Invicro LLC Joins Accenture’s INTIENT Network to Help Advance Innovation in Drug Discovery and Scientific Research – BioSpace

Posted on by

Dec. 3, 2019 14:48 UTC

BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Today, InvicroLLC, a Konica Minolta Company, has joined Accentures open partner ecosystemthe INTIENT Networkwhich is designed to help solution providers, software vendors and life sciences companies team more effectively to accelerate drug discovery and improve patient outcomes. Invicro is a global provider of imaging biomarkers, core lab services, advanced analytics and software solutions for drug discovery and development.

The INTIENT Network is an integral part of INTIENT Research, Accentures cloud-based informatics suite that is focused on improving productivity, efficiency and innovation in the drug discovery process. Accenture is currently working with a select number of independent software vendors and organizations, including Invicro, to integrate their technology and content into the INTIENT platform.

Through the INTIENT Network, research scientists can access Invicros industry-leading imaging software platforms, iPACS and VivoQuant, that help transform the way translational medicine research is conducted. Invicro joining the network contributes to a robust ecosystemone that offers the most advanced, cloud-based informatics solutions to help accelerate precision medicine studies across all therapeutic areas.

By providing access to Invicros novel software solutions, researchers will easily gain insights from complex biological data at each drug discovery and development phase, stated Mr. Chris Fuller, Vice President of Software for Invicro. The advanced and collaborative capabilities offered by Invicro and Accenture will improve operational efficiencies and help streamline drug discovery efforts by using a data-driven approach.

Invicros capabilities will be available to life sciences companies within a common informatics framework that handles core infrastructure requirements such as data ingestion and cleansing, security and IP management, request management workflow, enterprise search, data governance, and collaboration environments.

Imaging data is enabling some incredible opportunities in early drug discovery, yet there remain challenges around the effective image management, interpretation, and sharing, said Joe Donahue, managing director, Accenture Life Sciences. I look forward to working closely with Invicro to leverage their capabilities to help address these challenges which will, ultimately, lead to better outcomes for patients.

About Invicro Headquartered in Boston, MA, Invicro was founded in 2008 and today has offices, laboratories and clinics around the world, from coast-to-coast within the United States, to Europe and Asia that support leading pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and top research universities. Invicros multi-disciplinary team provides solutions to help enhance the discovery and development of life-changing drugs across all stages of the drug development pipeline (Phase 0-IV), leveraging all imaging modalities within a broad scope of therapeutic areas, including neurology, oncology, cardiology, and pulmonary. Invicros quantitative biomarker services, advanced analytics tools, and clinical operational services are backed by their industry-leading software informatics platforms, VivoQuant and iPACS.

Invicro is a Konica Minolta company and part of their precision medicine initiative, which aims to accelerate personalized medicine, discover novel therapeutic targets and develop innovative therapeutic technologies for unmet medical needs. Along with their sister company Ambry Genetics, Invicro develops and leverages the latest approaches in quantitative biomarkers including imaging, quantitative pathology and genomics. Visit http://www.invicro.com for more information

About Konica Minolta Konica Minolta, Inc. (Konica Minolta) is a global digital technology company with core strengths in imaging and data analysis, optics, materials, and nano-fabrication. Through innovation, Konica Minolta creates products and digital solutions for the betterment of business and societytoday and for generations to come. Across its Business Technologies, Healthcare, and Industrial-facing businesses, the company aspires to be an Integral Value Provider that applies the full range of its expertise to offer comprehensive solutions to the customers most pressing problems, works with the partners to ensure the solutions are sustainable, anticipates and addresses tomorrows issues, and tailors each solution to meet the unique and specific needs of its valued customers. Leveraging these capabilities, Konica Minolta contributes to productivity improvement and workflow change for its customers and provides leading-edge service solutions in the IoT era. Headquartered in Tokyo and with operations in more than 50 countries, Konica Minolta has more than 43,000 employees serving approximately two million customers in over 150 countries. Konica Minolta is listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, (TSE4902). For further information, visit: https://www.konicaminolta.com/.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191203005690/en/

See the article here:

Invicro LLC Joins Accenture's INTIENT Network to Help Advance Innovation in Drug Discovery and Scientific Research - BioSpace

Cyberpunk 2077 Will Let You Burn the City Down With Keanu Reeves – Comicbook.com

Posted on by

2019 is winding down, and looking back, the biggest moment of the year may still very well be the reveal that Keanu Reeves will not only be in Cyberpunk 2077, but the John Wick actor will play a major role in the game. That said, when asked if we will get the option to burn Night City down with Reeves like his character Johnny Silverhand says in the trailer, CD Projekt Red said "of course." Unfortunately, no further details were disclosed about this, so it's unclear if you will literally be able to burn the city down or if that's more figurative. Chances are it's the latter, but it's exciting nonetheless, and once again confirms that we will be seeing plenty of Reeves in the ambitious open-world role-playing game.

The Polish developer also revealed some other interesting details. For example, we now know that if you wait too long to pick a dialogue option, the person you'll talking to will eventually start getting annoyed. And in some cases, this will have consequences.

Meanwhile, if you commit petty crimes in the game, the police won't really care because that's normal life in Night City. However, if you do something more extreme, like start shooting or running people over, the police will quickly be all over you, and from the sounds of it, you don't want to mess with them.

Another interesting tidbit is that CD Projekt Red promises there will be more diversity than its previous game, The Witcher 3, which is loosely based in Slavic folklore. That said, it sounds like not every character you see in the city will have a unique model, which isn't very surprising given how many there are.

Anyway, there's a ton of new smaller details like this over on the game's Reddit page. So, if you want to read more stuff like this, here's the link.

Cyberpunk 2077 is in development for PS4, Xbox One, PC, Google Stadia, and next-gen consoles. It will be available on April 16, 2020, barring any delay of course. For more news, media, rumors, leaks, and information on the highly-anticipated title, be sure to peruse all of our past and recent coverage of it by clicking right here.

Go here to see the original:

Cyberpunk 2077 Will Let You Burn the City Down With Keanu Reeves - Comicbook.com

Cyberpunk 2077 Promises State of the Art NSFW Scenes – Comicbook.com

Posted on by

Cyberpunk 2077 looks like one of the most ambitious games of this generation, and that's a big reason why PS4, Xbox One, PC, and Google Stadia gamers are so excited for it. That said, CD Projekt Red isn't cutting corners anywhere. In fact, even the game's sex and NSFW scenes are being made with state of the art technology. Again, most ambitious game of the generation. As you may remember, sex scenes will unfold from a first-person perspective, which is different from the third-person perspective The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt had. This means not only will they be more graphic and in your face, but they will likely force CD Projekt Red to dump more resources into the details and make things look believable.

According to the Polish studio, the team has done "a lot of mocap (motion capture)" for sex scenes, which suggests, well, realistic looking sex scenes. CD Projekt Red didn't disclose many more details on this part of the game, but it sounds like it's putting just as much focus into these scenes as any other scene in the game, which is sure to please some fans.

That said, it will be interesting to see how CD Projekt Red handles this, because it will certainly be flirting with an Adult Rating at this point, which I'm sure it wants to avoid at all costs for the simple fact that AO-rated games sell less. In other words, don't expect anything too graphic or detailed. In fact, they may even be less graphic than the scenes in The Witcher 3 simply because them being in first-person automatically makes them subject to more scrutiny from rating organizations.

Cyberpunk 2077 is poised to release on April 16, 2020 via the PS4, Xbox One, PC, and Google Stadia. For more news, rumors, and media on the open-world role-playing game, click here.

"Cyberpunk 2077 is an open-world, action-adventure story set in Night City, a megalopolisobsessed with power, glamour and body modification," reads an official elevator pitch of the game. "You play as V, a mercenary outlaw going after a one-of-a-kind implant that is the key to immortality. You can customize your characters cyberware, skillset and playstyle, and explore a vast city where the choices you make shape the story and the world around you."

Read the rest here:

Cyberpunk 2077 Promises State of the Art NSFW Scenes - Comicbook.com

Cyberpunk 2077 Will Have Motion Capture Sex Scenes – Don’t Feed the Gamers

Posted on by

Motion capture capabilities have taken video games to another level of immersive experiences. From capturing realistic motions of wielding weapons, facial movements in conversation, and natural body language, the process has elevated the level of realism within the industry. As one of he most anticipated science-fiction RPGs to come, CD Projekt Red believes sex scenes in Cyberpunk 2077 are no exception to the that. Rule 34, am I right?

Already passing through its final stages of development, Cyberpunk 2077 is readily preparing its launch on April 16th next year. Its already been revealed that cut scenes and sex will play out in first-person perspective, but recently divulged that the latter part will be motion captured as well. According to Redditor Shavod who attended a CD Projekt Red community meeting, the developers did a lot of mocap to the point that it should satisfy everyone.

In terms of how far Cyberpunk 2077 will take censorship with sex scenes, Shavod said: There was a question about censorship regarding the sex scenes. I dont remember the answer that well, but the general gist of it was that they are providing players with a full freedom regarding their in-game sexual relationships. The second part of the answer I included above, about the mocap for the sex scenes and the amount of them.

If BioWare sexy times have proven anything its that gamers want to see even more. In terms of other Cyberpunk 2077 features, what are you most thrilled to see? Do you think the industry should go so far as to motion-capture sex? That also begs the question how far goes too far? Let us know what you think in the comments section below or start a conversation on Dont Feed the Gamers Facebookpage. To stay up to date on gaming and entertainment news as it happens,follow us onTwitter! Here are some of our latest:

Read more from the original source:

Cyberpunk 2077 Will Have Motion Capture Sex Scenes - Don't Feed the Gamers

CD Projekt Red: Cyberpunk 2077 Main Story Will Be Shorter Than The Witcher 3 – Lowyat.NET

Posted on by

CD Projekt Red (CDPR), the studio behind the critically acclaimed The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, recently said that Cyberpunk 2077 will have a shorter main storyline than its 2015 fantasy action RPG. According to a Reddit post, the studio is doing this in order to put in more complex, meaningful, and impactful side quests that branch out from the main storyline.

ADVERTISEMENT

CDPR also told a people in a community meeting held in Warsaw, Poland, that by keeping the main storyline shorter than The Witcher 3, Cyberpunk would have a much higher replayability. On the subject of side quests, CDPR explained that unlike the numerous side quests in The Witcher 3, the side quests would have a far greater branch out, with some other side quests actually converging at certain points in the game. Ultimately, those side quests would then branch out into other side quests that will, in turn, have an effect on the main storyline.

On another note, CDPR also said that the Cyberpunk 2077s day and night cycle isnt just in-game as a gimmick; like The Witcher 3, different hours within the world will present different paths and events and quests to the games character.

Cyberpunk 2077s slated for release on 16 April 2020. The game will be available on the PC via Steam, as well as the PS4, Xbox One, and Google Stadia.

(Source: Reddit via TPU)

Visit link:

CD Projekt Red: Cyberpunk 2077 Main Story Will Be Shorter Than The Witcher 3 - Lowyat.NET

Sea Ray and Freedom Boat Club win National Safety Awards – Yahoo Finance

Posted on by

Brunswick Corporation brands honored for safety and commitment to sustainability

Mettawa, Ill., Dec. 02, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Sea Ray boats and Freedom Boat Club, divisions ofBrunswick Corporation (BC), have each been awarded a prestigious National Boating Industry Safety Award. Sea Raywas recognized for its comprehensive Labor Day 2018, Memorial Day 2019 and Independence Day 2019 social media and e-mail campaigns that promoted responsible boating and water safety. Freedom Boat Clubhas been recognized with a National Boating Industry Safety Award for its Sober Skipper initiative. The awards are part of the inaugural National Boating Industry Safety Awards presented by the Sea Tow Foundation to honor and recognize the work of a boating industry business who is committed to safety.

The judges praised Sea Ray for its campaign to share safety tips, information and messaging with more than 210,000 social media followers and over 260,000 e-mail contacts. Freedom Boat Club was honored for its adoption of a national, network-wide Sober Skipper program in 2016 which calls on Freedom Boat Club dock staff to work one-on-one with club members in designating both a sober skipper and an official lookout/observer, and to review important safety messaging prior to boat departure.

Sea Ray has long recognized that the freedom we enjoy while on the water goes hand in hand with safe, responsible and smart boating, said Dave Marlow, Brunswick Corporation director of Product Integrity & Government Affairs. This award personifies their commitment to the importance of that message and recognizes the consistent approach Sea Ray has developed as a company. Safety remains a top priority for the products we make and for our consumers that use them.

We take safety very seriously and that is a requirement for our members, our employees and anyone that is involved with Freedom Boat Club, said John Giglio, Freedom Boat Club president. For 30 years we have been promoting safety on the water from sober driving to wearing the proper sunscreen and safety equipment. We are honored to be recognized by Sea Tow and the National Boating Industry Safety Awards with the Sober Skipper award. It is a true testament to our commitment to safety on the water.

The goal of the National Boating Industry Safety Awards program is to recognize and celebrate the top for-profit boating industry companies in each category for their commitment and efforts at promoting boating safety initiatives within the U.S. This can include but is not limited to life jacket wear, designating a sober skipper, using VHF radios properly, using engine cut-off lanyards, promoting taking a boating safety course, carrying required boating safety equipment or other boating safety topics.

To be eligible for a National Boating Industry Safety Award, each organization must have demonstrated a commitment to boating safety through programs and promotions completed between August 15, 2018August 15, 2019 in one of four segments of the recreational marine marketplace: Marine Retailer, Marine Manufacturer, Marine Media or Marine Marketing and Outreach.

For additional information on the Sea Tow Foundation and the North American Sober Skipper Advisory Council, visitSoberSkipper.com.

ABOUT BRUNSWICK Headquartered in Mettawa, Ill., Brunswick Corporations leading consumer brands include Mercury Marine outboard engines; Mercury MerCruiser sterndrive and inboard packages; Mercury global parts and accessories including propellers and SmartCraft electronics; Power Products Integrated Solutions; MotorGuide trolling motors; Attwood, Garelick, and Whale marine parts; Land N Sea, BLA, Paynes Marine, Kellogg Marine, and Lankhorst Taselaar marine parts distribution; Mercury and Quicksilver parts and oils; Bayliner, Boston Whaler, Crestliner, Cypress Cay, Harris, Heyday, Lowe, Lund, Princecraft, Quicksilver, Rayglass, Sea Ray, Thunder Jet and Uttern boats; Boating Services Network, Freedom Boat Club, NAUTIC-ON, OnBoard Boating Club and Rentals. For more information, visit Brunswick.com.

Attachment

Lee GordonDirector - Marine Public Relations & CommunicationsBrunswick Corporationlee.gordon@brunswick.com904-860-8848

Story continues

See the article here:

Sea Ray and Freedom Boat Club win National Safety Awards - Yahoo Finance

Freedom From Religion Group Speaking Out Against Kanye West Program in Jail – All On Georgia

Posted on by

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is speaking out against a jails showing of Kanye West programming because of the religious message with in it.

The Harris County Sheriffs Office in Houston, Tx has drawn the ire of the organization for two surprise concerts for inmates and staff in mid-November. FFRF says West coordinated the performances with jail officials and explained to the media that since hisrecent public conversion to Christianity, his job is to spread the gospel, to let people know what Jesus has done for me. But the national nonprofit opposes the practice and says the attendance by inmates was not voluntary.

From the news release:

The performances of songs from Wests recent religious album, Jesus Is King, were really more like a church service,the media has reported. West brought some light and #churchservice to people who needed it today at the Harris County Jail, stated none other than Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez on social media. Gonzalez also sent out a tweet quoting West as saying that the performance was a mission, not a show. The Sheriffs Office retweeted both of these messages, celebrating the Christian aspect of Wests performances.

Arranging a church-like religious concert for inmates clearly indicates the Harris County Sheriffs Office unconstitutional preference for Christianity, FFRF points out.

The Supreme Court has said time and again that the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion, FFRF Director of Strategic Response Andrew L. Seidel writes to Gonzalez. By organizing what you admit to be a worship service, you crossed this line.

In short, this was unconstitutional, FFRF underscores. Gonzalez has been elected to a secular office and to uphold a secular Constitution. He cannot use that public office to promote his personal religion, even if it happens to be a religion Kanye West shares. This constitutional violation by Gonzalez is particularly egregious because it imposed religious views on inmates literally a captive audience who have a deep and immediate interest in being seen favorably by the jail staff.

The organization is asking that the Harris County Sheriffs Office vow not to hold anymore programs or concerts with similar subject matter and has asked for a number of public records pertaining to the shows.

The news release offered no concessions based on Wests fame. Making Kanye Wests megafame an excuse for allowing him to perform at government facilities is absurd. If anything, this makes the violation worse because the captive audience may be more receptive to his message.

You can read the full letter to the Harris County Sheriffs Office below.

See the article here:

Freedom From Religion Group Speaking Out Against Kanye West Program in Jail - All On Georgia

Facts are under siege. Now, more than ever, we need to invest in journalism – The Guardian

Posted on by

Guarding the independence of the press is essential to maintaining truth as a common good. And truth is essential to democracy.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote, [W]ere it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

Yet the presss freedom and independence are under siege, and a growing segment of the public no longer trusts the major media.

Distrust was on the rise even before Donald Trumps demagoguery. On the eve of the 2016 presidential election, only 18% of Americans said they had high trust in the national news media, according to the Pew Research Center.

Contrast this with American opinion 44 years before. In 1972, in the wake of investigative reporting that revealed truths about Vietnam and Nixons Watergate scandal, 72% of Americans expressed trust and confidence in the press.

Why the precipitous decline? Partly because much of the media has been focused on maximizing profits, catering to what is popular or sensational rather than what citizens need to know. This has transformed journalists from investigators and analysts offering serious news to content providers competing for attention.

A Tyndall Report study found that in the 2008 presidential election the major TV networks devoted a total of 220 minutes to reporting candidates positions on issues of public policy. Four years later, the networks allocated 114 minutes to policy. In 2016, by late October, they had devoted a total of just 32 minutes.

The popular and sensational are also driving social media, where some 68% of the American public now gets its news.

Donald Trumps presidency marks the culmination of these trends. Schooled in reality television and New York tabloids, Trump understands how to drive ratings and get attention. As the 2016 presidential race heated up, Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS, admitted the Trump phenomenon may not be good for America, but its damn good for CBS.

Trumps lies and ongoing attacks on his critics in the media score points with his base but at the expense of a weakened democracy. If a large enough portion of the public comes to trust Trumps own words more than the medias, Trump can get away with saying and doing whatever he wants. When that happens, democracy ends.

How, then, can print and broadcast news rebuild public trust? Publishers and editors must demonstrate to the public that their news stories are produced accurately and intelligently by following five principles.

First, news-gathering and reporting must be independent of executives who represent the interests of shareholders.

Second, media outlets should clearly state their processes for checking facts and correcting errors, and ensuring that the public is made aware of corrections.

Third, they must separate facts and analysis from opinions and advocacy.

Fourth, they must inform readers and viewers of any news or news-gathering that is funded by organizations with a stake in whats reported.

Social media should make clear which content is paid for and by whom, as well as the sources of all non-paid content, including the names and addresses of individuals responsible.

Fifth, they should have ombudsmen to investigate public complaints about their coverage, along with public editors who serve as paid in-house critics.

Even with all this, there is also a need for at least some truly independent newspapers and media outlets, like the Guardian, financed not by commercial sponsors or any party with a financial or other interest, but which exist solely to serve the public.

These steps are necessary not only to rebuild public trust but also to restore the media to its rightful place in our democracy and protect the truth as a common good.

Read the original:

Facts are under siege. Now, more than ever, we need to invest in journalism - The Guardian

Australias proposed defamation law overhaul will expand media freedom but at what cost? – The Conversation – Australia

Posted on by

Last Friday, Australias attorneys-general agreed on proposed amendments to the provisions which underpin Australian defamation laws.

This means Australian governments have a plan for how to change defamation law.

Read more: Politicians suing for defamation is usually a bad idea: here's why

Politicians are spinning this as a modernisation of laws that havent been changed in 15 years.

Whether or not this would modernise the law, these are media-friendly reforms that will make it harder for people to succeed in suing a news organisation in defamation. The campaign for media freedom by Australias news organisations has paid off.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this proposal is a new defence of responsible communication in the public interest a version of a defence developed in New Zealand.

The defence protects certain communications made by the person being sued, like a newspaper or a journalist. It requires the defendant to prove, firstly, that the matter is of public interest, and secondly, that its publication is responsible.

The defence will probably become the focus of a lot of litigation.

For example, if an issue is interesting to the public, does that mean that reporting on it is in the public interest? The public may be interested in what happened to the Prime Minister at Engadine Maccas in 1997, but that doesnt mean reporting on it is in the public interest.

Likewise, would reporting on the private life of a politician who espouses conservative values be in the public interest? Thats debatable. And litigation lawyers pay for their BMWs with debatable.

When is a publication responsible? The proposed changes set out a list of relevant factors, which include

the extent to which the matter published relates to the performance of the public functions or activities of the person.

In other words, reporting on politicians is more likely to be responsible than reporting on what your neighbour is up to.

Another factor relevant to whether reporting is responsible is the sources of the information in the matter published, including the sources integrity.

This is a good addition. It means journalists wont have a defence if they engage in dodgy journalism.

Its unlikely, for example, gossip mag-publisher Bauer Media would have been covered by this defence when sued by Rebel Wilson because their source was unreliable.

We do already have a version of this public interest defence called qualified privilege. This defence remains, with some tweaks, under the proposed reforms. But the new public interest defence is stronger.

A key difference between qualified privilege and the new defence is qualified privilege is defeated if the publication was made with malice.

So for example, when Fairfax media reported Joe Hockey was a Treasurer for Sale, the judge determined journalists wanted to get back at Hockey, so they couldnt use a qualified privilege defence. Hockey walked away from his defamation case with A$200K.

Read more: Hockey's defamation win is dark news for democracy and free speech

Another key feature of the proposed reforms is the introduction of a threshold of serious harm.

Inspired by UK legislation, it means a person cannot even sue unless they have actually suffered, or are likely to suffer, serious harm.

Although this will stop petty stuff clogging up the courts, it may create a whole new source of work for defamation lawyers, such as mini fights, called interlocutory disputes, over whether the harm caused by a publication is serious enough.

On the other hand, this change may deter some people from suing at all.

Other proposed reforms include tweaks to the cap on damages for non-economic loss. There is already an upper limit on the amount of damages that may be awarded for defamation which does not cause measurable economic loss but still harms the plaintiffs reputation.

The cap can be exceeded if the defendant was particularly dodgy, where aggravated damages are justified. In cases like that brought by Geoffrey Rush, courts have interpreted the legislation to mean massive awards are available if the defendant has done something to aggravate the plaintiffs suffering.

The proposed change clarifies that the cap applies even if aggravated damages are justified. But aggravated damages may then be awarded on top of the capped amount in serious cases.

Basically, this means well probably see smaller sums of money being awarded to winners of defamation cases.

Under legislation called Limitation Acts, a person wronged by another only has a certain amount of time they can sue.

For defamation, time starts running out when publication occurs.

But under existing laws, there is a new publication each time something is downloaded from the internet. This is called the multiple publication rule. It means online publishers, like news organisations, are under perpetual threat of being sued.

Under the proposed changes, there will be a single publication rule. Time starts running when the matter is first posted or uploaded, and then runs out after one year, or after three years in certain cases. Its another significant improvement for the media.

These proposed reforms adjust the balance between freedom of speech and protection of reputation struck by defamation law, expanding freedom of speech and enhancing media freedom.

Is that a good thing? It cuts both ways.

Freedom of speech is great until a smear campaign ruins your life. We should not buy into the far-right dogma that freedom good no matter what.

Media freedom is good, but absolute media freedom will lead to a nastier, more brutish public discourse. I worry these changes will embolden some sections of the media to engage in more aggressive political take-downs more gotcha journalism.

This is not much of a victory for mainstream Australia. More than anyone else, this is a win for the lucky few who hold they keys to Australias media, whose support is essential to the political survival of those proposing these changes.

These proposed reforms are just that: proposed. Those in charge of the reform process are inviting submissions.

If the reforms are carried out in mid-2020, they will be stage one. A second stage of reforms will look at the liability of digital platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Read more: A push to make social media companies liable in defamation is great for newspapers and lawyers, but not you

If traditional media companies have their way, these companies eating into their advertising revenue could also be sued in defamation law. That would be great for media barons, journalists with insecure employment, and defamation lawyers like me.

For everyone else, it would be less great. These are not the cyber age reforms we are being promised.

Continued here:

Australias proposed defamation law overhaul will expand media freedom but at what cost? - The Conversation - Australia

Opinion/Editorial: Law preserving freedom of action should stay – The Daily Progress

Posted on by

Should you be pressured to join a cause you dont believe in?

Should you be compelled to contribute to such a cause, just to hold a job?

Freedom from pressure. Freedom from compulsion. The ability to choose.

That, in essence, is what Virginias so-called right-to-work law is all about.

Right to work is one of those euphemisms that politicians love a phrase designed to conjure up positive images.

Of course people should have the right to work, you might say, taking the phrase literally which is exactly what the creators of the term wanted you to say, perhaps without bothering to fully understand the deeper meaning.

Over time, however, such euphemisms become layered with interpretations, both positive and negative, until the true meaning becomes further obscured.

Many people probably assume the phrase means that you have a right to hold your job unless your employer finds cause to dismiss you. Thats not correct.

The legislation referred to as right to work does mean that when you find a good job, you cannot be forced to join or contribute to a union in order to qualify for that job or to avoid being fired.

Taken at face value, stripped of accretions of meaning, the law is good for Virginia workers. Why would anyone wish to give up freedom of choice and be compelled to join or support a union if he or she does not wish to do so?

Certainly, workers who wish to join a union should not, and cannot under law, be compelled to forgo that opportunity.

But neither should workers who do not wish to join be compelled to join. (Essentially, such laws protect workers from termination if they choose not to pay dues to a union in a predominantly unionized shop.)

Its all about freedom of choice.

Those who wish to abolish Virginias non-compulsion law seem to believe that freedom of choice is not the highest value to be pursued. Rather, they seem to believe that workers or at least their money should be vacuumed into unions whether they like it or not, in order to strengthen unions, which then can work more energetically for other types of protections.

We believe individual freedom is the more important consideration. From it, other freedoms flow.

Gov. Ralph Northam might not have had political philosophy in mind last week when he made clear that he does not support measures that might jeopardize Virginias excellent reputation for business or jeopardize its AAA bond rating, which is based largely on the health of the states economy.

Abolishing Virginias right to work law is seen by many in the business and finance community as antithetical to the goal of maintaining a healthy economy.

If the governor opposes abolishing right to work, that stance would put him in conflict with some other members of his party, including several newly elected Democratic members of the General Assembly.

Rather, the governor was focusing on Virginias economic future and its ability to attract good employers and generate good jobs, since job growth has the ability to benefit all Virginians across the board.

That position shouldnt come as a surprise from the governor who oversaw Amazons migration to Virginia as the site for its second headquarters.

In this case, the practical and the philosophical may well dovetail.

To keep and create jobs for its residents and to generate tax revenue for state programs, including social justice programs, Virginia needs a strong economy; it does not need to scare away business.

And to support the fundamental concept of personal freedom, it needs to allow workers to decide for themselves whether they want to support a union. Virginias non-compulsion law achieves that.

Go here to read the rest:

Opinion/Editorial: Law preserving freedom of action should stay - The Daily Progress

YouTube CEO on censoring content: Balance responsibility with freedom of speech – Yahoo Celebrity

Posted on by

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki met with60 Minutesreporter Lesley Stahl to discuss YouTubes attempt at policing controversial content while maintaining an open platform. Social media sites like Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter have come under scrutiny for allowing misinformation to be promoted on their platforms.

YouTube attempts to guard against videos that obviously promote hate and violence, but they also police political ads that are blatant lies. Politicians are always accusing their opponents of lying, said Wojcicki. That said, it's not okay to have technically manipulated content that would be misleading.

YouTube has made major efforts to try and curb controversial content, including 10,000 employees who sole purpose is to locate and flag misinformation. But the process can be daunting because over 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute.

To make matters worse, hate groups are constantly adjusting their content and using hidden imagery or codewords so it is harder to detect. Wojcicki said, For every area we work with experts, and we know all the hand signals, the messaging, the flags, the songs, and so, there's quite a lot of context that goes into every single video to be able to understand what are they really trying to say with this video.

While some people are glad that YouTube is trying to curb harmful content, others like FOX News contributor Dan Bongino do not like the policing. While this episode aired, he tweeted, Make absolutely NO MISTAKE, the 60 Minutes piece on YouTube tonight is nothing more than a push by liberal activists to silence conservatives through corporate pressure. Liberals, and their media pals, DESPISE free speech.

YouTube maintains, however, that it is working diligently to maintain an open platform for everyone. You can go too far and that can become censorship, said Wojcicki, And so we have been working really hard to figure out what's the right way to balance responsibility with freedom of speech.

60 Minutesairs Sundays at 7 p.m. onCBS.

Watch as Michael Moore admits that President Donald Trump was right about rigged political system:

Read more from Yahoo Entertainment:

Tell us what you think! Hit us up onTwitter,Facebook, orInstagram, or leave your comments below. And check out our host, Kylie Mar, onTwitter,Facebook, orInstagram.

Want daily pop culture news delivered to your inbox?Sign up here for Yahoo Entertainment & Lifestyle's newsletter.

Excerpt from:

YouTube CEO on censoring content: Balance responsibility with freedom of speech - Yahoo Celebrity

Sakharov Walk of Freedom: inauguration ceremony | News – EU News

Posted on by

The Sakharov Walk of Freedom consists of 43 ceramic-based tiles arranged on the Solidarno Esplanade outside the European Parliament in Brussels, with short texts inscribed on them in English about all the Sakharov Prize laureates. The Walk will link the European Parliament Atrium visitors facilities with the Solidarno Esplanade and the Parliamentarium museum.

The tiles will be arranged chronologically, starting with the inauguration tile and then going from 1988, when the Sakharov Prize was first awarded, in a circle towards 2019.

Address by Sakharov Prize laureate Lorent Saleh

The inauguration ceremony will be opened with a speech by European Parliament President David Sassoli, followed by a statement from Sakharov Prize laureate Lorent Saleh, who received the prize in 2017 as part of the democratic opposition of Venezuela. This will be followed by the unveiling of the inauguration tile, photo opportunities and a walk through the tiles by invited guests and VIPs.

Book an interview

You can book an interview with Mr Saleh by sending an email to viktor.almqvist@europarl.europa.eu and eliana.dritsas@europarl.europa.eu by Wednesday 4 December at 17.00 at the latest. Please note that requests will be confirmed only on Friday 6 December, not earlier.

WHEN: Tuesday 10 December, 14.30 -15.00.

WHERE: If there is good weather, the whole ceremony will take place outside on the Solidarno Esplanade. If the weather is bad, the speeches will be held inside the Atrium visitors facilities, with the rest of the inauguration ceremony taking place outside.

European Parliament media accreditation rules.

Background

The Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought is awarded each year by the European Parliament. It was set up in 1988 to honour individuals and organisations defending human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is named in honour of Soviet physicist and political dissident Andrei Sakharov and the prize money is 50 000 euros.

The 2019 edition of the prize has been awarded to Uyghur economist and human rights defender Ilham Tohti, currently serving a life sentence in China on separatism-related charges.

More:

Sakharov Walk of Freedom: inauguration ceremony | News - EU News

Book on US religious freedom starts with the Founders but forgets seeds of secularism – National Catholic Reporter

Posted on by

The estuary where church and state intertwine has been largely dominated in the past seven years by concerns about religious liberty. When President Barack Obama's administration added contraception to the list of medicines insurance plans were required to cover, and allowed only a narrow exemption for churches but not for religiously affiliated institutions like colleges or hospitals, the U.S. bishops decided that here was a hill on which they were prepared to fight.

The decision to fight the so-called contraception mandate was a strange one in many regards. Twenty-eight states already had a similar mandate. A late 2000 ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ordered all employers who covered prescription drugs in their health insurance plans to also cover contraception, and the incoming administration of President George W. Bush took no action to overturn that rule. But the bishops did not like Obama, the original exemption was terribly narrow, and the bishops cried foul. A subsequent accommodation did not satisfy the religious liberty zealots; court cases continued: Hobby Lobby, a "Christian corporation," won its case at the Supreme Court objecting to the mandate. The bishops announced an annual "Fortnight for Freedom," subsequently shrunk to a week. The Knights of Columbus went all in. Liberals started putting the words religious liberty in scare quotes, and conservatives decided that a sincerely held religious belief should be a kind of trump card to escape federal regulation.

Into this fray comes Steven Waldman, whose book, Sacred Liberty: America's Long, Bloody, and Ongoing Struggle for Religious Freedom, seeks to bring some perspective and sanity back to discussions of religious liberty. And, on the whole, he achieves his aim: Reminding liberals that religious liberty really is a good thing and something to cherish, and reminding conservatives that none of the First Amendment rights are absolute.

Waldman's book is historical and chronological. History is almost always an anecdote to hysteria, and it serves that end here. He catalogues the long list of abuses against religious liberty, starting with the 13 colonies. In only Rhode Island and Pennsylvania was religious liberty valued, although other colonies experimented with varying degrees of toleration. That toleration rarely extended to Roman Catholics, most of whom were denied the franchise or worse in colonial America. Waldman's treatment of the role of religion in shaping the attitudes of the Founding Fathers is limited but fair. Unlike many historians, he notes that the founding generation was not nearly as religious as we might assume, citing one estimate that only 17% of Americans were regular church attendees in 1776. In the footnotes, he acknowledges that we must be careful here, as many churches only reported full members, and membership often required more than just showing up on Sunday morning.

James Madison gets an entire chapter of his own, as he should on this subject. He led the opposition in Virginia to a bill providing for public support of teachers of Christianity. Against him stood such luminaries as Patrick Henry, George Washington and John Marshall. Waldman draws on the notes Madison used when speaking against the bill, interspersing the quotes with brief explanations, honing down on the essential argument on those notes: "True question not Is Rel, neces.? Are Rellis Estabts Neccsy, For Religion? No." As is sadly typical of most historians, Waldman repeats the words of founders and does not seem to recognize the implicit anti-Catholic bias at work, for example, when Madison wrote in his "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments" that "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."When you read someone from the founding generation bemoaning "superstition, bigotry and persecution, he is not talking about Protestant bigotry or Jewish superstition. A thing is almost always defined in part by its opposite in the mind of a person or a people, and the opposite of civil and religious freedom for the founding fathers was autocratic and Catholic rule.

Waldman is an admirer of Madison, so he does not recognize how offensive to Christian theology is the idea that "a multiplicity of sects" is a good thing. Jesus famously prayed that "all may be one." And, in Madison's time, the commitment to ecumenism was more than a century in the future. Nor does Waldman recognize how Madison's a-theological approach was a key step in the secularization of society. The interplay of social and cultural forces that lead to secularism are complex, and Brad S. Gregory's magisterial book, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society, is better than any other in delineating those forces. Waldman would have benefited from consulting it.

Waldman regains the reader's favor a few pages on when he writes, "Anytime someone writes, 'The Founding Father believed ...' The rest of the sentence is almost certainly untrue. There was no unitary Founding Fathers position. They had diverse views and motivations." Amen, I say, Amen.

He captures a key and usually overlooked aspect of this era when he focuses on the argument put forward by Sen. Samuel Livermore, who represented New Hampshire in Congress. He robustly supported the First Amendment's religion clauses and wanted language that prevented the federal government from touching religion. This was similar to Madison's desire that the government "take no cognizance of religion." But the two men wanted the same amendment for different reasons. Madison, on principle, wanted all government disentangled from religious affairs. Livermore wanted the federal government kept out of religious affairs so that state governments could continue to maintain establishments if they wished. The Granite State would prevent Jews from holding office until 1876.

Turning to the Second Great Awakening, Waldman again employs language that shows his interest is not religion, but religious influence on politics. "The biggest winners in this new free market of religion were Methodists and Baptists. The number of Methodist churches grew from 65 in 1776 to 13,302 in 1850, while Baptist churches increased from 471 in 1784 to 7,920 in 1848." The employment of market analogies is ancient: Augustine once called Christ a merchant of grace. But, given the emergence of capitalism in the late 18th and early 19th century, a market analogy wears a different aspect. Waldman's thesis, that religious freedom is good for both church and state, sits unevenly with the recognition that while he is documenting the trajectory of religious liberty in American history, he is overlooking the seeds of secularization that were being sown at the same time.

I shall pick up this review on Wednesday.

[Michael Sean Winters covers the nexus of religion and politics for NCR.]

Editor's note:Don't miss out on Michael Sean Winters' latest.Sign upand we'll let you know when he publishes newDistinctly Catholiccolumns.

Read more:

Book on US religious freedom starts with the Founders but forgets seeds of secularism - National Catholic Reporter

Understanding the SCAs freedom of expression judgment – Daily Maverick

Posted on by

File Photo: Journalist Jon Qwelane, 8 April 2008 Picture: Werner Beukes/SAPA Journalist Jon Qwelane speaks during the SA Human Rights Commission's ruling in Johannesburg, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 that it could not find any wrong doing his alleged use of the word "coconut". Qwelane called Talk Radion 702's Yusuf Abramjee and Kieno Kammies, "coconuts" when they recently objected to the Forum for Black Journalists' racial exclusivity. They lodged a complaint saying it was discriminatory and hurtful. Picture: Werner Beukes/SAPA

First published by GroundUp

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment in the Jon Qwelane case removes the concept of hurt from South Africas hate speech laws. It affirms freedom of expression.

Espousing and fostering hatred is the antithesis of South Africas Constitutional order, but freedom of expression is vital to and indeed the lifeblood of a democratic society. So begins a 46-page judgment penned by Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Mahomed Navsa (with four judges concurring) which has got tongues wagging.

Before them was an appeal by columnist and former Ugandan ambassador Jon Qwelane who ten years ago penned an offensive column in which he sided with former Zimababwean President Robert Mugabes anti-gay stance, calling for a revision of laws which allow same-sex marriages because at this rate, how soon before some idiot demands to marry an animal.

The SA Human Rights Commission took action against him, saying he was advocating hatred against gay people, relying on section 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Pepuda).

Qwelane launched his own application, attacking the Constitutionality of Pepuda saying its provisions were vague and overbroad.

The matters were consolidated and heard by Judge Seun Moshidi who, after hearing evidence from the Commission, the Freedom of Expression Institute and the Psychological Society of South Africa, ruled against Qwelena, finding that his column was hurtful, harmful, incited harm and propagated hate and amounted to hate speech. Judge Moshidi ordered Qwelane to publish a prominent apology.

Aggrieved, Qwelane persisted with his attack on Pepuda in the SCA an appeal Judge Navsa described as bringing into focus the tension between hate speech and freedom of expression.

The Constitution, it was argued, guarantees the rights of freedom of expression except if it is propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence or advocacy of hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

Pepuda, however, extends the prohibited grounds to race, gender, sex pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language, birth, HIV/Aids status or any other ground where discrimination based on that other ground causes or perpetuates systematic disadvantage, undermines human dignity, or adversely affects the equal enjoyment of a persons rights and freedoms in a serious manner that is comparable to discrimination.

Judge Navsa said the Constitutional test was objective a primary assessment of whether the expression complained of comprised advocacy of hatred based on one of the prohibited grounds and then a further assessment of whether it constituted incitement to cause harm (our emphasis).

Pepuda, on the other hand, demanded consideration of whether a person had published or communicated the words based on one of the broad prohibited grounds and whether they could reasonably be construed to demonstrate an intention to be hurtful, harmful, or propagate hatred.

Judge Navsa said: The difficulty in dealing with the standard set in Pepuda in relation to the constitutional standard is the former is barely intelligible. He said the provisions were so vague the average person would not be able to use the act as a guide for his or her conduct.

The use of the word hurt for example, required a test of subjective emotions and feelings which did not equate with causing harm or incitement to harm.

One could say that pronouncements by agnostics and atheists, that the clergy and people of faith believe in fairytales could be hurtful to those targeted?

Daily human interaction produces a multitude of instances where hurtful words are uttered and to prohibit this is going too far.

The judge quoted law professor Pierre De Vos who had labelled Pepuda as absurdly broad in a vibrant democracy which respects difference and diversity.

Some of us remember all to well how the apartheid government tried to censor our thoughts and our speech, De Vos noted.

Judge Navsa said he accepted that harm need not necessarily be physical but could be psychological but the impact had to be more than just hurtful in the dictionary sense.

One must be careful not to stifle the views of those who speak out of genuine conviction and who do not fall within the Constitutional limitations, he said.

Unsurprisingly no counsel could point to any decision or regulation in any comparable democratic system which equates with, or even comes close to, the low threshold in Pepuda, even assuming it is intelligible.

We can all agree that it is important to protect the dignity of all our citizens. Equally we must agree, given our history, that freedom of expression must also be prized. That does not mean that hate speech cannot be proscribed. But it must be tailored to comply with constitutional prescripts and must survive a justification analysis.

The legislature may well have wanted to regulate hate speech as broadly as possible, but it has not done so with the necessary precision, he said, ruling that the relevant section of Pepuda is unconstitutional and giving lawmakers 18 months to rectify it.

The Judge said: I am not unmindful of the threat to life and limb and psyche that members of the LGBTI community face. They must not be left without recourse.

He ordered that in the interim, Pepuda would read: No person may advocate hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

He said the interim measures would not apply retrospectively.

The fact that Qwelane had succeeded meant the ruling against him had to be set aside. But he had a last word for Qwelane who, he said, had given vent to his bigotry, was strident, provocative and unapologetic about it.

We were informed by his counsel that he is ailing. He had an iconic status and had fought hard against the divisions of the past. He might well want to consider that it is worth preserving that legacy by seeking rapprochement, even now. I urge him to do so.

We have to, in our beloved country, find a way in which to relate to each other more graciously. Differences of opinion are often laced with vitriol. We should be allowed to be firm in our convictions and to differ. What we are not free to do is infringe on the rights of others and we are certainly not free to inflict physical or psychological harm on others. DM

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or if you are already an Insider.

The rest is here:

Understanding the SCAs freedom of expression judgment - Daily Maverick

Angela Merkel Says ‘Freedom Of Expression Has Its Limits,’ Must Be Regulated To Keep Society Free – The Daily Wire

Posted on by

German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke out against free speech this week, suggesting the government can and should regulate what people say to keep society free.

Merkel, speaking at an event for the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce in Berlin, stumbled up the stairs before taking the podium and suggesting the government ban speech she considers extreme and decrying freedom of expression.

We have freedom of expression in our country, Merkel said. For all those who claim that they can no longer express their opinion, I say this to them: If you express a pronounced opinion, you must live with the fact that you will be contradicted. Expressing an opinion does not come at zero cost.

But freedom of expression has its limits, she continued. Those limits begin where hatred is spread. They begin where the dignity of other people is violated. The house will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise our society will no longer be the free society that it was.

Of course, determining what speech violates the dignity of other people is not something politicians or anyone else should be deciding, especially in todays culture where liberals claim speech they disagree with is literally violence against them.

As Townhall noted, Germany passed a ban in 2018 that fined websites up to 50 million euros ($55 million) for not removing hate speech from their platforms quickly enough. The outlet also suggested Merkels attempts to suppress free speech were an effort to silence criticsof Merkels open-door immigrationpolicies.

Indeed, if one is to talk about violating another persons dignity, then Merkels policies toward immigration would be a prime example. Recall that on New Years Eve in 2015, upwards of 1,000 men sexually assaulted women on the streets in Germany. In the aftermath of the mass assaults, one German mayor blamed the women for being sexually assaulted, and the German government pledged to crackdown on those who criticize Muslim immigrants who were accused of perpetrating the attacks.

The definition of hate speech and limitation thereof is not as clear cut as people may believe. This is why Americas First Amendment doesnt have a hate speech exception. What is considered hate speech today may not have been considered so one hundred years ago, and what is acceptable today may not be acceptable in even 10 years, if current social justice trends are any indication.

Yet Europe continues to enact hate-speech laws that rest on the subjective analysis of those in positions of authority (and the most easily offended among us). For example, one county in the United Kingdom made catcalls and pickup lines illegal by labeling them hate crimes. The definition of hate crime in that county was defined as, Incidents against womenthat are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman and includes behavior targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.

These kinds of definitions plague anti-hate speech laws, as they open them up for abuse from those seeking attention and victimhood status.

Go here to read the rest:

Angela Merkel Says 'Freedom Of Expression Has Its Limits,' Must Be Regulated To Keep Society Free - The Daily Wire

FM on Bajaj’s lack of freedom comment: Spreading one’s own impression can hurt national interest – Business Insider India

Posted on by

New Delhi, Dec 2 () Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has responded to industrialist Rahul Bajaj's statement that India Inc was afraid of criticising the Narendra Modi government, saying spreading one's own impression "can hurt national interest" - a remark that drew sharp reactions on social media.

At The Economic Times' ET Awards event in Mumbai on Saturday evening, Bajaj, chairman of Bajaj Group, had told Sitharaman, Home Minister Amit Shah and Railway Minister Piyush Goyal on dias that people are afraid of criticising the BJP government's policies and added that no one in the business community would speak about this issue.

Shah had responded to him saying there is "no need to fear about anything. The Narendra Modi government has been criticised continuously in media. But, if you are saying that there is such an environment, we need to work to improve this".

Bajaj found support in Biocon chairperson Kiran Mazumdar Shaw who said the government treated India Inc as "pariahs" and doesn't want to hear any criticism of the economy.

Soon after, Sitharaman tweeted a video of the ET event to say: "Home Minister @AmitShah answers on how issues raised by Shri. Rahul Bajaj were addressed. Questions/criticisms are heard and answered/addressed".

"Always a better way to seek an answer than spreading one's own impressions which, on gaining traction, can hurt national interest," she said.

Her remarks drew varied responses with the opposition Congress seizing on it to criticise the government.

Congress leader and former union minister Kapil Sibal said: "Rahul Bajaj only said: Industry fears to criticise government".

"Does national interest lie in praising you!," he tweeted.

Defending the government, Civil Aviation Minister Hardeep Singh Puri alleged there were fake narratives.

"That Mr Rahul Bajaj could stand up to Sh @AmitShah Ji's face, express himself freely & instigate others to join him clearly indicate that freedom of expression & democratic values are alive & flourishing in India. This is exactly what democracy is all about," he tweeted.

Minister of Railways and Commerce Piyush Goyal referred to Shah's response to Bajaj's remarks to say there is no fear.

"See Home Minister @amitshah respond to Rahul Bajaj's claim that people are afraid to express themselves. "After hearing your question I doubt anybody believes this claim that people are afraid," he tweeted.

A day before the ET event, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had stated that many industrialists have told him they lived in fear of harassment by government authorities.

Here is the original post:

FM on Bajaj's lack of freedom comment: Spreading one's own impression can hurt national interest - Business Insider India

Freedom of movement from the EU will be impossible to end after Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn claims – The Sun

Posted on by

OPEN border immigration from the EU will be impossible to end after Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn claimed today.

The Labour leader also revealed he WILL vote in a second referendum despite his pledge to stay neutral, but suggested he won't tell the public which way he will cast his ballot.

1

He plans to negotiate a new much closer deal with Brussels, including staying in the Customs Union, which would be put up against staying in the bloc.

Mr Corbyn admitted that his agreement will include free movement despite Labour previously pledging it would be ditched after Brexit.

He told Sky: I don't think free movement totally could ever come to an end because of the relationship between families, between Britain and Europe, the needs of all of our services.

Asked whether Leavers would feel betrayed by him, he replied: I don't think they voted to have 40,000 nurse vacancies in Britain, I don't think they voted to lose all those European doctors.

We have to recognise the rights of those many EU nationals that have made their homes here and made a fantastic contribution to our country and actually helped us run our health service.

At the moment all of that is under threat because of the uncertainty. Our whole process will bring uncertainty to an end.

Senior Tory Ben Bradley fumed: This is yet another broken promise from Corbyn, showing you cant trust a word he says.

He used to promise freedom of movement would end, but now Labour wants uncontrolled and unlimited immigration, which would put more pressure on our public services.

Live Blog

ELECTION NEWS General Election 2019: Polls show Tory lead over Labour narrowing

TAKING BACK CONTROL Boris Johnson to unveil five-point blueprint to beef up UK's borders

JEZ POLLS BOOST Corbyn closes gap on Tories with less than two weeks until the election

NO JUSTICE Corbyn says not all terrorists should serve full sentences after latest attack

YOU FORGOT JEWS... Jeremy Corbyn leaves out Jews in list of minorities he vows to defend

CAR CRASH Motorists face misery under Corbyn plan to axe road upgrades to cut rail fares

DON HIS WAY Trump flies in to UK for Nato meeting - but won't have one-to-one with Boris

'MEN SAY DREADFUL THINGS' Farage slammed for defending Trump's 'grab em by the p***y' boast

Exclusive

WITCH-HUNT RANT Rail strike boss says he's a victim of a witch-hunt after Nazi jibe at Jew

Mr Corbyn said he wants to bring people together by negotiating a new deal with Brussels that protects manufacturing, industry, trade and jobs.

But asked whether he would vote for his own agreement in a second referendum or back remaining in the EU, he would only say: Youll have to wait and see.

Read the original:

Freedom of movement from the EU will be impossible to end after Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn claims - The Sun

11/29, full issue: Regulating regulators; Freedom of the press; Right to privacy – Statehouse Report

Posted on by

INSIDE ISSUE 18.48 | Nov. 29, 2019

NEWS

By Lindsay Street, Statehouse correspondent | House and Senate members on both sides of the aisle are finding common ground in expressing frustration with the states utility regulators.

The S.C. Public Service Commission has drawn renewed scrutiny after a November staff directive that would create the cheapest solar rates in the nation, which solar industry advocates say would effectively ending new solar investment in the state. The directive isnt final yet.

Some lawmakers see the proposal, which would slash utilities reimbursement for solar field generation and keeping contracts to 10 years, as an affront to the unanimously-passed Energy Freedom Act in May.

The PSC decision shows they actually moved backward in regard to opening up solar markets to fair competition, Beaufort Republican Sen. Tom Davis told Statehouse Report. He was one of the lead advocates for the Energy Freedom Act.

There are at least two bills in the current 2019-2020 legislative session that seek changes on the commission:

Caskey

Its got to be a top priority to impose ethical restrictions so we can restore some confidence in the system but Im also at a point where we need to more seriously consider wholesale renovations of the system, Caskey said. In my mind, we made it clear in the Energy Freedom Act that South Carolina should be a state that has a balanced portfolio of power generation.

Caskey and others said more bills may be filed as the directive is finalized and lawmakers delve into the issue further. To be sure, the PSC has landed on the legislative radar. For Davis, though, he said he isnt sure any reform can fix what he says is broken.

The PSC is almost beyond the legislatures ability to cure, he said, adding he would advocate for complete system reform. We cant fix it because the very model is flawed whenever you have a PSC passing on what consumers pay.

Davis, who served as Gov. Mark Sanfords chief of staff, said he wants the market dictates the price and move the state toward a regional transmission organization, rather than a regulated monopoly. Regional transmission organizations, implemented in about half of the country, are independent nonprofits that nonprofits optimize supply direct to consumers from wholesale electric power. Read more.

In other S.C. news:

On protecting residents from lung cancer. New research from the American Lung Association says states like South Carolina need to do more to protect residents from lung cancer and aid in cancer-patient recovery. South Carolina ranks 36th in the nation for incidence of lung cancer, making its incidence of lung cancer above the national average. The state ranks 32nd for survival rates, mean those diagnosed with lung cancer in S.C. are less likely to survive than the national average. The nonprofit says state lawmakers need to support early lung screenings and protect health care access for those with pre-existing conditions. Read more.

ACLU hires new state director. The American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina has hired Frank Knaack as its next executive director. He will come on board in January. He most recently led the Montana Innocence Project and prior to that he led the Alabama Appleseed Center. He also has held positions at the National ACLU and at ACLU affiliates in Virginia and Texas.

House budget writers release 2020 schedule. The budget schedule for the House Ways and Means Committee has been released. Budget subcommittee meetings begin Jan. 14 through Feb. 13. The deadline for proviso submittals is Jan. 31. The state Board of Economic Advisers estimate on revenues is due Feb. 15. Full committee budget deliberations are expected to begin Feb. 17 with House floor budget deliberations projected to start March 9.

Senate Education Committee to talk overhaul Dec. 12. The second full-committee hearing on a sweeping overhaul bill for public education will take place 2 p.m. Dec. 12 in room 308 of the Gressette building on the Statehouse grounds in Columbia. Education Chair Greg Hembree, R-Horry, told Statehouse Report last week he is pushing the committee to give a favorable report for the bill originally passed by the House before the start of the 2020 legislative session Jan. 14. See agenda here.

Related: The committees education funding formula panel will meet 10 a.m. Dec. 4 in room room 308 of the Gressette building on the Statehouse grounds in Columbia. Read the agenda.

Public hearings on judicial merit selections. The Judicial Merit Selection Commission will hold public hearings Dec. 2-4 at 9:30 a.m. in room 105 of the Gressette building on the Statehouse grounds in Columbia. See the agenda here.

2020 candidate calendar

Throughout the campaign season, we are working to keep South Carolina informed of candidate events in the state. Have an event you want us to know about? Email us at 2020news@statehousereport.com.

Klobuchar makes 2-day swing in S.C. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar will attend events over two days in South Carolina:

Buttigieg makes 3-day swing in S.C. South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg will attend five events over three days in South Carolina:

COMMENTARY

By Andy Brack, editor and publisher | The other day after a church meeting, someone commented, We need a free press now, more than ever.

Let that sink in.

Why would someone say that? Is it because he doesnt like the bombast of President Trump or she doesnt like the preening of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Is it because theyre worried about the legitimacy of what they read on Facebook, Twitter or the Internet?

More than likely, its any or all of those things but also something bigger: Trust. Americans, divided into warring factions of what they believe, increasingly have problems with trusting information that they receive from institutions in government as well as those that say whats going on in government.

We are living in a period of history where we have more information than ever, but its blurred by unrelenting negative talk, fake news, lies, misrepresentations, soundbites and incomplete information. We are so overloaded by information that we find it hard to sift through and process everything before the next assault hits.

So how can you manage too much information? Perhaps you can curb and diversify your media diet. Find multiple sources of information not just newsjunk put out by the tribe that spouts what you want to hear. If youre a Democrat, you might need to focus less on The New York Times and more on The Wall Street Journal. If you lean Republican, tune in occasionally to CBS or PBS instead of Fox.

Despite what some people believe, reporters do not exist to make up news. Reporters are objective and report what they see, hear and uncover.

Our democracy depends upon citizens having information about the activities of our government, and a press free from governmental control is essential to the functioning of our society, says Jay Bender, longtime legal counsel for the S.C. Press Association.

The reason there is a constitutional protection for freedom of the press is because the British crown censored information during colonial times, Bender said. Patriots during the American Revolution fought to be free of the shackles of royal rule, including its curbs on information.

Then, as now, more information is better than less. Attacking verifiable facts is counterproductive and anti-democratic.

The instinct of those in government today to attack the press and restrict the flow of information to the public is inconsistent with a government by the people and for the people, Bender said. A vigorous, free press is a wall between us and an autocracy, and must be defended for our democracy to survive.

Richard Whiting, executive editor of the Greenwood Index-Journal, suggests the misplaced chants of fake news or the press being an enemy of the people are trickling into our towns and counties.

Its not just mainstream media that is under attack, he said. Its the hometown newspaper that shares with its readers little Johnnys victory on the football field, Suzies volleyball win. Its the hometown paper that shares the story of a familys struggles as their child battles a life-threatening disease, or the family burned out by a house fire. Its the hometown paper that attends the school board, town council and county council meetings while Mom and Dad busy themselves with their lives, their childrens lives.

And the irony, he says, is that those very same people will shout and raise Cain How did this happen? Why didnt someone tell us? when a local, duly-elected governmental body votes to raise taxes or change zoning. Had they been paying attention by reading their local newspaper they might have acted upon solid information to create change, instead of grumbling and picking up the pieces later.

A free press is essential to our democracy, Whiting said. It serves the public by being the watchdog of government so people can go about their daily lives. But more than that, we are the communitys mirror, reflecting the good, the bad and the ugly as we provide essential news and information right along with the stuff that crowds refrigerators and gets tucked away in scrapbooks.

The free press is not your enemy. Her reporters keep America honest a lot more than her politicians do. Ask questions. Consume diverse information sources. Challenge your media comfort zone. To do less is to get sucked into what anti-democratic forces desire.

Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report.

SPOTLIGHT

The public spiritedness of our underwriters allows us to bring Statehouse Report to you at no cost. This weeks spotlighted underwriter is the South Carolina Hospital Association, the Palmetto States foremost advocate on healthcare issues affecting South Carolinians. The mission of SCHA is to support its members in addressing the healthcare needs of South Carolina through advocacy, education, networking and regulatory assistance.

Founded in 1921, the South Carolina Hospital Association is the leadership organization and principal advocate for the states hospitals and health care systems. Based in Columbia, SCHA works with its members to improve access, quality and cost-effectiveness of health care for all South Carolinians. The states hospitals and health care systems employ more than 70,000 persons statewide. SCHAs credo: We are stronger together than apart.

MY TURN

By Elliott Brack, republished with permission | Times were far different in the age of the Founding Fathers. They thought long and hard, and recognized that mankind wanted certain guarantees from government. What they came up with was to recognize certain unalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They should have been pleased with that statement. It was an original idea. It appealed to people in the New World who were unhappy with their rights being trampled by what amounted to a foreign government, one at least an ocean away, which did not understand the new frontier called America.

Yet our young country-to-be was developing in what we look upon today as a relatively quiet and non-invasive time, when there was not the hubbub of constant activity we have today. The new atmosphere offered by our new government was exciting to these citizens of the new United States of America. They were joyfully independent now as a nation, and we suspect, almost giddy about being a new country with its own brand of government.

And what the forefathers eventually produced as our Bill of Rights contains certain liberties that we all cherish. However, life in todays world might need a little closer examination about what we may not realize we need.

Have you ever considered your right to privacy? Its no longer what it used to be since the arrival of a new form of communication. Now we are forever being invaded via the telephone and the Internet and all sorts of media with comments and advertising messages, and with unsolicited offers popping up for products we dont want. Most troublesome, we have learned, much of our most private information is collected by private companies and our government. It is readily available for the world to see on the Internet, mostly put there without our individual permission.

Europe is well ahead of our country in this area. The European Union countries have General Data Protection regulations, setting rules and standards of what companies can do with data. These countries generally give individuals more rights to privacy than the United States does.

Another element Europe thought of is the Right to be forgotten, that is, having public information about an individual expressed online and stay there forever.

The right of privacy is an element of various legal traditions to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals. Over 150 national Constitutions mention the right to privacy.

With Europe tightening what Internet storage companies can do with information, it is beginning to create some momentum about these issues in the United States.

The concept of privacy uses a theory of natural rights. Even as far back as when Louis Brandeis was on the Supreme Court, (1916-1939), his work is often cited as the first explicit declaration of a right to privacy in the USA. Both Brandeis and Earl Warren wrote of the right to be let alone, focusing on protecting individuals. Brandeis had earlier even written that the government (was) identified .as a potential privacy invader.

That sounds like Brandeis could foresee the future!

Perhaps, someday in our country, when the United States returns to a more normal news cycle, without constant Twitter manipulations by a president, the issue of a right to privacy may become more significant to modern everyday life. The forefathers would probably approve of some restrictions on the technologies we have developed.

Elliott Brack, a Georgia journalist for more than 60 years, is editor and publisher of GwinnettForum.com. Have a comment? Send to: feedback@statehousereport.com.

FEEDBACK

To the editor:

Great column today on the first South Carolina Thanksgiving. My wife is a native of Beaufort and we lived there for several years and the area is full of history. Because of the great people, restaurants and marketing in Charleston, it gets all the publicity, however. The Beaufort area is overlooked and that is a shame.

South Carolina has much history to study and I fear our schools do not teach South Carolina history the way we learned it more than 50 years ago in school. With the huge number of todays state residents that have moved here from other states and countries, there is no better time to study our South Carolina history. If challenged, I could probably still name all of our 46 counties because we learned them in school.

Andy Sullivan, Honea Path, S.C.

We love hearing from our readers and encourage you to share your opinions. But youve got to provide us with contact information so we can verify your letters. Letters to the editor are published weekly. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity. Comments are limited to 250 words or less. Please include your name and contact information.

MYSTERY PHOTO

Heres an interesting brick building in Charleston County. What and where is it? Send your best guess to feedback@statehousereport.com. And dont forget to include your name and the town in which you live.

Our Nov. 22 image, Field art, shouldnt have been tough if you live in Newberry. (Heck, we gave everyone a clue with Newberry as the S.C. Encyclopedia entry last week!)

Yet only one photo sleuth the always-curious George Graf of Palmyra, Va., tracked down the story behind the image, which pays tribute to the former Indian mascot of Newberry College.

Somehow, Graf figured out the marker was located on the campus of Newberry College on Cheek Street near the Darrow House parking lot. And then his curiosity got the better of him. So he called the Newberry Museum and connected with a local historian who shared this story:

Back in the early 20th century, Newberry organized a baseball team and needed uniforms. Just so happened that the red uniforms were on sale at the time. After donning the uniforms, someone remarked about them looking like redskin Indians. So, Newberry College adopted the team nickname of Newberry Indians which stuck until around 2005 when the name was changed to Wolves.

The college reportedly changed the name after the NCAA deemed the use of Indians as hostile and abusive, Graf shared.

S.C. Encyclopedia | Patriot Charles Cotesworth Pinckney was born in Charleston on February 14, 1746, to Charles Pinckney, a lawyer and member of the provincial council, and Elizabeth Lucas, who helped introduce indigo cultivation in South Carolina. In 1753 Pinckney accompanied his family to London, where his father served as the colonys agent until 1758. Young Pinckney received private tutoring before entering the prestigious Westminster School in 1761. Three years later he matriculated at both Christ Church College, Oxford, and at the Middle Temple, the London legal training ground. While at Oxford he attended lectures by the famed legal scholar Sir William Blackstone and listened to debates in the House of Commons pertaining to the American colonies. Pinckney was admitted to the English Bar in January 1769. Following a tour of Europe, he returned to South Carolina, where he began a successful legal practice.

Pinckney entered public service in 1769 with election to the Commons House of Assembly, where he represented St. Johns Colleton Parish during the remainder of royal rule. Pinckney also served in the local militia, eventually attaining the rank of colonel. In 1773 he was made attorney general for the judicial districts of Camden, Cheraws, and Georgetown. That same year, on September 28, he married Sarah Middleton, daughter of the wealthy and well-connected Henry Middleton. The marriage produced four children.

Through this marriage Pinckney became closely affiliated with some of the provinces leading radicals in Americas contest with Great Britain, such as Arthur Middleton, Edward Rutledge, and William Henry Drayton. By early 1775 Pinckney was a member of all the important revolutionary committees, from which he advocated aggressive measures, including stealing royal arms from the Statehouse, penning inflammatory epistles to backcountry inhabitants, and planning the defense of Charleston against a possible British attack. At the same time, Pinckney served in the extralegal Provincial Congress, where he assisted in creating and training a rebel army and chaired the committee responsible for drafting a temporary frame of government for the province.

Once hostilities erupted with Britain, Pinckney switched his role as a politician to that of a soldier. Appointed commander of the First Regiment of South Carolina troops, he assisted in the successful defense of Charleston at the Battle of Sullivans Island in June 1776. When the British moved north following this defeat, Pinckney followed to serve as an aide-de-camp to General George Washington. He participated in the battles of Brandywine and Germantown before rejoining the southern army to command a regiment in the expedition to East Florida and at the siege of Savannah.

During the defense of Charleston he commanded Fort Moultrie and made a futile attempt to convince General Benjamin Lincoln, commander of the southern army, to defend the capital at all costs. When Charleston fell, the British placed Pinckney under house arrest and made a hapless attempt to lure him away from the American cause. The British later sent Pinckney to Philadelphia, where he was exchanged in 1782. He rejoined the southern army but saw no further action. Pinckneys first wife, Sarah Middleton, died in 1784, and he married Mary Stead in 1786.

Following the war, Pinckney devoted his efforts toward rebuilding his law practice and his rice plantations. In 1787 he served as a delegate to the constitutional convention, where he ardently and ably defended the exporting and slaveholding interests of southern planters. A staunch Federalist, Pinckney was important in South Carolinas ratification of the federal Constitution in 1788. He later helped draft the states 1790 constitution.

Over the next several years Pinckney rejected President Washingtons numerous offers to serve in federal officeas commander of the army, as associate justice of the Supreme Court, as secretary of war, and as secretary of stateexplaining that he needed to remain at home to restore his fortune. However, in 1796 Pinckney accepted Washingtons offer to serve as minister to France. The next year President John Adams appointed him as one of three commissioners to negotiate a treaty with the French government. When French diplomats demanded a bribe from their American counterparts to facilitate discussions, Pinckney is credited as having exclaimed no! no! Not a sixpense and urged his government to raise millions for defence but not one cent for tribute. In 1798 President Adams, anticipating war with France, appointed Pinckney commander of the southern department of the United States Army. He was discharged from military service in 1800.

Pinckney returned to politics in the election of 1800 as the Federalist Partys vice-presidential candidate. In 1804 and 1808 he was the Federalist candidate for president, but realizing that he had little chance of winning, he never actively campaigned. Instead, Pinckney devoted the remainder of his life to agricultural experiments (he was a member of the South Carolina Agricultural Society) and civic service. He helped establish South Carolina College in 1801 and served on its first board of trustees.

He also busied himself as president of numerous organizations, including the South Carolina Jockey Club, the Society for the Relief of Widows and Orphans of South Carolina, the Charleston Bible Society, the Charleston Library Society, the South Carolina Society of the Cincinnati, and the national Society of the Cincinnati. Near the end of his life Pinckney campaigned against dueling in South Carolina. He died in Charleston on August 16, 1825, and was buried in the cemetery of St. Michaels Church.

Excerpted from an entry by Keith Krawczynski. This entry may not have been updated since 2006. To read more about this or 2,000 other entries about South Carolina, check out The South Carolina Encyclopedia, published in 2006 by USC Press. (Information used by permission.)

Statehouse Report, founded in 2001 as a weekly legislative forecast that informs readers about what is going to happen in South Carolina politics and policy, is provided to you at no charge every Friday.

Now you can get a copy of editor and publisher Andy Bracks We Can Do Better, South Carolina! ($14.99) as a paperback or as a Kindle book ($7.99). . The book of essays offers incisive commentaries by editor and publisher Andy Brack on the American South, the common good, vexing problems for the Palmetto State and interesting South Carolina leaders.

See the original post here:

11/29, full issue: Regulating regulators; Freedom of the press; Right to privacy - Statehouse Report

Letter: Freedom will decrease as government grows | Opinions and Editorials – Aiken Standard

Posted on by

I disagree with those who think saving America means supporting Trump in 2020. Whether its Trump or one of the Democrats who is elected will make very little difference; movement away from freedom will continue as government spending and regulations continue to increase. The Democrats may not be as harsh on innocent immigrants or as dishonestly opposed to free trade but they will favor more taxes on the productive. The Republicans may drag their feet on socializing medicine and providing free education for all but they will provide more pork for their cronies.

Trumps economic policies (tariffs followed by subsidies to counteract their effects, tax cuts with no decrease in spending, tariffs without recognizing trade wars as lose/lose and trade as win/win) are destructive of freedom, hence anti-American. His implicit foreign policy (denigrating allies while treating dictators, terrorists and theocrats as moral) encourages our enemies and is also anti-American. His pretense of opposition to socialism while saying he will provide health care for all is a blatant contradiction.

The authoritarian tone of his actions (his careless, stupid, easily proven untrue, and unretracted insults; his my way or the highway treatment of his appointees; his providing support for white nationalists; his stretching executive actions beyond constitutional limits) pave the way for dangerous authoritarians. Most fundamentally is his lack of respect for the rule of law in general and the U.S. Constitution in particular.

Unfortunately, the Democratic hopefuls nearly make Trump look good. They bemoan the few things that Trump almost got right. They criticize his withdrawal from the Paris green treaty, seeming to want to lower the life span and happiness of billions of people by enslaving the energy producers who make our planet more livable allegedly to avoid catastrophes that only a few scientists claim likely.

They criticize his minimal attack on ObamaCare (removing mandates) and jump on the socialist bandwagon proclaiming now is the time for Medicare for all. They decry his appointing a Secretary of Education who wants to reduce the federal governments role and then they promote free education for all. They denounce his tax cuts (particularly the lowering of corporate tax rates, which should be zero) and want equality by stealing the wealthys wealth.

Andrew Yang proposes a government payout to all workable only if all other payouts were abolished (i.e., no Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, government education, etc.).

Elizabeth Warren, most dangerous of the hopefuls, has plans for expanding every government program imagined and lacks only a funding plan and that leads to the only element of sanity among the Democrats: Joe Biden in the first debate questioned how the others plans could be funded and then, in the October debate, other hopefuls attacked Warren in particular on her conspicuously lacking funding plan.

No politician wants to limit government to protecting individual rights. It appears that the best we can hope for is that whichever party wins the presidency, the other wins Congress and slows down the attacks on freedom.

Robert Stubblefield

Aiken

View original post here:

Letter: Freedom will decrease as government grows | Opinions and Editorials - Aiken Standard

Florence Freedom Release Top Five Possible New Team Names – The River City News

Posted on by

The Florence Freedom announced Wednesday the top five possible new names.

The organization announced in October that it may drop "Freedom" as its mascot, and asked fans to submit ideas for a replacement.

The top five responses, according to the team, are: GoGoettas, Fossil Jockeys, Yalls, Pop Flies, andNo Sox. Fans are able to cast their vote for their favorite possible new mascot at florencefreedom.com until December 11. The organization spent weeks sifting through the thousands of names submitted by the fans in the first round of the contest, a news release said. The top five were selected due to their uniqueness and connection to the area.

The club, which competes in the Frontier League, offered some explanations for the proposed new mascots:

GO-GOETTAS

Florence is here to take back Goetta for its rightful Northern Kentucky owners. Choosing the name Go-Goettas celebrates this wonderfully weird piece of Northern Kentucky food culture, while giving the team an aspirational mindset to shoot for.FOSSIL JOCKEYS

Rising from the marshy pits at Big Bone Lick are the Fossil Jockeys: a group of raucous prehistoric riders who choose the mightiest beasts as their modes of transportation.YALLS

Were the first and last professional baseball team in the south (depending on which way youre driving from), so well take it upon ourselves to be the symbol for Southern culture. Yalls as a name celebrates much more than a painted water tower, it celebrates who we are as Northern Kentuckians and Southerners, with Go Yalls as our rally cry.POP FLIES

Its no secret that we Northern Kentuckians love two things: pop and baseball. That's why we married those two concepts together as the Pop Fly, which is not only a common baseball term but a name for a fly who has an unquenchable sweet tooth.NO SOX

A nod to famous baseball names but with a Kentucky twist, the No Sox celebrates our relaxed, kick-up-your-feet kind of culture. Baseball and life are a little different down here in Florence, and the name No Sox lets everyone know theyre in for a unique experience.The newly named team will open the season and play its first regular season game on May 14, against the New Jersey Jackals.

-Staff report

Photo:UC Health Stadium in Florence

View post:

Florence Freedom Release Top Five Possible New Team Names - The River City News