Democrats focus on some Midwestern issues at Westerville debate, a departure from past three forums – cleveland.com

Posted on by

WESTERVILLE, Ohio Democrats have said to win in 2020 they need to go into their traditional strongholds and talk to voters about the issues that matter to them.

At Tuesday nights debate at Otterbein University, they finally started following their own advice.

After three debates that largely failed to address Midwestern issues in depth, the 12 Democrats on the stage had a fairly robust discussion, taking advantage of their location in the Buckeye State. And they found a way to tie the topics to regional problems.

The economy and jobs were a prime focus of the first hour of discussion, including the monthlong strike by autoworkers against General Motors and the closure of the Lordstown GM plant. The August massacre in Dayton, Ohio, got some play. And the debate even featured a question from a teacher about the opioid crisis.

It was a stark difference from the previous three, which have mostly focused on health care with passing attention given to Midwestern issues.

The economy and jobs

Businessman Andrew Yang, whose chief plank is universal basic income, brought up the economy first, after pivoting from a question in the opening minutes about whether he supported impeaching Republican President Donald Trump.

Why did Donald Trump win your state by eight points? Yang asked the crowd. Because we got rid of 300,000 manufacturing jobs in your towns. And we are not stopping there. Amazon alone is closing 30 percent of America's stores and malls, soaking up $20 billion in business while paying zero in taxes. These are the problems that got Donald Trump elected, the fourth industrial revolution. And that is going to accelerate and grow more serious regardless of who is in the Oval Office.

After focusing on impeachment and health care for 30 minutes, the moderators switched to the economy when Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont was asked if his proposed federal jobs guarantee would, in fact, provide a job for every single American.

Damn right we will. And I'll tell you why, Sanders said. If you look at what goes on in America today, we have an infrastructure which is collapsing. We could put 15 million people to work rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our water systems, our wastewater plants, airports, et cetera.

CNN moderator Erin Burnett eventually shifted the discussion to automation, asking Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts if she stood by her statement that automation was not the main reason for job loss.

So the data show that we have had a lot of problems with losing jobs, but the principal reason has been bad trade policy, Warren said. The principal reason has been a bunch of corporations, giant multinational corporations who've been calling the shots on trade, giant multinational corporations that have no loyalty to America. They have no loyalty to American workers. They have no loyalty to American consumers. They have no loyalty to American communities. They are loyal only to their own bottom line.

Her proposed solution was to make it easier to join a labor union and require any multinational corporation that wants to do business in America to have 40% of its board elected by employees.

That will make a difference when a corporation decides, Gee, we could save a nickel by moving a job to Mexico, when there are people on the board in the boardroom saying, No, do you know what that does to our company? Do you know what that does to our community, what it does to our workers? Warren said.

Former Rep. Beto ORourke of Texas and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey said they would rewrite trade deals to require that Mexican workers be allowed to join a labor union.

Guns

The candidates were all asked what they would do to curb gun violence, such as the shooting in Dayton, Ohio, where nine people were slaughtered in less than a minute.

Most of the discussion on the topic was over whether the candidates supported a mandatory or voluntary gun buyback program.

ORourke said he supported a mandatory program. The other candidates supported a form of voluntary buyback, mostly reasoning because they wanted to accomplish goals like universal background checks and red-flag laws while public support is on their side.

I just dont want to screw this up, said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. When I am president, I want to bring in an assault weapon ban. And I do want to bring in a limitation on magazines so what happened to Dayton, Ohio, doesnt happen again.

Sen. Kamala Harris of California said she would give Congress 100 days to send her a gun reform bill, after which she would use an executive order to institute universal background checks.

Former Vice President Joe Biden said holding gun manufacturers liable for shooting deaths was also a viable option to curbing gun violence.

If you really want to get it done, go after the gun manufacturers and take back the exemption they have to not being sued, Biden said.

Opioids

The opioid addiction crisis also received some play from the moderators, who said they asked Ohioans for their top questions before the debate.

The issue wasnt given as much time as other topics, though, with the candidates uniformly arguing for decriminalizing personal use and shifting funds from jailing addicts to treatment. Yang also argued for safe injection sites.

The candidates mostly agreed with holding the drug companies civilly liable for overdose deaths.

See original here:

Democrats focus on some Midwestern issues at Westerville debate, a departure from past three forums - cleveland.com

Why Joker is unlikely to inspire real-world violence – Vox.com

Posted on by

In the buildup to the release of Joker, the much-discussed new antihero film centered on the main villain of the Batman franchise, the media latched onto one specific narrative: that the film had potential to inspire real-world violence, particularly from incels, who some believed might feel some sort of kinship with the movies angry loner version of the Joker. Pundits worried that the film could even lead to a repeat of the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, mass shooting, which took place at a movie theater showing The Dark Knight Rises. That movie was the final installment in Christopher Nolans Batman trilogy, the second of which starred Heath Ledger as the Joker and renewed the characters status as a cultural icon.

Though rumors that the Aurora shooter was inspired by the character of the Joker turned out to be false, the memory is clearly still strong for many people including victims of the 2012 shooting, some of whom penned an open letter to Warner Bros. asking the studio to push for stricter gun control alongside Jokers release. This prompted director Todd Phillips to defend his film, noting that it was unfair to blame either The Dark Knight Rises, Joker, or the Joker character himself for the actions or possible actions of mass shooters.

In order to learn more about the factors influencing the media coverage around the film and how those factors compare to the real motives that typically influence this kind of violence, I turned to journalist Robert Evans, a longtime expert on extremist communities and the host of the Behind the Bastards podcast, which examines the lives and cultural contexts of a wide range of bastards, including many extremists and radicals throughout history.

Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Why do you think so many people in the press specifically latched onto Joker as an example of media that could potentially inspire dangerous extremism and vigilante justice?

I think there are two chief reasons. One of them is completely unjustified, and one of them is partially justified by things that have happened before. I think the chief reason, and the unjustified reason, that people are focusing on the Joker movie is The Dark Knight Rises and the 2012 mass shooting in Aurora. Theres actually a major misconception: The shooter was not dressing up as the Joker [during the attack on the movie theater]. He was in no way trying to carry out something from the movie. I have never seen any evidence that he was a particular fan of Heath Ledgers Joker or of that [film] in general. This was misinformation that was put out by a police officer who was interviewed by a couple of newspapers.

But if you actually study what the shooter said in interviews, what he wrote in his notebooks, what hed been talking about with the therapist, he had this very strange sort of quasi-spiritual belief that his value as a person was low, and he could kill people because their lives would add to his.

Most mass shooters are not mentally ill. He is one of the fairly rare ones who had some significant mental illness, and it had nothing to do with the movie. But because it occurred on that day, because his hair was dyed a garish color and because the pundits didnt know what they were talking about [when they] spread that misinformation, that belief [that the Joker was an influence] was widespread. So I think thats a reason people are worried about this movie, and I think its the unjustified one.

Now, the one that is a little bit justified is the shooting of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley, Jr. [in 1981], because Hinckley was partly inspired by the [1976] movie Taxi Driver. He was also a very mentally ill man who believed that he would be able to have a relationship with Jodie Foster if he impressed her in that way. Its a pretty famous story.

Im not going to say theres no precedent for a movie hitting someone who has a mental health issue in a way that it causes them to do something inexplicable and terrible, but thats extremely rare. I cant think of another case where its been that direct other than the case of John Hinckley. I dont see that as particularly likely.

And again, I think its incredibly important to note that of the significant number of mass shooters in American history, virtually none of them had preexisting diagnosed mental illnesses. And when we look at the intellectual problem, you know, people are worried about the Joker movie within the context of incel and white supremacist terror groups. Like people on 8chan, which has been [involved in] carrying out the majority of at least the most publicized mass shootings of the last year or so. But I would say [their actions have] nothing to do with mental illness. Those are people who see themselves as part of a cause and who are taking action to further that cause. Their actions may seem inexplicable to people, but that doesnt mean that the illness has anything to do with it.

How much of the films media coverage do you think is predicated on the character of the Joker himself, who is an anarchistic, violent mayhem spreader?

If you actually look at the propaganda these mass shooters spread, the Joker and other fictional vigilantes dont play into it at all. Theyre much more likely to spread videos and writings by, for example, the Columbine shooters, [Eric] Harris and [Dylan] Klebold, Harris in particular. Like, thats the kind of guy they look to as an idol, not a comic book character.

When they spread fictional stuff and characters that have inspired them, its usually stuff like [the 1978 novel about extremist violence] The Turner Diaries or Unintended Consequences, which is a novel about gun culture in the US. Theres a book called Siege by a guy named James Mason, and its a guide to carrying out the neo-Nazi insurgency. And the goal is to essentially perpetrate a series of mass shootings and bombings across the country carried out by small cells or individuals, but theres no centralized organizational structure. The Turner Diaries is essentially the same thing, but rather than it being the work of decentralized individuals carrying out attacks to destabilize governments, its a secret terrorist group called [The Organization].

For one thing, the Joker is kind of an inherently apolitical figure, and these guys tend to have very political motivations for doing what theyre doing. Im completely baffled by the fact that so many folks in the media seem to be focusing on the Jokers ability to inspire incels to terrorism because the Joker is famously in a long-term relationship with somebody. Like, its odd that thats so focused on. [Editors note: Though the Joker is in a long-term relationship with Harley Quinn in most portrayals of the character in the DC Comics universe, Joker presents him as a loner who fixates dangerously on women.]

Well, I think theres a conflation happening there. I think people in the media are inaccurately conflating incel culture with all of alt-right culture and, to some extent, all of Gamergate. Theres a lot of inherently negative stereotypes about geek culture that go into that.

Its best to see these communities as a bunch of interlocking circles, where you have incels and you have neo-Nazis, then you have Columbiners. You have the Bowl Patrol people who obsess over [Charleston shooter] Dylann Roof. You have all these different groups, and they have sometimes considerable overlap. A lot of incel culture has been very infected by weird, more esoteric, national socialist racial theory.

But I dont see nerd culture feeding into it as much as [the fact that] the kind of people who get into radical extremism are often the kind of people who spend most of their time online. [They] tend to be insular people, and so theyre also interested in that stuff. Its like, just because most of them are, or were, at some point gamers. that doesnt mean that video games made them do this or made it more likely that they would do this.

Its just that the kind of people who are going to be in these radicalized communities also tend to have obsessive personalities and [arent] super social. So they wind up in these online communities, where more explicit and ideological members of these movements are trying to recruit and draw people in.

Thats part of why I think its a big mistake to focus on this movie as a driver of radicalization. The stuff that convinces these people to act is so much deeper than a movie about a failed clown who murders a bunch of people.

I mean, look at the content theyre sharing. Its very explicitly racist, very explicitly, um, [genocidal] and includes [it] is a thousand times more violent and hateful than anything that a mainstream movie would come out [with].

Like a lot of the things that are shared most often [on places] like 8chan, youre going to see pictures from the Oklahoma City bombing, from the victims of mass shootings. That sort of thing. Its celebrating the violence. One of the most popular pieces of media circulated among these groups on that front [is the video from] the terrorist shooting in Christchurch, which is worse than anything youre ever going to see in a movie.

From trying to understand where the media is coming from regarding the film and its surrounding cultural context, I think that a lot of the concern might be motivated by the Christchurch shooting and the fact that the shooter left behind that meme-filled manifesto. People who are less familiar with the actual granular planning and structures of these communities, they look at the alt-right movement and they see it proliferating with memes, and then they look at the Joker.

I think that critics see the Joker as this villain who frames violence within this context of nihilistic anarchy where nothing matters. And some also see that as fully aligned with the alt-right approach, and the alt-right milieu of benefiting from mass hysteria by claiming that everybody else is too serious. They see those things as being very culturally aligned. And you look at things like the Christchurch shooter saying subscribe to PewDiePie before opening fire, and that seems like a very Joker-like thing to do.

I see why people might conflate that. I think theres a number of errors in that thinking and its the people kind of failing to grasp whats going on in these peoples heads.

One of those errors would be ... anarchism doesnt appeal. By and large, there are people who believe very strict hierarchy: biological hierarchy, racial hierarchy, and social hierarchy. One of the reasons that theres been some misconceptions in the media is the clown world meme, which is a very common white nationalist meme that popped up earlier this year. The idea is that they have like a Pepe figure [Pepe the Frog is a famous internet meme thats notoriously been appropriated by the alt-right] thats wearing clown makeup and a clown wig and stuff. And I think people who dont understand what the meme is about think it ties in somehow to the Joker.

It doesnt. When the extremists are calling something the clown world, what theyre saying is that the fact that women are able to work [in important jobs], or the fact that women are in positions of power, the fact that we have multiculturalism, the fact that we have a multi-ethnic society thats all inherently absurd and wrong.

And so, because the world is so broken by the fact that women are going to get jobs and that people of different races can now live among each other, because thats so fundamentally broken in their minds, our world is a clown world. Thats what theyre saying.

I mean, Im sure plenty of [these people] enjoyed watching the second Christopher Nolan Batman movie, and Heath Ledgers Joker. Maybe some of them enjoy [Joker]. But theyre fundamentally not interested in violent extremism for reasons of just causing chaos. [For instance,] people who are fans of that book Siege or The Turner Diaries, [they want] to destabilize society to such an extent that a fascist dictatorship is able to take hold and the white supremacist state can arise and exterminate the nonwhite. Thats the goal of an extremist like that. Online, in communities like 8chan and other groups, people who are fans of that are referred to by other white nationalists as Siege-heads. There are different sort of communities within the white nationalist scene online.

Again, these arent anarchists. They see themselves as soldiers fighting for a cause. I just dont think theyre going to find much to appeal to them in a movie like Joker or in that character. The people who are already on that path [dont need a movie to tip the scale].

They just arrested that young woman in Florida. And she had a copy of The Turner Diaries with her. Im sure she had other white nationalist literature. She wasnt influenced or inspired by any Hollywood movie. She was obsessed with the Columbine shooters and [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh. Its the same thing with [the Christchurch shooter, who] didnt really cite any fiction as an influence in his radicalization path. It was the online community and these esoteric works of Nazi racial theory, and the sort of attitudes expressed in these communities about white genocide.

Members of these groups have been pushing for white genocide [for] 40, 50 years. The idea that a 90-minute Hollywood movie that just has a character who looks like a generic young male terrorist the idea that that would be what tips anybody into violence? Thats absurd to me.

I dont think its impossible that somebody would pick a showing of that movie to go shoot up. But if that happens, its not been inspired by the Joker. Its because they saw a bunch of media coverage talking about how everyones worried that the movie is going to inspire a mass shooting, and they were like, Okay, well, maybe if I do it there. Ill get a bunch of media attention.

But I think that happening is unlikely, just because of how much security theres going to be in a lot of showings. Thats one of the big stories theres all these people issuing warnings [to theatergoers about the movie and possible dangers they fear it could pose].

These [potential shooters] dont want a hard target. They want to be able to rack up a huge death toll and then ideally be taken alive, which is one of the big wrinkles introduced by [the Christchurch shooter].

I think its not been reported on enough, but this idea that [shooters] dont have to die carrying out an attack is one of the major new things thats changed about this sort of violence this year.

If you were going to give advice to members of the media reporting on these I almost dont want to say reporting on these stories, because in some cases the media are creating the stories, arent they? But when were reporting on what seems like the nexus of internet culture, geek culture, and the anarchistic upheaval in these types of antihero films how would you suggest we do it without perpetuating misinformation and conflating rational fear about real-world consequences with irrational panic over dangerous fiction?

I mean, I hate to say it, because I like your work and I tend to like Vox, but Im not sure its even a good idea to write about [the film], unless what youre writing about is just the fact that this culture of hysteria has crept up around the movie.

I am not aware of any actual experts [who research methods for] countering violent extremism, people who are regarded within that community, who consider this [movie] a particular cause for worry or source of radicalization. And I dont have any worries about this film [inciting any violence, either].

View original post here:

Why Joker is unlikely to inspire real-world violence - Vox.com

Ford Patents Drone That Pops Out of a Car’s Trunk – Futurism

Posted on by

Fords Focus

The spare tire stashed in your cars trunk for emergencies might soon be joined by a drone.

On Thursday, the U.S. Patent and Trademarks office published a patent application submitted by Ford Motor Company subsidiary Ford Global Technologies. It seems the American automaker is developing a system that would allow drivers to deploy and control a drone stored in their cars trunk.

According to the patent application, drivers would use a vehicles onboard computer to deploy and control a quadcopter-style drone. The idea isnt to have a drone following your car around all the time like an animal companion in a video game, though Ford envisions drivers typically deploying the drone in emergency situations.

If a vehicle runs out of fuel or gets involved in a crash, for example, the driver could deploy the drone and direct it to shine a spotlight on the car while sounding an alarm. This could make the vehicle easier for first responders to locate and other drivers to avoid. The drone could also stream real-time footage of a vehicle straight to its owners phone if theyre forced to abandon the car.

The system in the patent application, filed in 2016, has the potential to make roads safer for everyone on them.

However, countless inventions never make it further than the patent stage, so only time will tell whether Fords drone system actually makes it into any of the automakers vehicles.

READ MORE: Ford Patenting a Drone You Can Deploy from Your Cars Trunk [Car and Driver]

More on drones: This Strange Solar-Powered Drone Could Save You in a Disaster

Continue reading here:

Ford Patents Drone That Pops Out of a Car's Trunk - Futurism

Facebooks Cryptocurrency is Collapsing in Front of Our Eyes – Futurism

Posted on by

Crumbling Crypto

Facebooks plans to establish Libra, its cryptocurrency, is falling apart in real time.

After facing major backlash from governments around the world, many of the 28 original corporate backers jumped ship.

Partners were meant to help Facebook build a powerful network and help spread Libra around the world. But last week, PayPal withdraw from the Libra Association, the body that was meant to oversee Libras creation and rollout. And today Visa, MasterCard, Stripe, and eBay abandoned the crumbling project as well.

Facebooks plans for its cryptocurrency drew criticism and scrutiny from regulators. Their reasoning: a technology platform with two billion users could end up undermining and threatening local economies by privatizing financial interactions.

Facebooks own image had already been tarnished significantly in light of an ongoing antitrust probe by the U.S. Justice Department. Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren also joined the fray by announcing plans to break up tech megacorporations including Facebook.

Europe is fuming as well: Facebook and the Libra Association are facing a grilling by European Union regulators.

Could Libra be Facebooks downfall, as some experts have predicted? Its too early to tell.

Nonetheless, the Libra Association is moving ahead. We look forward to the inaugural Libra Association Council meeting in just 3 days and announcing the initial members of the Libra Association, Libra Association policy chief Dante Disparte told The Verge.

READ MORE: Facebooks Libra Association crumbling as Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, and eBay exit [The Verge]

More on the Libra: French Gov Official Warns Facebook: Libra Is Not Welcome Here

Read the original here:

Facebooks Cryptocurrency is Collapsing in Front of Our Eyes - Futurism

This Malware Makes ATMs Spit Out All Their Money – Futurism

Posted on by

Big Money

Jackpotting attacks, which are hacks that make ATMs spew money, are becoming increasingly common around the world.

Hackers equipped with black market software are targeting cash machines with dated software and substandard security and walking away with millions over the course of a series of attacks, according to a collaborative investigation by Motherboard and German newsroom Bayerischer Rundfunk. Though law enforcement agencies are tightlipped about the trend, its a sign that banks may be surprisingly vulnerable to cybercrime.

Previous reports claimed that jackpotting attacks have decreased since some high-profile 2017 attacks in Germany, but the new investigation reveals that the opposite is true.

Globally, our 2019 survey indicates that jackpotting attacks are increasing, David Tente, of the ATM Industry Association, told Motherboard.

Othersources, granted anonymity by Motherboard, described the same trend: There are attacks happening, but a lot of the time its not publicized, said one.

The German attacks and others throughout Europe seem to be carried out with Russian software called Cutlet Maker, which Motherboard reports can be bought for $1,000. In the U.S., a program called Ploutus.D is more popular.

Both programs can be installed into ATMs through a USB or other physical access point though the hackers usually need to break into the ATMs hardware to access it.

The bad guys are selling these developments [malware] to just anybody, David Sancho, a jackpotting expert at the cybersecurity firm Trend Micro, told Motherboard. Potentially this can affect any country in the world.

READ MORE: Malware That Spits Cash Out of ATMs Has Spread Across the World [Motherboard]

More on ATMs: Who the Hell Is Using the Worlds 5,000 Crypto ATMs?

See more here:

This Malware Makes ATMs Spit Out All Their Money - Futurism

2021 Moon Rover Will Have Legs Instead of Wheels – Futurism

Posted on by

Space Legs

TheUnited Kingdom plans to send its first lunar rover to the Moon in 2021 and the robot is unlike any that came before it.

Not only will the rover created UK-based space startup SpaceBit be the smallest one in history, but it will also have legs rather than wheels a design innovation that could allow it to explore previously unreachable areas of the Moon.

SpaceBit unveiled the rover on Thursday at the science and tech festival New Scientist Live, noting that the bot will hitch a ride to the Moons surface aboard U.S. space robotics company Astrobotics 2021 mission.

The 1 kilogram (2.2 pound) robot is shaped like a cube with four legs, which it will use to gather video and other data for scientists during its 10-Earth-days-long mission.

SpaceBit and Astrobotic are hopeful that the mission will illustrate the benefits of giving rovers legs and lead to future missions in which legged rovers explore the Moons tubular caves.

The legs could be better for steep, rocky terrain, and basically any place where wheels start to struggle, Astrobotics CEO John Thornton told New Scientist.

READ MORE: Plans for UKs first moon rover announced at New Scientist Live [New Scientist]

More on Moon rovers: See the Moon Rover Toyota Is Building for Japans Space Program

Original post:

2021 Moon Rover Will Have Legs Instead of Wheels - Futurism

Russias Working on a Lunar Rover With a Humanoid Torso – Futurism

Posted on by

Fedors Future

In August, Russia sent its gun-toting humanoid robot Fedor to the International Space Station, where it spent a couple weeks learning how to be a cosmonaut.

Now that Fedor is back on Earth, the nations space agency has revealed that the bots next destination is the Moon but first, theyre going to chop off its legs and attach it to a lunar rover, according to a new story by state-run news service RIA Novosti.

A source in Roscosmos reportedly told RIA Novosti that the agency plans to send a lunar rover with a wheeled body pretty standard amongst rovers and the torso, head, and arms of a Fedor robot to the Moon in three to four years.

Fedor has already proven it can use tools, drive a car, and even shoot a gun, so by adding the humanoids top half to a rover, Russia will be creating a bot with incredible dexterity.

The United Kingdom is also rethinking lunar rover design, but its strategy is the opposite of Russias it plans to send a cube-shaped rover withspider-like legs instead of wheels to the Moon in 2021, the idea being that the bots legs might allow it to explore terrain a wheeled bot couldnt reach.

It seems both agencies are working to create rovers that are a little more inspired by human biology making them the perfect fill-in until we can put real people back on the Moon.

READ MORE: Russia wants to remove space robots legs, give it wheels, send it to the Moon [Ars Technica]

More on Fedor: Watch Russias Gun-Toting Robot Use a Power Drill on the ISS

The rest is here:

Russias Working on a Lunar Rover With a Humanoid Torso - Futurism

Former NASA Scientist "Convinced" We Already Found Life on Mars – Futurism

Posted on by

Weve spent decades and billions of dollars to answer one simple question: is there life on Mars?

But according to an opinion piece for Scientific American by former NASA scientist Gilbert Levin, we may already have learned were not alone in the universe during an experiment Levin led for NASAs Viking mission to Mars in 1976.

NASA sent two separate Viking orbiter and lander pairs to the Red Planet to conduct experiments and return with snapshots marking the first time the U.S. safely landed a spacecraft on the Red Planet and sent back photos.

The smoking gun, according to Levin: the mission detected positive results during the Labeled Release life detection experiment, which he spearheaded.

As part of the experiment, the lander mixed a Martian soil sample with a nitrogen-based nutrient solution that was labeled with a unique radioactive carbon compound. The theory was that if microorganisms in the soil metabolized the nutrients, it would let off radioactive carbon dioxide gas.

Levin recounts how amazingly the initial results of the experiment were positive for microorganisms and corroborated by both separate Mars landers some 4,000 miles apart.

And Levin is adamant: thousands of reliable tests with Earth-based soil and microbial cultures conducted at the time, he argues, support the results.

But still, theres a big snag with his results: further experiments provided no clear evidence for the presence of living microorganisms in soil near the landing sites, as NASA puts it.

Levin supports his conclusion with evidence obtained after NASAs Viking missions, including the evidence of surface water, methane, ammonia, and even wormlike features appearing in images taken by NASAs Curiosity rover.

But NASA has continued to drag its feet, in Levins eyes. He argues that in NASAs long history of exploring Mars, it has failed since the 1976 missions to search for direct evidence of life, despite the search being among its highest priorities.

Rather than send soil samples all the way back to Earth something that NASAs Mars 2020 rover will attempt to do Levin thinks scientists should expand on the outcomes of his 1970s experiments and conduct further similar tests.

But before that happens, hell have to convince NASA that his experiments evidence for life on Mars is valid.

READ MORE: Im Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s [Scientific American]

More:

Former NASA Scientist "Convinced" We Already Found Life on Mars - Futurism

Porsche and Boeing Want to Build This Sexy Flying Car Together – Futurism

Posted on by

Flying Porsche

German carmaker Porsche is teaming up with aerospace giant Boeing to build a resplendent flying car a speedy and elegant way for the ultra-wealthy to glide over frustrated peasants stuck in road traffic below.

Porsche is looking to enhance its scope as a sports car manufacturer by becoming a leading brand for premium mobility, said Porsche exec Detlev von Platen in a press release. In the longer term, this could mean moving into the third dimension of travel.

According to Boeing NeXt executive Steve Nordlund, the partnership will provide an opportunity to investigate the development of a premium urban air mobility vehicle with a leading automotive brand. Emphasis on premium this isnt going to be an aircraft for the average Joe.

Fittingly, the renders are gorgeous, with sleek accented lines that seemingly are inspired by Porsches iconic car designs.

Neither Boeing nor Porsche are the first companies to try for the elusive flying car market.

Flying car startup Kitty Hawk recently revealed its third vertical take and landing aircraft,featuring a 100 mile range. German flying car maker Volocopter also showed off its air taxi as it took flight over a German city earlier this year.

READ MORE: Porsche teams up with Boeing to build flying cars for rich people [The Verge]

More on flying cars: Kitty Hawks Extremely Quiet Flying Car Has a 100-Mile Range

Originally posted here:

Porsche and Boeing Want to Build This Sexy Flying Car Together - Futurism

A Climate Protester Just Glued Himself to the Top of an Airplane – Futurism

Posted on by

Plane Resistance

Climate activists from the global environmental group Extinction Rebellion are bringing their protest strategies to new heights.

In an unusual stunt, former Paralympian James Brownreportedly smuggled a tube of glue throughLondons City Airportand then clambered onto the roof of a British Airways plane and stuck himself there using the glue. Video footage of the incident spread online like wildfire.

The visually impaired athlete can be seen clinging to the top of the aircraft that was originally bound for Amsterdam. A crowd of airline officials and firefighters latergot him down safely.

Here I am on top of a f****ing aeroplane at City Airport. I hate heights, Im s***ing myself, I managed to get on the roof, Taylor can be heard saying in a video uploaded to Facebook. I am so shaky.

In the video, he asks why the UK government sanctions the expansion of airports around the country, while at the same time declaring that there is a climate emergency.

Over 1,00 Extinction Rebellion arrests have been made this week alone, including 50 who were detained at the airport on Thursday, according to The Guardian.

The socio-political grassroots movement aims to use civil disobedience and zero violence to protest the breakdown of our climate, ecological collapse, and the loss of biodiversity.

READ MORE: Paralympian glues himself to the top of British Airways jet as Extinction Rebellion invades London City airport [ABC News]

More on Extinction Rebellion: Hackers Stole Old Radiohead Demos Then Got Owned

The rest is here:

A Climate Protester Just Glued Himself to the Top of an Airplane - Futurism

Quirky futurist podcast The Life Cycle starts off with the apocalypse – Boing Boing

Posted on by

Quirky futurist podcast The Life Cycle starts off with the apocalypse / Boing Boing

Beginning with the end of things, the premiere episode of The Life Cycle asks: is there going to be a future to speak of at all? Why is it that the apocalypse is no longer just the reserve of religion, but now dominates everything from our Netflix viewing to our conversations with friends and family? And what can we learn from global climate strikes? Featuring Joshua Tan, Ph.D. in Computer Science, Oxford.

Subscribe to The Life Cycle on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.Follow The Life Cycle on Twitter and Instagram.

Remember when the default state of your online presence was anonymity? Thats not so clear-cut anymore, and the worst part is you may not even know who is using your data or what theyre using it for. Small wonder that so many people are choosing to surf through virtual private networks. VPNs filter web access []

Isnt 13 one less than 14? People reports: Felicity Huffmans release from prison for her role in the college admissions scandal has already been set. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate locator, Huffman, 56, will finish her sentencing on Oct. 27 exactly 13 days after she reported to the Federal Correctional Institution []

Amazing parenting and crafting here.

Remember when the default state of your online presence was anonymity? Thats not so clear-cut anymore, and the worst part is you may not even know who is using your data or what theyre using it for. Small wonder that so many people are choosing to surf through virtual private networks. VPNs filter web access []

Get ready for the stream of your dreams, binge-watchers. Theres a contest afoot, and at stake is a lifetime subscription to Netflix. All you have to do is sign up, and youre entered to win this ultimate Netflix plan. When does it expire? Only when you do. And hey, just in case you need something []

Theres overwhelming support for clean energy, and the planet is giving us more reasons to invest in renewable power sources with every passing year. Even in the most inhospitable areas, wind and solar can provide a good chunk of our power, if not all of it. So why arent we all taking advantage of it? []

Read this article:

Quirky futurist podcast The Life Cycle starts off with the apocalypse - Boing Boing

This Is the First-Ever Smartphone Made Completely in Africa – Futurism

Posted on by

Shop Local

A Rwandan company called Mara Group just released two new smartphones the Mara X and the pricier Mara Z which are the first ever to be manufactured entirely in Africa.

The two Android phones are more expensive than others available in the area, according to Fast Company, but Mara Group is banking on people willing to dish out a little extra for the opportunity to support local economies instead of buying imported hardware. All said, the phones are an important step toward Rwandas goal of becoming a new hub for the tech industry.

Rwanda President Paul Kagame described Mara Groups new facility as Africas first high tech smartphone factory during an inaugural ceremony on Monday, CNN reports.

The Mara Phone joins a growing list of high-quality products that are made in our country, he said.

Mara Group isnt the first to assemble phones in Africa Fast Company reports that Egypt, Algeria, and South Africa all have phone factories. However, all of them buy parts from China and other non-African countries.

READ MORE: Rwanda just released the first smartphone made entirely in Africa [Fast Company]

More on smartphones: Despite Fix, Samsung Folding Phone Still Breaks Almost Immediately

View post:

This Is the First-Ever Smartphone Made Completely in Africa - Futurism

Its Almost 2020 and There’s a Cassette Tape Shortage – Futurism

Posted on by

Tape Delay

Yesterday, Pitchfork reported that a material shortage has thrown a roadblock into the production of cassette tapes.

Yes, you read that right: cassette tapes.

Gamma ferric oxide is the most common material used in the magnetic strips of tape that store audio on cassettes. Theres only one factory used to refine the substance and its been under renovation for nearly a year hurting a growing niche of the music industry.

While vinyl records have enjoyed a sales boom over the past decade, enjoying 30 year highs and threatening to outsell CDs, cassette tapes have also seen a significant resurgence in the past ten years.

Vinyl pressing plants have also had to work overtime producing greater numbers of records using refurbished presses, since there are no manufacturers making new ones. They often produce special editions that they ship to major retailers such as Target and Urban Outfitters, as well as independent record stores.

Headline acts such as Lana Del Rey, Twenty One Pilots and even Taylor Swift now issue their albums on cassette tape as well as vinyl. Sales of cassette tapes in 2018 were up 23 percent from the prior year, according to Billboard.

It appears that even in the era of streaming, when most consumers listen to music via services such as Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal, there exists a substantial number of listeners who still prefer to own a physical object even if they have to shell out 25 or 30 dollars to hold a physical copy of their favorite album.

READ MORE: Worldwide Material Shortage Delays Cassette Tape Production [Pitchfork]

More on tapes: Yes, Theres a Pee Tape and Its Unclear If Its a Deepfake

The rest is here:

Its Almost 2020 and There's a Cassette Tape Shortage - Futurism

LeBron James angers Hong Kong protesters with free speech comments – PBS NewsHour

Posted on by

HONG KONG (AP) When the ball smashed into a photo of LeBron James face stuck above the hoop and dropped into the basket, the Hong Kong protesters cheered.

They also trampled on jerseys bearing his name and gathered in a semicircle to watch one burn.

James standing among basketball fans in Hong Kong took a hit because of comments the NBA star made about free speech. Fans gathered on courts amid Hong Kongs high-rise buildings Tuesday to vent their anger.

The player for the Los Angeles Lakers touched a nerve among protesters for suggesting that free speech can have negative consequences. They have been protesting for months in defense of the same freedom that James said can carry a lot of negative.

READ MORE: NBA says it supports freedom of speech after Hong Kong tweet

The protesters chanted support for Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey, something of a hero among demonstrators in the semi-autonomous Chinese territory for having tweeted on Oct. 4 in support of their struggle, infuriating authorities in China.

What the crowd of approximately 200 people chanted about James wasnt printable.

People are angry, said James Lo, a web designer who runs a Hong Kong basketball fan page on Facebook. He said hes already received a video from a protester that showed him burning a No. 23 jersey bearing James name.

He expects more, given the backlash from protesters whove been regularly hitting the streets of Hong Kong and battling police because of concerns that the international business hub is slowly losing its freedoms, which are unique in China.

Students, they come out like every weekend. Theyve got tear gassed and then they got gun-shot, like every weekend. Police beating students and then innocent people, like every day. And then he (James) just comes up with something (like) that. We just cant accept that.

James made his comments in response to a question about whether Morey should be punished for his tweet that reverberated in China and had consequences for the NBA.

Yes, we do have freedom of speech, James said. But at times, there are ramifications for the negative that can happen when youre not thinking about others, when you only think about yourself.

READ MORE: In Chinas film industry, the Communist Party is in the directors chair

He added: So many people could have been harmed, not only financially but physically, emotionally, spiritually. So just be careful what we tweet and what we say and what we do. Even though yes, we do have freedom of speech, it can be a lot of negative that comes with it.

NBA players werent made available before or after games in China, which CCTV didnt broadcast, and several companies and state-run offices reportedly severed their ties with the NBA over Moreys tweet and the leagues response to it.

Protesters said James comments smacked of a double-standard, because hes used his clout as a sports headliner to press for social causes in the United States.

Please remember, all NBA players, what you said before: Black lives matter. Hong Kong lives also matter! one of the protesters, 36-year-old office worker William Mok, said in addressing the applauding crowd.

Others said LeBrons comments made it seem that hes more worried about money than people.

James was trying, you know, to take a side, on the China side, which is like ridiculous, said Aaron Lee, a 36-year-old marketing director. He was being honest, financially. Financial is money. Simple as that. LeBron James stands for money. Period.

Read the original:

LeBron James angers Hong Kong protesters with free speech comments - PBS NewsHour

Internet Industry Under the Microscope as House Committee Grills Witnesses on Liability for Online Content – BroadbandBreakfast.com

Posted on by

WASHINGTON, October 16, 2019 -The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday said that technology companies need to step up and better address challenges surrounding online content. If not, they will likely have to navigate a world in which Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act is modified.

The internet is more sophisticated than it was when Section 230 was enacted as part of the Telecom Act of 1996, said Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J.

But Ranking Member Greg Walden, R-Ore., countered that the internet isnt something that can be regulated and managed by the government. When discussing Section 230 reform, he said, there needs to be differentiation between illegal content and constitutionally protected speech.

The witnesses present at the hearing echoed the notion that Section 230 needs to stay. Yet the bill does have some issues that should be addressed.

Reddit Co-Founder and CEO Steve Huffman said that even slightly narrowing the constraints of the CDA could undermine the freedom of the internet. At Reddit, for example, individual users play a crucial role in self-moderation of content. Those interactions, he said, helped curb Russian meddling in the 2016 election via social media.

Section 230 needs to return to its original purpose, said Danielle Keats Citron, professor of law at Boston University School of Law. When the bill was first introduced, she said, its goal was to incentivize online platforms to be at the forefront of moderation.

Nowadays, Citron added, Section 230 has created a legal shield that covers the actions conducted by these platforms, including websites that may engage in illegal activities. This problem, she said, requires legal reform and cant be solved by the market alone.

The CDA has helped regular people by removing much of the gatekeeping for social change, said Corynne McSherry, legal director at Electronic Frontier Foundation. Increasing company liability, she said, could lead to over-censorship and stifle competition as smaller firms would be burdened by regulation.

In contrast, Gretchen Peters, executive director at Alliance to Counter Crime Online, said that tech companies need to face greater liability in order for them to reduce online safety risks. Social media algorithms, she said, are used by terrorist organizations and other nefarious people to further their agendas.

Section 230 is more about liability than freedom of speech, she said. Because of safe harbors and broad interpretation of the bill, tech firms have failed to uphold their end of the bargain to protect people from dangerous online content.

Hany Farid, professor at the University of California, Berkeley, advised the Committee not to view artificial intelligence as the savior for content moderation. The billions of contents created every day, he said, would be too much for mere automation to handle. Human action is necessary to uphold a decent standard of online communication.

Googles Global Head of Intellectual Property Policy Katherine Oyama said that her companys ability to take action on questionable content is underpinned by the foundation of Section 230s regulations.

The CDA helps differentiate the US from how countries such as China and Russia approach the internet, she said. Furthermore, weakening online safe harbors could have a recession-like impact on investment and cause companies to suffer more intensely from consumer litigation.

Without Section 230, Oyama added, online platforms would either not be able to filter content at all or over-filter content that needs to be heard, hurting both consumers and businesses.

Read more from the original source:

Internet Industry Under the Microscope as House Committee Grills Witnesses on Liability for Online Content - BroadbandBreakfast.com

Mark Zuckerberg is delivering a free speech manifesto tomorrow – The Verge

Posted on by

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will deliver an unfiltered take on freedom of speech tomorrow via live Facebook video. Ive been writing a speech about my views on voice and free expression that Im giving tomorrow, Zuckerberg wrote. Its the most comprehensive take Ive written about my views, why I believe voice is important, how giving people voice and bringing people together go hand in hand, how me might address the challenges that more voice and the internet introduce, and the major threats to free expression around the world.

The speech will be delivered tomorrow at 1PM ET, and Zuckerberg calls it an unfiltered take on how I think about these questions, based on years of thinking about speech issues. Also, its apparently very long.

Zuckerberg has delivered plenty of lengthy philosophical musings about Facebook, but hes generally published them as blog posts, not delivered them as live speeches. This announcement comes a couple of weeks after he unexpectedly live-streamed an internal Q&A session, following the publication of an earlier sessions audio by The Verge. Its also taking place during an extended fight over Facebooks role in political misinformation.

Zuckerberg has recently sparred with senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren over Facebooks decision to exempt politicians from fact-checking. Earlier this week, he also defended his choice to hold off-the-record dinners with conservative journalists and commentators, widely seen as an attempt to protect Facebook from the Trump administration.

The reference to major threats to free expression around the world, meanwhile, may involve the mainland Chinese governments crackdown on protests in Hong Kong which has put pressure on major tech and media companies to participate in censorship.

Read the rest here:

Mark Zuckerberg is delivering a free speech manifesto tomorrow - The Verge

The government is becoming too intrusive in regulating free speech on campuses (opinion) – Inside Higher Ed

Posted on by

The federal government has shown a growing interest in campus speech, taking steps to manage administrative and curricular aspects of the work campuses do. Those mounting efforts to regulate speech at colleges and universities are a threat to academic freedom, and it is time for higher education to push back.

The U.S. Department of Justice, for example, filed a statement of interest last year, backing a lawsuit against the use of bias response team by the University of Michigan. The department agreed with the plaintiffs, Speech First, that the universitys rules probably inhibited free speech.

A federal appeals court also ruled last month that by operating a bias response team, the university might be undermining open expression. In a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that the powers of the bias response team -- an increasingly common tool used by colleges and universities to address concerns about prejudiced and harassing speech -- objectively chill speech.

In my work on campus free speech, I have raised concerned about bias response teams. Such teams are basically administrative committees that can respond to concerns about bias through voluntary discussions with the parties involved -- and referrals to others if they determine that the conduct in question was against the law or university policy. Administrators can use them to chill speech in ways that are unjustified, and thus create an environment on their campus thats not conducive to open inquiry and effective teaching. That can happen if students and professors constantly have to worry that they might be penalized for their words or ideas.

But the court overreaches in its conclusions, given that no evidence suggests that these voluntary processes are, in fact, chilling speech. The price to speech seems to be low or nonexistent, whereas the gain to the conversation on campuses can be significant, in that more students and faculty members will feel confident in participating and have a way to raise concerns when bias and prejudice limit such participation.

Even more concerning is the Justice Departments interest in the case. Colleges and universities must have the flexibility to deal with matters of conduct without the government looking over their shoulders.

To learn well, students must be exposed to a diverse array of perspectives, and they must do so over time and within a context that supports the expression of dissenting views. The protection of open expression is key to the work that colleges and universities do. So is the protection of a real opportunity for each member of the learning community to try out their views out loud, to consider different perspectives and to share and receive criticism.

Bias response teams can help in the maintenance of a constructive learning environment, depending on how they function. If they are open to students in raising concerns and are built to encourage and mediate a dialogue about those concerns rather than serve as a punitive mechanism, they can contribute to an open atmosphere of research and teaching. The needs of different campuses will be different in this regard, and we will surely make mistakes in the process of establishing them where we choose to do so. But, ultimately, they can serve an important purpose.

Meanwhile, in a similar vein as the Justice Departments filing, the U.S. Department of Education recently accused the Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies of an alleged lack of balance in its programming, suggesting that it is treating Islam favorably compared to religious minority groups in the Middle East. The Education Department asserted that the conferences and activities the consortium hosts have failed to promote U.S. national security and economic stability -- key goals of TitleIV, which helps fund the program.

TitleIV programs are good contexts for learning about diverse perspectives, languages and cultures. The governments attempt to regulate the content so that it fits with an ideological vision represents a breach of the needed barrier between regulators and experts. That barrier has been breached before, of course, notably by legislators in Wisconsin and in other states that have looked into syllabi and criticized professors for the contents of their classes. (The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents last week also continued its regrettable and possibly unconstitutional march toward limiting student protest in the name of protecting free speech.)

Such regulatory intrusions by different arms of the federal government, along with recent legislation in various states that curtail student protests and forbid the expression of specific political views, should raise alarms in the higher education sector. Under the guise of protecting speech and defending viewpoint diversity, the government is promoting a political ideology -- an effort that people of all political stripes who are committed to academic freedom should reject. Colleges and universities are institutions where research and teaching take place, both of which, in different ways, are based on shared norms and practices that should not be subject to extensive regulatory tinkering.

Along with the Department of Justice renewal of the investigation against Rutgers University for discrimination against Jewish students, a pattern emerges: one that undermines the autonomy and authority of institutions of higher learning and replaces them with a bureaucratic effort to promote specific views.

Free speech, a necessary condition for learning and expanding knowledge, is hampered when politicians police colleges and universities. Of course, higher education institutions sometimes get things wrong -- including in the structure or language of policies related to bias response teams, or with specific programming or syllabus decisions. But even then, legislative limitations and threats to cut funding unless ideological obedience is ensured are the wrong way to go.

Read the original here:

The government is becoming too intrusive in regulating free speech on campuses (opinion) - Inside Higher Ed

Colleges Are Spreading Trump’s Disingenuous Notion of ‘Free Speech’ – The Nation

Posted on by

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testifies during a hearing on Capitol Hill. Last week, a Los Angeles jury found not guilty the student activists arrested for heckling Mnuchin during a 2018 talk he gave at UCLA. (AP Photo / Carolyn Kaster)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

In February 2018, Tala Deloria and several other young people at the University of CaliforniaLos Angeles protested against Steve Mnuchin, Trumps very wealthy, more-or-less-openly corrupt Treasury secretary, who was due to speak on campus about the US economy.Ad Policy

Deloria, 24, and her fellow activists hadnt planned on going inside the auditoriumthey wanted to protest Mnuchin outside the event space with other activists. But there were seats available, and at the last minute, Deloria and a few others from the local chapter of Refuse Fascism (part of the Revolutionary Communist Party) decided to go in.

She sat in her seat quietly at first, but she couldnt take hearing Mnuchin talk anymore without being challenged. So Deloria began yelling at Mnuchin about the Trump administrations cutting of social programs and detaining of immigrants. UCLAs police force quickly moved in, picked Deloria up under her arms and legs, and dragged her away. Several others began shouting in her stead. They were arrested too, and brought to a holding room for several hours. UCLA banned the protesters from campus for seven days.

Deloria was surprised by the arrest, but thought it was all over after she was releaseduntil six months later, when Los Angeles prosecutors filed a host of charges against her and her fellow protesters, including trespassing, resisting arrest, and disturbing the peace. Im pretty furious, Deloria said recently in an interview. Not only because of what happened to me, but because this is part of bludgeoning the right to protest and the right to speak out.

Last week, a Los Angeles jury found all defendants not guilty. But the fact that UCLA arrested the demonstrators and cooperated with prosecutors who pressed charges against themfor peacefully disrupting an event may foretell a grim future for campus politics. Theres no official tally, but this appears to be one of the first instances in which protesters on a college campus were charged for nonviolent, nonthreatening behavior that involved no property destruction or violence but only a simple heated exchange of words. Im angry because the university is at the helm of this, Deloria said. Its gonna affect me, but its also gonna put a chill on speech across the US.

Jerry Kang, UCLAs vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion, said that by arresting the protesters, the university was following its lengthy speech and protest policy document, which guarantees a right to speak and protest, but draws the line at disrupting a speaker.

We want serious critique and conversation, but we want persuasion and not coercion, Kang said in a recent interview. We make very clear that we understand and celebrate protest, we understand the need for people to state their case, its just when the protest becomes so disruptive that its essentially an act of force that silences the speaker from reaching a willing audience, that we cant permit that to happen.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Kang said that the school was not involved in recommending that charges be filed, but that he trusts the system that has the court decide what the appropriate punishment should be. There has to be accountability for your actions, he went on. Civil disobedience has a very rich and important tradition in our country. It helps break down laws that are truly unjust, and I want to recognize that we should celebrate civil disobedience, but civil disobedience has always had consequences.

Refuse Fascism members and their supporters, however, point out that UCLA did not simply remove the protesters from the Mnuchin event. It arrested them, cooperated with prosecutors, and granted Mnuchins request to suppress video of the event. The university also delayed the release of documents related to the event, and only after a year of cajoling from free speech groups and a lawsuit from the free speech advocacy group FIRE did UCLA acquiesce to the public records request.

Theyre saying, Look, folks, this is actually a case of free speech, because the free speech rights of Steve Mnuchin were violated, Deloria said. Theyre weaponizing the First Amendment in order to suppress speech.

Dan Kapelovitz, a lawyer for several of the UCLA protesters, said that the charges filed were extraordinarily rare. Usually, in actual disturbing-the-peace cases, like an annoying neighbor playing loud music, they dont file charges, he said. I think the police have it out for this group. Kapelovitz added that the police used excessive force in their arrest, refused to stop interrogating the protesters when they asked for a lawyer, and did not read them their Miranda rights.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

Though the charges against the protesters were ultimately fruitless, UCLAs tough stance against the demonstrators is part of a worrying trend on college campuses: In the name of free speech, colleges and universities, and the governments that fund them, have instituted anti-protest laws that call for the arrest and even expulsion of protesters if they disrupt a speaker.

Over the past three years, the conservative Goldwater Institute has been working to pass variations of model legislation that would prevent schools from disinviting speakers, require the establishment of disciplinary policies for disruptions, and require universities to pay court and legal fees for anyone who is disrupted on campus. The Goldwater Institute has close ties to ALEC, the think tank notorious for pushing through dozens of business-friendly, far-right bills at the local, state, and federal level.

At least 17 states have now passed legislation modeled on the Goldwater Institute bill. And perhaps more troubling is the fact that many colleges and universities are either remaining silent on the new policies or actively instituting them without being asked to by their state governments.

In Wisconsin, for example, where the bill stalled in the state Senate, the University of Wisconsin board of regents nonetheless approved its own Goldwateresque policies that mandate that students who disrupt speakers twice be suspended and those who disrupt three times be expelled. The US House and Senate have also introduced similar bills, which would apply to all public universities and colleges.

The model legislationits a disingenuous use of the term free speech, Risa Lieberwitz, general counsel at the American Association of University Professors, said. Theres a very distinct, very conservative agenda. The problem with the laws, Lieberwitz explained, is that they skew the determination of whose right to express themselves matters: The mission of the university is a public mission, and part of that mission is to protect free speech and the right of students and faculty to engage in vigorous and heated debate. That might be very loud, and some might view it as disruptive, but just because of that, doesnt mean the student should be silenced.

In other words, the laws protect mostly conservative speakers invited to campus without considering the rights of those who protest the speakers.

The laws amount to a conservative-backed bait-and-switchusing the universalist language of the First Amendment to push a one-sided agenda, and limit backlash to that agenda. Its becoming a tried-and-true tactic for the far right. In March, President Trump signed an executive order called Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities that encouraged his administration to cut off funding for any institute of higher learning that doesnt create a safe space for campus speakers. Only a few months later, the administration ordered the University of North Carolina and Duke University to change the content of their courses on Middle East studies to include more positive teachings on Judaism and Christianity, or else risk losing funding from the federal government.

Over the past several years, the nonprofit UnKoch My Campus has collected thousands of pages of documents that show the true intent of these laws and policies prohibiting dissent: they are not meant to increase free speech, but are instead part of a larger strategy to turn higher education into a conservative thought and policy factory. The Koch family now funds programs, professorships, and student groups at over 300 colleges and universities, and many of the free speech organizations, that push for restrictive protest policies.

It remains to be seen how many colleges and universities go along with this conservative agenda. So far, there has been little resistance from administrations over the laws. Given that fact, and also that ostensibly liberal institutions like UCLA have begun to punish student protesters, its likely that restrictive speech codes that lead to disciplinary actions, expulsions, and arrests will become more common across the United States.

Get unlimited digital access to the best independent news and analysis.

The whole free speech movement is tied to billionaires efforts to teach theories that favor their conservative views and their economic model, Jasmine Banks, the executive director of UnKoch My Campus, said. They want to make sure that theres no dissent to their ideas.

Editors note: This article has been corrected to show that prosecutors, not UCLA, pressed charges against the students, and that the FIRE lawsuit was over various public records but not the video of the event itself.

View post:

Colleges Are Spreading Trump's Disingenuous Notion of 'Free Speech' - The Nation

How free is free speech? – The Signal

Posted on by

The U.S. Constitution is easily one of the most important legal documents ever written, governing the most powerful nation in the history of the world. No laws or regulations can ever trump this document. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, are supposed to protect citizens rights from government tyranny.

Or does it?

The First Amendment does not protect a citizens free speech if what they say or write qualifies as blackmail, defamation, libel, slander or obscenity. That begs the question: Why are citizens, specifically students, being punished and censored for speaking their minds on various matters when they fall under none of these categories?

In 2011, the Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange denied a group of student protesters an open records request. They asked for things such as donor records and information about their training programs.

Instead of giving them the information, former state Attorney General Sam Olens suggested to WSB-TV that these students request could aid terrorists, an absurd notion that all but silenced student voices regarding the organization until earlier this year.

It got to the point that this same state attorney general even pushed for an amendment to the Georgia Open Records Act, which made it harder for people to access the information they need and made it easier for government agencies and public institutions to reject requests. This has only added to the confusion over the freeness of free speech and the governments role in regulating it.

Indeed, an aura of confusion over free speech leads to much confusion between people. This could be based on ethics, morals or religion. There are people who take advantage of their right to free speech to incite violence and encourage hate, and these are the people who create concern.

For example: the extremist Christians who stand in the designated free speech zones at Georgia State and tell students who pass by that theyre going to hell for their religious background or sexual orientation encourage hate that could lead to violence.

Its understandable that theres some concern surrounding what people are saying and how others will react. But, it is completely baffling that there is an amendment to the Constitution, presumably the highest law in the land, that guarantees free speech for all. For many, their speech is anything but free.

All across the world, we see students, racial and ethnic minorities and political dissidents fighting for what they believe in getting unlawfully silenced by their own governments, many of which have provisions similar to the First Amendment in their own constitutions. It is one of the most basic human rights to be able to speak our minds. Of course, there are negotiated limits, but when what people say is within certain allowed parameters and people still get shut down, that is when things start to become a problem.

Silencing people who speak out against others is nothing new, but that has never mean its right, not then and certainly not now. Being able to express ourselves in every way possible should not be stifled by someones feelings.

Read more here:

How free is free speech? - The Signal

There is a crisis on campuses but its about racism, not free speech – The Guardian

Posted on by

Have you heard about the crisis on Britains university campuses? Free speech is under assault it seems, with students no-platforming guest speakers because they hurt their feelings. Political correctness is absolutely roiling higher education. Students are vandalising curriculums, forcing their teachers to replace white authors with those of colour, demanding trigger warnings ahead of classes on classic works of literature, and calling for safe spaces to be set up to exclude others for no reason other than their racial background or sexuality. You cant even clap at events any more because student unions think its overwhelming for those with PTSD. The solution? Jazz hands, apparently.

It is likely that some of this is already familiar to you, if not in the detail then in the mood music. There is now a mini-industry within the media, often backed up by unquestioning politicians, based on the idea that Britains universities are going to the dogs. But let me tell you about another crisis that you probably havent heard of. In 2018, it was reported that the number of racist incidents in universities across the UK had surged by more than 60% in the two years preceding. A freedom of information request by the Independent showed a similar rise in the number of religiously motivated hate crimes at universities. Antisemitic or Islamophobic incidents were reported in 26 UK universities. The situation became so dire that the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a public body in England and Wales that promotes and enforces equality and non-discrimination laws in the UK, launched an official inquiry into what seemed to be an epidemic of racism. A Warwick University student discovered racial slurs written on bananas he had stored in a shared kitchen. In 2018, two 18-year-old men were arrested after a Nottingham Trent University student posted video footage of racist chants, including we hate the blacks, outside her bedroom door in her student halls.

In July this year, another freedom of information investigation by the Guardian revealed not only widespread evidence of discrimination in higher education but, according to interviewees, an absolute resistance to facing the scale of racism in British universities. Last week, senior staff at Goldsmiths, University of London, supposedly the wokest of Britains colleges, said that its record of addressing racism was unacceptable after a report found that black and minority ethnic students felt victimised and unsafe.

This disconnect between reality and the myths is not a matter of sloppiness or poor reporting, it is ideological

Incidents tend to receive public attention only when they are circulated on social media. Ayo Olatunji, the black and minority ethnic students officer for University College London, told the Guardian in 2018: We would hear about a case [every] day in the media if everything that happened went online. Instead, we hear about other things.

What has cut through is not the widespread racism and the institutional failure to deal with it, but the PC crisis, evidence of which is sometimes simply made up. In 2017, students wrote an open letter to the faculty of English at Cambridge University requesting that non-white authors be added to the curriculum. Four months later, following precisely zero complaints from fellow students or members of the faculty, the Daily Telegraph published a black female students picture on its front page with the headline Student forces Cambridge to drop white authors. This was not true. Not only had Cambridge not dropped any white authors, the open letter did not make any such request in the first place, nor was the featured student the sole signatory. A day after the story ran, the paper issued a correction on page two.

Between 2015 and 2018, the libertarian website Spiked published Free Speech Rankings of universities, which supposedly showed the extent to which censorship is rife on campuses. But writing in Times Higher Education, the University of Surreys Carl Thompson called the rankings misleading, ill-informed and worryingly influential. He found that about 85% to 90% of Spikeds evidence each year amounts merely to human resources policies and codes of conduct, of a sort now standard in most large organisations and often required by law. That did not stop the Spiked research being widely quoted.

This disconnect between reality and the myths circulating about Britains universities is not a matter of sloppiness or poor reporting, it is ideological. University campuses have always made the establishment nervous, with student bodies easily able to organise around progressive causes. The targeting of these spaces is an old weapon in the culture wars, one that aims to discredit and discourage challenges to the status quo from the left, and from marginalised groups whose entry into the mainstream happens via higher education.

But students have somehow been vandalising academic freedom since at least the 1960s without bringing about a political coup run by ethnic minorities and queer people. The reality is that universities in the UK remain deeply conservative organisations that not only do not coddle students minds, but also fail to protect them against the most basic violations. So I ask you again, have you heard about the real crisis on British campuses?

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

Original post:

There is a crisis on campuses but its about racism, not free speech - The Guardian