 2019 WL 2718611, at *2 (Wash. Super. March 4, 2019) (precluding reptile tactics); Evans v. Seattle Childrens Hospital, 2018 WL 8015628, at *1 (Wash. Super. Dec. 21, 2018) (same); Ricks v. State, 2018 WL 6252276, at *2 (Wash. Super. Oct. 17, 2018) (No Reptile tactics . . . such as patient safety, community protection, community values, etc.); Jacquemart v. Wong, 2018 WL 4559989, at *1 (Wash. Super. July 18, 2018) (references to dangerous, unsafe, or safety violations are excluded); Thueson v. State, 2018 WL 3090055, at *1 (Wash. Super. April 16, 2018) (No Reptile tactics . . . such as patient safety, community protection, community values, etc.); Moitra v. Swedish Health Services, 2018 WL 3097268, at *1 (Wash. Super. Feb. 28, 2018) (precluding reptile tactics); Albright v. Antles, 2016 WL 7174563, at *1 (Wash. Super. Oct. 5, 2016) (Use of the term safety rules or argument that the jurors place themselves in Plaintiffs shoes is EXCLUDED); Glover v. State, 2015 WL 7355966, at *3 (Wash. Super. Sept. 9, 2015) (precluding reptile tactics); Nitcher v. Valley Radiologists, Inc., 2014 WL 1364707, at *5 (Wash. Super. Feb. 19, 2014) (same).

Wisconsin: Dart v. Meriter Hospital, Inc., 2019 WL 6108021, at *3 (Wis. Cir. April 15, 2019) (Plaintiffs may not refer to patient safety, safety rules, safer alternatives or other so-called reptile tactics).

However, defendants have frequently struggled to address particular reptilian tactics. All too often in limine motions have been denied as premature, vague, hypothetical, or overly broad, sometimes following plaintiffs pious abjuration of any intent to make Golden Rule, or conscience of the community arguments. E.g., Manion v. Ameri-Can Freight Systems, Inc., 2019 WL 3718951, at *6-7 (D. Ariz. Aug. 7, 2019); DeRuyver v. Omni La Costa Resort & Spa, LLC, 2019 WL 1097490, at *4 (S.D. Cal. March 8, 2019); Walden, 2018 WL 6445549, at *3; Dorman v. Anne Arundel Medical Center, 2018 WL 2431859, at *6-7 (D. Md. May 30, 2018), affd, 781 F. Appx. 136 (4th Cir. 2019); Botey v. Green, 2017 WL 2485231, at *2 (M.D. Pa. June 8, 2017); Cameron v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 2016 WL 3030181, at *5 (S.D. Miss. May 25, 2016); Hensley v. Methodist Healthcare Hospitals, 2015 WL 5076982, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 27, 2015); Bunch v. Pacific Cycle, Inc., 2015 WL 11622952, at *2 (N.D. Ga. April 27, 2015). So one useful thing defendants can do in this area is not to lead with their chins. Pre-trial motions that give the Court nothing objective to consider in deciding what language, phrases or evidence the Court should deem improper are not likely to succeed, and only encourage the theorys scaly advocates. Baxter v. Anderson, 277 F. Supp.3d 860, 863 (M.D. La. 2017). Our side should endeavor, first, to do no harm. Its a good idea to stop making bad precedent.

Nonetheless, sometimes useful, cautionary judicial remarks occur even when anti-reptile in limine motions are denied. In Dorman the defendants motion was denied without prejudice, but the court did admonish counsel that they may not:

misrepresent the standard of care. The Court will instruct the jury on the law regarding the standard of care in medical malpractice actions and expects that neither party will misrepresent the law that should be applied by broadening the scope of liability beyond the courts legal instructions regarding the standard of care.

Id. at *7 (referring to questions like is it a doctors job to keep the patients safe? or job to not needlessly endanger patients?). See R.D. v. Shohola, Inc., 2019 WL 6134726, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2019) (cases which temper and limit the admissibility of such evidence do so in a very fact-specific manner, taking into account the nature of the specific safety rule, the facts of the case, and the relevance of the particular rule); Maley v. Corizon Health, Inc., 2019 WL 1370860, at *7 (S.D. Ga. March 26, 2019) (While Defendants argument is again non-specific, the Court generally agrees [that] . . . any potential harm caused by Defendant [] to the greater society is not relevant to the issues in this case.); Hammonds v. Yeager, 2017 WL 10560471, at *1 (Mag. C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2017) (where punitive damages are not at issue, urging the jury to send a message by its verdict is generally considered an improper appeal to the jurors passion and prejudice); Bunch, 2015 WL 11622952, at *3 (granting motion to the extent that it seeks to preclude send a message arguments and punishment arguments; What Plaintiffs may not do, however, is argue that they brought this lawsuit to preserve community safety.); Gillins v. Gardner, 2018 WL 4001532, at *2 (Utah Dist. July 30, 2018) (it is not the responsibility of individual jurors to protect themselves and their communities from risks of harm. It is not the responsibility of individual jurors to send a message to the medical community about patient or community safety. And it is not the responsibility of individual jurors to protect future patients from medical malpractice.); Pressey v. Childrens Hospital Colorado, 2015 WL 1583852, at *2 (Colo. Dist. March 15, 2015) (to the extent Plaintiffs counsel argues that they are permitted as part of a Reptile Strategy to encourage the jurors to ignore the evidence in the case and make decisions based upon fear for their own safety, the Court disagrees).

Occasionally, motions aimed at the reptile theory are brought well before trial such as seeking to restrain discovery into reptile themes that would later be used at trial. Such efforts have not succeeded so far. In Beach v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2019 WL 1495296 (W.D. Va. April 4, 2019), the defendant was entirely unsuccessful. First, Beach found the motion premature. [t]he discovery phase of litigation is not the proper stage for rulings on disputes over what material may ultimately be presented to a jury. Id. at *4. Second, the relief sought was too vague. [I]t is impossible to conceive of what an order granting [defendants] motion would proscribe. Id. Rather, [i]f [plaintiff] seeks material . . . beyond the permitted scope of discovery . . ., [defense] counsel can note their objection on the record or, if absolutely necessary, contact a judge for a ruling. Id. See Miller v. PAM Transport, Inc., 2019 WL 4962954, at *5 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2019) (denying motion to strike references in the complaint that the defendant argued were reptile-related); Williamson v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 2019 WL 1995328, at *3 (E.D.N.C. May 6, 2019) (same); Cirrani v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2019 WL 859285, at *3 (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2019) (same). While we sympathize with defendants desire to oppose reptile tactics as vigorously as possible, we have yet to see any case in which a pleading- or discovery-based motion has produced anything but an adverse result.

So one thing is quite clear from our reptile research. A specific defense motion stands a better shot at winning. The majority of courts have shown no indication to grant what we call K-T motions, the impact of which would render reptile tactics categorically extinct. Rather, to make the most progress, defense motions ordinarily need to zero in on specific plaintiff tactics, such as the ones identified in Fitzpatrick as improper, those being:

Every reptile lawyer will of course approach things a little differently, so specific reptile tactics will vary meaning that not all of the above will be present in every future case, and other tactics will need to be challenged.

Indeed, Fitzpatrick reminds us of when we tried fen-phen cases in Philadelphia, years before reptile terminology ever existed. In that litigation, we put together template in limine motions dealing with opening and closing arguments that were crafted to address the tactics of individual opposing counsel. These were directed against such things as: (1) references directed at individual jurors, (2) giving affectionate nicknames to plaintiffs, (3) do the right thing challenges; (4) imagined reminiscences (quite similar to Fitzpatrick); (5) David vs. Goliath fights with corporate defendants, (6) purported anecdotes from counsels personal history, including military service; (7) screeds against bad drugs; and (8) out-of-state experts. If you expect reptile tactics from a particular lawyer, obtaining transcripts of that lawyers prior opening and closing arguments is a good way to craft winnable motions in limine with a laser focus on the specific reptilian techniques you are most likely actually to encounter.

Finally, when confronting reptile tactics at trial, defense counsel need to keep in mind the other lesson of Fitzpatrick. Objections need to be preserved. Failure to object only makes a difficult situation worse. 2019 WL 5792847, at *9 (the judge was not aided by the defendants counsels failure to object to any specific statements in the closing, move to strike them, or propose curative instructions). See Regalado v. Callaghan, 207 Cal. Rptr.3d 712, 726 (Cal. App. 2016) (while remarks from [plaintiffs] counsel telling the jury that its verdict had an impact on the community and that it was acting to keep the community safe were improper, they were waived by failure to object or seek curative instructions); Allison v. Smoot Enterprises Inc., 2019 WL 5095779, at *4 (D. Or. Oct. 11, 2019) (reptile theory issue waived by lack of timely objection). One suggestion to avoid the jury drawing plaintiffs hoped-for inference from a defense objection is to file appropriate motions in limine in advance and then refer back to the motions and, hopefully, rulings in a shorthand objection at trial.

Looking over this post, now that the research is complete, one thing thats striking is how few of our prescription medical product clients names appear on the right side of the v. Theres only one, and its pretty well buried. We see a fair number of medical malpractice cases, plenty of one-off product liability cases involving things that go clank, and an overrepresentation of trucking cases we guess the other side figures that nothing scares jurors more than 18-wheelers. We have plenty to worry about in our prescription product sandbox, but it appears that rampant reptilism isnt very high on the list. Still, since the animating spirit of the DDLaw Blog is that a defense win anywhere helps defendants everywhere, we offer this analysis and collection of relevant cases to any defense counsel forced to confront the reptile.

Go here to see the original:

Reptile Research - Avoiding the Snake Pit - Lexology