Last person reached and empowered – Millennium Post

The post-independence story of the common man of India is that of rising and falling expectations. Masses in large numbers helped leaders to force the British empire out in hope that rule by own countrymen will end their miseries, the outcome of more than a thousand years of foreign exploitation and loot. Determined to work hard for a better living, the poor masses of the nation got disillusioned within two decades of Independence. Masses once again ousted the ruling dispensation, after unprecedented repression before and after Emergency. Expectations for a just and better living once again rose high but the new system just failed to survive. After more than a decade of another severe desperation, the common man once again saw a bright light in the dark clouds of the nation when liberalisation and globalisation were launched with promises that the innovative change in the mindset of the governing machinery will bring the last man to the forefront of development and progress. However, Indian liberalisation failed to elevate the life of poor and our nation could not become global either.

Lok Sabha elections of 2014 saw a massive rejection of the political system that had brought the nation to a situation of extreme political, economic, social, and cultural bankruptcy. NDA led by Narendra Modi was given the clear mandate to make India once again Sone ki chidiya where there is neither poverty nor hunger. The mandate was for an integrated India where every person lives as an Indian irrespective of faith, caste, or region. It was a cry of the people for good governance and inclusive growth. Expectations have once again risen and every Indian is not only waiting for his share of good life but is also willing to be the change that was being planned. People of India have once again proved that they have full faith in the intrinsic strengths of a nation that is at least five thousand years old. On the Independence day of 2017, the nation looked back at the performance of the government that it elected three years ago. Leaving aside the chronic sceptics, there appears to be a massive sense of relief and hope. It appears that the nation is back on the wheels with instant positive changes and the initiation of measures that are bound to alter the socio-economic scenario of the country not in the distant future but within a few years.

A plethora of schemes and programmes have been launched by the Modi Government for the poor and marginalised sections of the society. For farmers and farm labourers schemes like Jan Dhan, life and crop insurance and village irrigation schemes are bound to prove as game changers for the majority of rural India. Subsidised cooking gas and construction of thousands of toilets in villages and priority lighting of rural households have already started showing results and improving the lives of rural women. For the young, both from rural and urban India, the schemes like Make in India, Digital India, Start-up India, Skilled India and others have opened doors not only for large scale employment opportunities but also for creating self-owned industry and business.

For the first time, people of India were witness to a massive onslaught of black money by the sudden announcement of demonetisation. Added to this is the success of the present Government by making Swiss disclose the names of the Indians holding accounts in that country. Most of our money, illegally accumulated by some people, is parked in other countries thus not available for our own developmental tasks. In three years, this money has reduced to one-third. Modi has promised total return of black money deposited with foreign banks, and experience so far indicates that Modi delivers what he promises.

There is also a paradigm shift in the philosophical belief system in Indian polity. India's rich knowledge traditions have thrown up a realistic and nature-friendly philosophy of Integral Humanism. The entire creation of living and non-living is an integrated organic being, every unit is interconnected and dependent upon each other. Diversities arise from the basic unity and not that the diversity creates an illusory unity. The practical formula of Integral Humanism has been amply explained by Deendayal Upadhaya, the ideologue of BJP. If this political philosophy is followed by the Modi Government in letter and spirit, in a few years a new India can be built where the last man has been reached and empowered and the issues of caste, minority-majority and deprived-benefited will just become the phenomena of the past.

(Prof. B. K. Kuthiala is Vice Chancellor, Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism & Communication, Bhopal. Views are strictly personal.)

Read the original post:

Last person reached and empowered - Millennium Post

Humanistic Psychologists Respond to Racism and Violence in … – HuffPost

It is not hate that kills, as much as it is silence. That is why Division 32 of the American Psychological Association is encouraging all caring parties to likewise give voice to the values that stand for our very humanity, as Humanistic Psychology emphasizes. In response to hate speech and violence in Charlottesville, it is clear that the White House was unable to display spontaneous benevolent leadership and awareness of the role a president plays during national crises, stepping up in critical moments to set an ethical bar as well as legal ones. Yet, we neednt be surprised by this lag in conscience, a lack of emotional intelligence or well thought out advance planning born of a self-reflective exploration, because there is nothing on which to base such an expectation.

In the context of mindful approaches to psychotherapy, every moment of life conditions the moment that comes after it, or said another way, every moment is conditioned by the one that came before it, by the one that preceded it. We must act thoughtfully, mindfully, and compassionately because cause and effect are interdependent. Reactions are spontaneous, empathy and leadership organically arise to meet the moment, producing human, and humane, responses. Thus, what we saw in Charlottesville was the result of all the many, many moments that caused it, that came before, that preceded it.

Much of the country wept on Saturday, after Friday nights nightmarish torch-bearing foreshadowing of the next days flashbacks of racism, covered faces, hiding, and hatred. Many of us deeply inhaled on Friday night and found ourselves breathless, and remain so even today. The solution doesnt only lie where we already know there is a massive and huge problem, but in the danger of propagating a resigned silence. This ennui engulfs a person or group of persons in a vacuum of hopelessness. So hope rests fully in saying no to silence.

Heather Heyer was martyred in Charlottesville as a result of racism. Her mother, Susan Bro described her daughters caring way: It was important to her to speak up for people she felt were not being heard, to speak up when injustices were happening.

As psychologists, we can similarly fight silence by becoming active voices on radio, television, the internet, local and national newspapers, blogs, website postings, and all the other platforms that exist for us, speaking and posting against bigotry and fear, spreading instead the words of inclusiveness, of love, of a radical one love for all others and for ourselves, that says a large no to hate, so large that love itself is felt as a backlash. We can withstand it, I know.

We need only continue the work of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who will always be the arbiter of peaceful non-violence, a politics of love. Perhaps there is an intersection where politics and love can find a synchronicity in our time, modeling Dr. Kings dignity, civility, Godliness, and love, patience, compassion, humanism, wisdom, and grace. We can emulate this stance dedicated to Dr. Kings vision of Beloved Community.

As Humanists, and simply as humans, we should not only speak out concerning what we are against, but what we are for: empathic regard, understanding of others suffering and pain, self-affiliation as a genuine love for oneself, and as philosopher Martin Buber described it, an I-Thou presence with other beings, that underlies a necessary trust.

The Society for Humanistic Psychology speaks out at this time, joining with other APA divisions and all those who are broken-hearted as a result of the domestic terrorism and unrestrained racism and other-making weve witnessed that starkly reminds us of a human capacity wed be best served to acknowledge as shadow and then work against, re-affirming a commitment to stand up and be heard on issues of social justice and equality.

We are within our professional code to declare that this White House differs in ways that may give rise to a crassness that has its own economics, a trickle-down that apparently finds people emboldened to march in the name of their own crassness, and more. As we find America at this crossroads in the summer of 2017, we are called upon to cool the heat that we feel in our political system by banding together in the name of love, a sober, cooling love. This upheaval is an important opportunity to advocate for the America we want to see.

At this critical juncture, Division 32 issues A Call to Action for psychologists to engage proactively with media platforms, and through clinical practice, community intervention, and policymaking to promote Humanistic values of compassionate inclusion, multicultural innovation, empathic regard, self-responsibility and love, in an effort to negate racial and cultural disparities, and make real the vision of flourishing, optimally functioning beloved communities.

President, Society for Humanistic Psychology, Division 32 of the American Psychological Association

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

The rest is here:

Humanistic Psychologists Respond to Racism and Violence in ... - HuffPost

The World of Orthodontics and Business – The Human Element – HuffPost

As a child, growing up, I remember that trips to the Orthodontists office were never a pleasant experience. If you know what Im talking about, youre probably one of the 99% human beings inhabiting this crumb of a planet, who grew up to a normal childhood. A childhood that saw an Orthodontists office in the most grotesque way imaginable; tantamount to a horror flick straight out of Elm Street!

However, seldom do we realise that many of such negative childhood experiences have less to do with the actual setting, and more with the people involved within that setting. The same way, a bad shopping experience at a retail store may make you apprehensive about the product or service in the future. Though its actually the human element at play via incompetent customer service that is realistically at fault.

In essence, in the world of business and entrepreneurship, a negative experience has more to do with psychological triggers brought on by an unpleasant moment, rather than the very core philosophy of a business, practice or institution.

Like any professional discipline or field of mastery, there are a certain underlying elements that an Orthodontist needs to follow.

For example, the diagnosis and treatment process should generally address steps such as:

1. Carefully being able to analyse and identify the various characteristics of a malocclusion or dentofacial deformity

2. Intricately recognise and define the very nature of the problem, as well as the etiology if at all possible

3. Carefully and professionally design an effective strategy for treatment. This should be based on the customized needs and preferences of the patient

4. Before providing the treatment strategy to the patient, ensure that he/she understands the ramifications that the treatment may possibly incur.

Like any form of business, the Orthodontics field deals with human beings at the end of the day. Thus the crucial element of humanism in all aspects of its operational functioning cannot be compromised.

I remember, as a child I used to have fairly crooked teeth. I hated the site of the other kids at school wearing braces. I never really understood the value that wearing braces brought to a persons entire lifestyle, until I started wearing them myself.

The quality of overall life increased manifold dramatically.

Similarly, my father had his teeth fixed in his late 50s; a fairly old age youd expect a man to go through treatment. However, with the right approach, knowledge and professional help, quality treatment can be accessed without risking ones health.

As an entrepreneur, I believe the focus in any form of business should always be providing exceptional quality service that exceeds expectations of the customer. So that regardless of how many bad experiences a prospect has had in the past, your one true experience sweeps them off their feet and makes them a brand loyal patron for life!

The importance of leadership at any establishment cannot be discounted, as good leadership, vision and professional work ethic are the very fuel that drives passion.

When people put their trust, hopes and their very lives in your hands, the onus is on you and your entire establishment to ensure that you deliver a 100%. Nothing less!

Understanding your target audience is a very humanistic thing.

Because as human beings, we are creatures of emotion. We thrive on emotion, we grow in it and we embrace it for all of lifes endearing journey. Employing empathy and using it to satisfy the major pain-points of your customers, is a great way to not cement trust and build a brand name.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Excerpt from:

The World of Orthodontics and Business - The Human Element - HuffPost

Leonhard Praeg’s first novel an impressive and carefully considered novel that takes some of Milan Kundera’s most … – Books LIVE (blog)

Imitation is a strikingly original work of great subtlety, complexity, imagination, originality, and a clear homage to Milan Kunderas Immortality. I have never read a novel quite like this. JASON M. WIRTH, Commiserating with Devastated Things: Milan Kundera and the Entitlements of Thinking

Imitation is challenging, ambitious and intelligent. It is a fascinating and adventurous parallel to Immortality that is intriguingly and playfully managed; an impressive and carefully considered novel that takes some of Milan Kunderas most enigmatic thoughts and modernises them. ANDREW BROWN, 2006 recipient of the Sunday Times Fiction Prize for Coldsleep Lullaby

With stylistic virtuosity, Praeg successfully enacts the tempestuous relationship between philosophy and fiction while elegantly and eloquently exploring the relationship between coloniser and colonised subjects. It is a brilliant, sparkling novel that heralds a very thoughtful, new voice on the South African literary scene. SAM NAIDU, Associate Professor of Literary Theory, World Literatures, and English Literature, Rhodes University

Imitation happened when an unsuspecting philosopher one day found himself equally outraged by South African president Jacob Zumas Big Man building project in Nkandla; awed, all over again, by Milan Kunderas Immortality; and numbed by the monument to hubris generally known as the highest basilica in all of Christendom, Our Lady of Peace in Yamoussoukro, Cote dIvoire.

Leonhard Praeg is head of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Pretoria. He has published a number of books on African philosophy, violence in the post-colony and African humanism. Imitation is his first novel.

Book details

Originally posted here:

Leonhard Praeg's first novel an impressive and carefully considered novel that takes some of Milan Kundera's most ... - Books LIVE (blog)

Ban of white nationalist website raising fears of government censorship – Washington Times

Major internet companies rush to oust a white nationalist website last week could make it tougher for tech companies and open-net advocates to try to keep the government from censoring websites in the future, the CEO of one of the companies said.

GoDaddy, Google and Cloudflare a company that protects sites from being knocked off-line all booted Daily Stormer from their services after the white nationalist website cheered the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and mocked the 32-year-old woman killed in the aftermath.

Matthew Prince, CEO for Cloudflare, acknowledged the decision makes it harder for his company to fight against pressure by some governments to take down a website in the future.

I dont know the right answer, but I do know that as we work it out its critical we be clear, transparent, consistent and respectful of Due Process, Mr. Prince wrote in his statement.

At a time when open-internet advocates are pushing policies such as net neutrality, the quick moves to punish the online presence rally participants or sympathizers worried activists who said the companies appeared to be making up the rules as they went along.

We think that there is a better route to making decisions that impact fundamental rights like freedom of expression than what appeared to be pretty ad hoc decisions being made right now, said Peter Micek, general counsel for Access Now.

Daily Stormer took the brunt of the online blowback last week, getting kicked off hosting sites. Twitter also banned an account that shared links to stories from the controversial site, while Facebook expunged all efforts to share the offending article that mocked the woman killed in Charlottesville.

But Facebook allowed the article to remain posted as long as it was accompanied by criticism of Daily Stormer or its white nationalist views.

Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, said he thinks its a good thing for the Facebooks of the world to ban certain types of racist speech, although he admits editorial editing from these sites is not without concern.

There is an inherent danger when so many people get so much of their information from, say, Facebook that when Facebook makes the decision not to carry something, the public is effectively deprived, said Mr. Abrams.

Meanwhile, OkCupid, an online dating site, banned one user who admitted to being a part of the white nationalist protests.

The kind of viewpoint refereeing the sites engaged in is likely legal because the sites are private, experts said.

I dont see that as adding any exposure to the service provider because they already have the ability as a private actor and as a commercial provider to determine who they are going to work with, to contract with or, if you will, even to discipline, said Brigadier Gen. Michael McDaniel, a professor at WMU-Cooley Law School.

But Mr. Abrams said tension is created when these sites engage in editing but are still protected from liability under the law.

Thats something that all these companies must be thinking about carefully, he said.

A spokesperson for Google said they ousted Daily Stormer because they feared Googles terms of use would be violated.

Twitter declined to comment, while GoDaddy and Facebook didnt respond to questions about their censorship decisions.

Mr. Prince at Cloudflare admitted to Gizmodo that he made an exception to their policy in canceling Daily Stormer but insisted he hadnt set a new precedent.

I think we have to have a conversation over what part of the infrastructure stack is right to police content, he said.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation said what hosting companies such as GoDaddy and Cloudflare did was more worrisome than the social media companies censorship.

With a content host that is like a social media site, they can just take down one post or eliminate one bit of content whereas Cloudflare and GoDaddy and so on, they cant, said Jeremy Malcolm, senior global policy analyst at Electronic Frontier Foundation. They had to take down an entire website, and that gives a lot more risk of taking down legitimate speech along with the problematic speech.

The rest is here:

Ban of white nationalist website raising fears of government censorship - Washington Times

Why India’s Battle Against Film Censorship Isn’t Over Yet | IndieWire – IndieWire

Movies lovers in India and advocates of artistic freedom everywhere breathed a sigh of relief on August 18, when filmmaker Pahlaj Nihalani the censorious chairman of the countrys film certification body was fired from his post. He was quickly replaced by screenwriter and advertising icon Prasoon Joshi. Nihalanis firing signals a positive direction for the countrys relationship to censorship but the chain of events has opened up several thorny questions.

See MoreWhy India Continues to Censor New Movies

India is the worlds most prolific filmmaking country, but movie news coming out of the subcontinent is often fraught with tales of censorship, bans and the public outrage as a result. According to the Indian Constitution, no film is eligible for public distribution or screening unless certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). To complicate matters further, the relevant Act in the Constitution (which hails from 1952) allows the CBFC to prohibit films that threaten the sovereignty of the Indian nation, its national interest, decency or morality. Over the years, members of the board have utilized the vague language in the Constitutions text to get scissor-happy with countless films.

For example, India employs the controversial practice of adding on-screen disclaimers to any smoking scene that are intrusive at best, overwhelming at worst. This found no favor with Woody Allen, who back in 2013 decided not to release Blue Jasmine in India rather than cave in to such demands. This trend only worsened when Nihalani was appointed to the chairpersons post in 2015.

Blue Jasmine

Within a month of joining the body, Nihalani sent his colleagues a list of objectionable words that were to be censored in any film submitted for approval. The list included words such as masturbating and Bombay, the colonial name for Mumbai. It was a lost cause: Filmmakers across the country and some members of the CBFC itself lodged vehement protests that blocked Nihalanis efforts. However, ad hoc decisions were still made with various films; the word lesbian was muted in a romantic comedy and the durations of the kisses in the Bond film Spectre were ordered to be cut down by exactly 50%.

During his term, Nihalani never shied away from the limelight and often spoke at length about the rationale of his decisions. The colorful nature of his statements only added to his infamy. When asked in an interview why the kisses in Spectre were a problem at their intended length, he responded, This means you want to do sex in your house with your door open. And show to people the way you are doing sex.

Perhaps the most well-known decision of Nihalanis term as CBFC chairperson was the bodys refusal to grant approval to feminist sex comedy Lipstick Under My Burkha. In their letter to the films producer, they claimed that the story is lady-oriented, their fantasy above life and that there are contanious [sic] sexual scenes. (Whether they meant continuous or contagious has never been addressed.) The letter and CBFCs antics attracted worldwide attention, the criticism of artists and film festivals; in a beautiful example of the Streisand Effect, not only did Lipstick Under My Burkha eventually win certification but also punched above its weight at the box-office.

Joshi, the new chairperson, seems far more progressive and less trigger-happy in his public statements. As a lyricist, he has twice won the National Film Award, the highest such honor in India. In 2003, a campaign he orchestrated for Coca-Cola India won the Golden Lion at the Cannes International Advertising Festival. In past interviews, he has expressed a refreshing open-mindedness. (One example: I believe that ideally we should have a society where no censorship is required.) He is also generally admired in Indias film industry, where professionals respect his talent and experience.

Lipstick Under My Burkha

JIGNESH PANCHAL

However, Joshis proximity to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) the biggest part of Indias ruling coalition ought to raise a few eyebrows. He has frequently worked on their political campaigns. For the BJPs campaign for the 2014 general elections, Joshi helped with the iconic Acche Din (Good times!) catchphrase, a message as integral to the BJPs positioning as Make America Great Again was to Donald Trumps Presidential campaign. Coincidentally, once the BJP formed the government at the center, Joshi was awarded with the Padma Shri, Indias fourth-highest civilian honor, for his contributions in the field of arts, literature and advertising.

Speaking with reporters in Mumbai after his appointment was made public, Joshi revealed that he did not know how [the CBFC] functions and that it takes time to understand the whole process. The credentials required to head a certification body are not amenable to bullet points, but Joshis statements make one wonder on what basis the government considers someone worthy of being appointed to the powerful post overlooking the distribution of every single film in the country. Among Joshis colleagues in the Board are several individuals with links to the BJP, some of whom have made inflammatory and partisan statements in the past.

In an ideal world, the CBFC would stick to its original mandate: certifying films in order to help them reach their audiences. There would be no need for filmmakers to fear cuts to their labor of love or for producers to be anxious about their release dates. Removing Nihalani is a step in the right direction, but a lot more remains to be done.

Read the original post:

Why India's Battle Against Film Censorship Isn't Over Yet | IndieWire - IndieWire

Concerns About Censorship Soar As Russia Detains Director – Forward

MOSCOW (Reuters) - A prominent Russian theater director who has lamented what he says is the lack of freedom and growing social conservatism in his country was detained on Tuesday and accused of embezzling state funds.

Russias Investigative Committee said it suspected Kirill Serebrennikov of embezzling at least 68 million rubles ($1.15 million) in state funds earmarked for an art project, it said in a statement.

Serebrennikov, artistic director at Moscows avant-garde Gogol Centre theater, denies wrongdoing. He faces up to 10 years in jail if found guilty.

Dmitry Kharitonov, a lawyer for Serebrennikov, said his client was detained in St. Petersburg where he was working on a film about a Soviet rock star.

Serebrennikov, an award-winning director whose father was Jewish, has used his work to criticize the authorities in the past, lashing out at what he sees as the pernicious growing role of the state and church in Russian society.

His detention shocked his supporters and the arts world.

The arrest of the director before a trial is a clearly excessive measure, wrote Alexei Kudrin, a liberal economist and former finance minister, on social media.

In May, investigators searched Serebrennikovs home and office and questioned him as a witness in an embezzlement case.

His lawyer could not immediately say if Serebrennikovs detention was linked to the same case or a different one. The accountant and general director of Serebrennikovs theater have already been accused of stealing state funds.

As The New York Times reported, well-regarded Russian cultural figures spoke out on Serebrennikovs behalf following both the earlier searches and his arrest. When Russian President Vladimir V. Putin gave a state award to the actor Yevgeny V. Mironov in May, Mironov passed him a letter advocating for Serebrennikov. And the literary critic and television host Aleksandr Arkhangelsky posted a Facebook status that, in the Times translation, was damning towards the authorities: Those who do this cover themselves with shame, he wrote.

In July, the Bolshoi Theatre postponed the world premiere of Nureyev, an edgy ballet about the famous Russian dancer which was directed by Serebrennikov.

The TASS news agency reported that Russias minister for culture had a long conversation with the Bolshoi before it announced it was postponing the premiere.

But Vladimir Urin, the theatres director general, said it had been pulled because rehearsals had shown it was not ready. He said it would be staged in May next year instead.

See the original post:

Concerns About Censorship Soar As Russia Detains Director - Forward

Measuring the Internet for Freedom – Project Syndicate

ROME Last year, during a wave of deadly political protests in Ethiopia, the government blocked more than 15 media websites and the smartphone chat application WhatsApp. Sites promoting freedom of expression and LGBTQ+ rights, as well as those offering censorship-circumvention tools, such as Tor and Psiphon, were also suppressed.

All of this was uncovered through the use of software called ooniprobe, which is designed to measure networks and detect Internet censorship. Ooniprobe was developed more than five years ago by the Tor-supported Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI), with which I work, in order to boost transparency, accountability, and oversight of Internet censorship. The software is free and open source, meaning that anyone can use it. And, indeed, tens of thousands of ooniprobe users from more than 190 countries have already done just that.

Those users have contributed to the collection of millions of network measurements, all of which are published on OONI Explorer, arguably the largest publicly available resource on Internet censorship. Thanks to their use of ooniprobe, we uncovered the extent of last years wave of censorship in Ethiopia, as well as details of many other cases of censorship elsewhere in the world.

In Uganda, local groups used ooniprobe during last years general election, when the government blocked social media. Ooniprobes network-measurement data not only confirmed the governments action; it also uncovered which sites were blocked and the different methods used by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to implement censorship.

Ooniprobe also came in handy in Malaysia in 2015. Facing accusations that he had transferred nearly $700 million from the state investment fund 1MDB to his personal bank accounts, Prime Minister Najib Razak attempted to block news outlets and blogs that reported on the scandal. It was ooniprobes network-measurement software that enabled Malaysian civil-society groups to collect data that serve as evidence of the blocking.

Of course, censorship is not always carried out to protect the politically powerful; it can also be used to reinforce social and cultural norms. In Indonesia, for example, low social tolerance for homosexuality may have played a role in the blocking of numerous LGBTQ+ websites, even though the country does not officially restrict LGBTQ+ rights. Similar factors may have influenced efforts to block sites perceived as overly critical of Islam.

In Thailand, ISPs have, in the last three years, blocked access to a number of sites that are perceived to be offensive toward the countrys royal family. But, here, there is a legal justification: Thailands strict prohibition against lse-majest protects the royal familys most senior members from insult or threat. Other cases of legally justified Internet censorship include the blocking of sexually explicit websites in countries where pornography is prohibited.

Then there are cases where the motivation for censorship is unclear. Why, for example, has an online dating site been blocked in Malaysia? In some countries, ISPs appear to be censoring sites at their own discretion. According to ooniprobe data, multiple Thai ISPs simultaneously blocked access to different types of websites from news outlets to Wikileaks to pornography indicating that they likely received vague orders from authorities.

Before ooniprobe, such censorship was difficult to detect, leading to a lack of accountability, with governments and ISPs often denying any and all involvement. Even in cases where governments announce official lists of blocked sites, they may leave some targets off. Likewise, ISPs may not always comply with official orders to lift blocks. Vimeo and Reddit, for example, were recently found to be blocked in some networks in Indonesia, even though the official ban on those sites was lifted more than two years ago.

With ooniprobe, users are not only able to expose Internet censorship; they can also acquire substantial detail about how, when, where, and by whom the censorship is being implemented. OONIs Web-Connectivity Test, for example, is designed to examine whether access to websites is blocked through DNS tampering, TCP/IP blocking, or a transparent HTTP proxy.

Other ooniprobe tests are designed to examine the accessibility of chat apps namely, WhatsApp, Telegram, and Facebook Messenger within networks, as well as that of censorship-circumvention tools, such as Tor, Psiphon, and Lantern. OONI also provides software tests that uncover the presence of systems (middle boxes) that could potentially be responsible for censorship or surveillance.

The depth of OONI data supports much-needed accountability and oversight. Lawyers can use OONI data to assess the legality of Internet censorship in their countries, and potentially introduce it as evidence in court cases. Journalists, researchers, and human-rights defenders can use the data to inform their work as well. And censorship-circumvention projects like Tor can use OONI findings on emergent censorship events to shape their tools and strategies.

OONI data can help enrich public discourse about the legality, necessity, and proportionality of Internet censorship. That makes it a critical tool for safeguarding human rights on the Internet and beyond.

Todays media landscape is littered with landmines: open hostility by US President Donald Trump, increased censorship in countries such as Hungary, Turkey, and Zambia, growing financial pressure, and the challenge of "fake news." In Press Released, Project Syndicate, in partnership with the European Journalism Centre, provides a truly global platform to frame and stimulate debate about the myriad challenges facing the press today.

Excerpt from:

Measuring the Internet for Freedom - Project Syndicate

Counterprotesters swarm Boston after police deem free …

One week after violent protests rattled Charlottesville, Virginia, a scheduled free speech rally in Boston Saturday was met with thousands of counterprotesters, but the day went off mostly smoothly, police said, with 33 arrests but few injuries.

The free speech rally was deemed "officially over" by police ahead of its official end time, but thousands of counterprotesters continued to spread out in the city throughout the afternoon, with some protesting peacefully but others confronting officers and people.

A total of 33 arrests were made Saturday, mostly from disorderly conduct and a few assaults on police officers, the Boston Police Department announced. Police Commissioner William Evans said at a news conference this afternoon that some urine-filled bottles were thrown at officers, and police indicated on Twitter that some demonstrators were throwing rocks at police.

But for the most part, Evans said, the day of direct action went off smoothly as police planned, with very little injury and property damage.

"Overall I thought we got the First Amendment people in, we got them out, no one got hurt, no one got killed," he said.

Police did stop three people with ballistic vests and a gun, Evans said, "but we were lucky to get those three out of here and confiscate the vests."

Evans said roughly 40,000 people descended on Boston Saturday, "standing tall against hatred and bigotry in our city, and that's a good feeling." He added that he wished the "trouble makers stayed away," who he said weren't there for either the free speech side or the counterprotesters' side, but "were here just to cause problems."

Evans said that "99.9 percent of the people here were for the right reasons -- that's to fight bigotry and hate."

Saturday's massive gathering of demonstrators across Boston was sparked by a free speech rally set to take place from noon to 2 p.m. at Boston Common. But the rally was deemed "officially over" in a tweet from Boston police at 1:30 p.m ET, and police said the demonstrators had left the Common.

Libertarian congressional candidate Samson Racioppi, who was set to speak at the free speech event, told ABC affiliate WCVB, "I really think it was supposed to be a good event by the organizers, but it kind of fell apart."

An organizer of the free speech event said the group has no affiliation with the white supremacists involved in the violence in Charlottesville, but a small number of Ku Klux Klan members were expected to attend, ABC affiliate WCVB in Boston reported.

After the free speech event has concluded, counterprotesters still swarmed Boston this afternoon, and riot police also responded in the city.

The giant crowds of counterprotesters first gathered in the city this morning holding signs with phrases like, "hate speech is not free speech" and "white silence is violence."

Counterprotesters chanted "no fascists, no KKK, no racist USA."

One Massachusetts woman who drove three hours to Boston to attend today's counterprotest told ABC News she has felt "months of depression" and "absolute outrage."

"And after Saturday [at Charlottesville]," she said, "I just cannot be silent anymore."

Of the free speech rally attendees, she said, "I was glad to see that their crowd was very small. That spoke volumes to me.

"We have a really long way to go and we have to end white supremacy in all of its forms," she added.

Another counterprotester told ABC News, "I just wanted to come out and confront them head on, and I didn't want to miss this chance."

"I didn't think that we would ever have to have this confrontation in 2017," she said, "so it feels really vital to just come out and try to stamp it out today. And I'm encouraged by how many other people came out."

While many counterprotesters marched peacefully, some scuffled with armed officers.

Video showed several officers taking an individual to the ground after he angrily confronted the officers.

Amid the confrontations, Boston police tweeted that individuals are asked to "refrain from throwing urine, bottles and other harmful projectiles at our officers."

President Trump on Saturday afternoon thanked the police in a tweet, saying they look "tough and smart" against what he said appeared to be "anti-police agitators."

Trump also tweeted, "I want to applaud the many protestors in Boston who are speaking out against bigotry and hate. Our country will soon come together as one!" Boston Mayor Marty Wash responded to that message by saying that his city stood together for "peace and love."

First daughter Ivanka Trump on Saturday night tweeted, "It was beautiful to see thousands of people across the U.S.A come together today to peacefully denounce bigotry, racism & anti-Semitism ... We must continue to come together, united as Americans!"

Throughout the day, protesters also scuffled with each other.

In one tense scene between a man and a counterprotester at the Common, the counterprotester followed the man, saying, "We only hate hate." The man shouted, "Get away from me. Stay right there! You're not even a me [sic], you're not even a woman, you're an it!" As the man walked away, he kicked and punched into the air, leading one counterprotester to yell "Get your bigotry out of here, a------." The man shoved another counterprotester, which caused more people to step in to make sure the situation didn't escalate.

Boston city officials said they planned to deploy hundreds of police officers today to prevent violence similar to what took place in Charlottesville last weekend, where a rally by white nationalists, including neo-Nazis, skinheads and Ku Klux Klan members demonstrating over plans to remove a Robert E. Lee statue, ended in the death of a counterprotester after a car was rammed into a crowd that was marching through the streets.

"We're going to respect their right to free speech, Walsh said Friday, but "they don't have the right to create unsafe conditions."

Scheduled to speak at the free speech rally, which was organized by the Boston Free Speech Coalition, were Kyle Chapman, who caused controversy online after photos emerged of him hitting anti-Trump protesters, Joe Biggs, who previously worked at the website InfoWars, run by conservative radio host Alex Jones, Republican congressional candidate Shiva Ayyadurai and Racioppi.

Walsh said that some of those invited to speak "spew hate," The Associated Press reported.

John Medlar, who said he is an organizer for Boston Free Speech, said the group has no affiliation with the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Boston.com reported.

"While we maintain that every individual is entitled to their freedom of speech, and defend that basic human right, we will not be offering our platform to racism or bigotry. We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence," the group wrote on its Facebook page.

The group is largely made up of students in their mid-teens to mid-20s, Medlar told Boston.com.

WCVB reported that the KKKs national director, Thomas Robb, said as many as five KKK members from Springfield and possibly more from Boston were planning to attend today's rally.

Several other rallies were planned across the U.S. Saturday. Many are in response to the Charlottesville violence last weekend, as well as the movement to remove Confederate statues across the country, and in reaction to Trumps controversial press conference on Tuesday.

The "Rally Against White Supremacy" took place in Austin, Texas, while the Black Lives Matter Protests to remove Confederate statues took place in Houston, and the United Against HATE: Demand Racist President Trump Resign rally was held in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Events were also planned in cities including Atlanta, New Orleans and Dallas.

ABC News' Erin Keohane and Meghan Keneally contributed to this report.

Excerpt from:

Counterprotesters swarm Boston after police deem free ...

ACLU takes heat for its free-speech defense of white …

The ACLU has been here before.

In a statement posted Tuesday night, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero insisted hateful, bigoted speech must be aired.

"Racism and bigotry will not be eradicated if we merely force them underground," Romero wrote. "Equality and justice will only be achieved if society looks such bigotry squarely in the eyes and renounces it."

Stacy Sullivan, ACLU associate director of strategic communications, said Wednesday that Romero was trying to answer outside critics as well as ACLU board members, donors and staff working for racial justice and concerned about the representation of white supremacists.

In his statement, Romero referred to the ACLU's history of representing Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and other detestable groups through the years and tacitly acknowledged the current dissent within ACLU ranks over its litigation ensuring that demonstrators could gather last Saturday in a downtown Charlottesville park.

"The violence of this weekend was not caused by our defense of the First Amendment," Romero wrote, countering critics who have argued that the ACLU's effort to prevent Charlottesville officials from moving the protest out of downtown contributed to the violent confrontations.

Romero's piece was posted Tuesday, soon after Trump had prompted public outrage with his remarks at Trump Tower in New York City about "blame on both sides." Trump's response to the rally of white supremacists and neo-Nazis has become arguably the most contentious of his turbulent seven-month presidency. He has been reluctant to denounce the white supremacists that started it all, instead saying there was blame all around.

The ACLU represented Jason Kessler, organizer of Unite the Right, as the group fought the city's attempt last week to revoke its permit to gather in a downtown Charlottesville park to protest removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. The city had raised safety concerns about the number of demonstrators expected to attend.

US District Court Judge Glen Conrad, who rejected the revocation, noted that the city had left in place permits for counter-protesters near the downtown park and appeared to be targeting white nationalist Kessler for his views.

Some people, including Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, leveled blame at the ACLU for the resulting violence.

"The city of Charlottesville asked for that to be moved out of downtown Charlottesville to a park about a mile and a half away -- a lot of open fields," McAuliffe said on NPR Monday. "That was the place that it should've been. We were, unfortunately, sued by the ACLU. And the judge ruled against us."

McAuliffe contended the result in the middle of downtown was "a powder keg."

Virginia ACLU executive director Claire Gastanaga countered in a statement after McAuliffe's interview, "Our lawsuit challenging the city to act constitutionally did not cause violence nor did it in any way address the question whether demonstrators could carry sticks or other weapons at the events."

She said Charlottesville officials had failed to make the case ahead of time that danger at the downtown park was imminent.

Romero said he thought the Virginia chapter "made the right call here."

"Some have argued that we should not be putting resources toward anything that could benefit the voices of white supremacy," he said. "But we cannot stand by silently as the government repudiates the principles we have fought for -- and won -- in the courts when it violates clearly established First Amendment rights."

Romero referred to the ACLU's nearly century-long history of defending unpopular causes. One of the most prominent instances came in 1978 when the organization represented a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, home to many Holocaust survivors.

As is happening today, some ACLU members said they would resign or stop donating. The ACLU's Sullivan acknowledged that some staffers were upset with the Virginia ACLU's legal work and that the organization was concerned about donors turning away but described the current criticism as "muted" compared to the ACLU's "Skokie moment."

By 6 p.m. Wednesday, 24 hours after Romero's post had gone up, it had generated 75 responses. Most were anonymous and no unanimity emerged among the views. Some commended the ACLU's unequivocal support for free speech. Some said the organization had wrongly ignored crucial safety concerns. Some were torn.

Some referenced the deaths of Heyer and two state troopers killed in a helicopter crash as they helped monitor the Charlottesville scene.

Said one anonymous ACLU member, "I fully support the ACLU's defense of free speech rights, including groups such as the KKK, neo Nazis and other hate groups. However, I am deeply disturbed by the ACLU's decision to oppose local officials in Virginia who sought not to prevent the recent Charlottesville rally but to locate it in a place that would make it easier to keep all in attendance safe. ... (T)hree people are now dead and I cannot escape the thought that my donations may have contributed indirectly to their deaths."

Read more from the original source:

ACLU takes heat for its free-speech defense of white ...

Boston ‘Free Speech Rally’ cut short as conservative …

Conservative activists cut short a planned rally in Boston on Saturday as thousands of counterprotesters chanted anti-Nazi slogans and waved signs condemning white nationalism.

The Boston Police Department announced on Twitter that the event, billed as a Free Speech Rally, had ended around 1:30 p.m. Saturday afternoon saying demonstrators had left the [Boston] Common.

The tweet came just a few hours after dozens of rallygoers gathered at the historic Boston Common and were met with thousands of counterprotesters who had marched peacefully through downtown Boston.

Boston Police Department Commissioner William Evans said in late afternoon there had been 27 arrests, most for disorderly conduct, along with a few for assaulting police officers.

People assemble on Boston Common before a planned "Free Speech" rally by conservative organizers begins, Saturday in Boston. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

He added there were few injuries and no significant property damage.

Organizers of the rally had publicly distanced themselves from the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and others whose Unite the Right march in Charlottesville turned deadly Aug. Only a few dozen conservatives turned out to the Boston rally, in stark contrast to the approximately 40,000 people who showed up to protest against racism and bigotry.

Counterprotesters hold signs before conservative organizers begin a planned "Free Speech" rally on Boston Common, Saturday in Boston. Police Commissioner William Evans said Friday that 500 officers, some in uniform, others undercover, would be deployed to keep the two groups apart. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

In an early afternoon tweet, President Trump praised the work of local law enforcement.

Reports said about 10 people were arrested during the demonstrations.

Bostons demonstrations were mostly peaceful, however there were some confrontation between protesters including when a person dressed in all black grabbed an American flag out of an elderly womans hands, pulling her for several feet before she stumbled and feel to the ground.

People assemble on Boston Common before a planned "Free Speech" rally by conservative organizers begins, Saturday in Boston. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

There were some confrontations amid the counterprotesters and conservative rally participants in Boston as they marched from the city's Roxbury neighborhood to Boston Common, where the rally was being held.

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said Friday that 500 officers -- some in uniform, others undercover -- were deployed to keep the peace Saturday.

BOSTON HOPES TO KEEP PEACE AT 'FREE SPEECH RALLY'

The permit issued for the rally on Boston Common came with severe restrictions, including a ban on backpacks, sticks and anything that could be used as a weapon. The permit is for 100 people, though an organizer has said he expected up to 1,000 people to attend.

The Boston Free Speech Coalition, which organized the event, said it has nothing to do with white nationalism or racism and its group is not affiliated with the Charlottesville rally organizers in any way.

"We are strictly about free speech," the group said on its Facebook page. "... we will not be offering our platform to racism or bigotry. We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence."

But the mayor pointed out that some of those invited to speak "spew hate." Kyle Chapman, who described himself on Facebook as a "proud American nationalist," said he will attend.

Events are planned around the country, in cities including Atlanta, Dallas and New Orleans.

Dating to 1634, Boston Common is the nation's oldest city park. The leafy downtown park is popular with locals and tourists and has been the scene of numerous rallies and protests for centuries.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Here is the original post:

Boston 'Free Speech Rally' cut short as conservative ...

Free Speech TV

So glad to have found [FSTV] because theres nothing else out there telling us whats really going on. - Rita

I am so excited that I found your station flipping through the channels ... Keep up the good work. - Susan

Thom Hartmann is one of my heroes. - John

The Most informative and honest news station on American TV. No B.S. and great documentaries. - Kevin

[FSTV] is the best channel on tv. - Patricia

Most of us seek out media that tell us what we already believe to be true. Free Speech TV actually helps us think. - Alice

I want to thank Mike Papantonio for his wit and razor-sharp intellect, Amy Goodman for the highest standards of journalism... - Gail/Michigan

(Stephanie Miller) is why I started watching. Now watch Democracy Now! and Hartmann as well. - Deborah/Texas

"Free Speech TV is the best source of information that nobody knows about. We need to spread the word and educate the people." - Lorelei S.

"A little known TV station that offers an alternative viewpoint to the usual propaganda of network and cable news." - Ron S.

FSTV is the source. I'm greatful for the access these last four months. - Philadelphia, PA.

See the article here:

Free Speech TV

California Today: Berkeley’s New Chancellor and a ‘Free Speech Year’ – New York Times

Photo Carol Christ, the U.C. Berkeley chancellor, is taking over at a time of intense debate over free speech principles. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Good morning.

(Want to get California Today by email? Heres the sign-up.)

A swirl of problems awaited U.C. Berkeleys new chancellor, Carol Christ, as she assumed the top job at Californias flagship public university this summer.

The campus is contending with a student housing shortage, a budget crunch and the fallout from a series of sexual harassment scandals.

Then there is the issue thats been attracting national attention: Whether conservative speakers have become unwelcome at Berkeley, a university regarded as a birthplace of the free speech movement.

In an interview, Dr. Christ, 73, indicated that she would confront that question head-on.

She announced a free speech year to include, among other events, a series of debates titled Point Counterpoint that would feature speakers with sharply divergent views.

What were trying to do is really give the community as many different kinds of opportunities to think carefully about free speech, she said.

Berkeley has been shadowed by doubts over its commitment to freedom of expression since February, when a planned speech on campus by the far right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was canceled in the wake of violent protests.

In the months that followed, more debates flared over invited speakers including the conservative writers Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro.

Dr. Christ, a scholar of Victorian literature and former president of Smith College, took over for the former Berkeley chancellor, Nicholas B. Dirks, in July.

She said she was looking carefully at how to improve the security around contested events on campus, a concern amplified this month by the deadly protests in Charlottesville, Va.

Asked if Mr. Yiannopoulos who has railed against Muslims, immigrants and transgender people was welcome at Berkeley, Dr. Christ cited the Constitution.

Lots of speech that I would find abhorrent, noxious, hateful, bigoted is protected, she said.

Whether Berkeley can guarantee that right without anyone getting hurt may be tested soon.

Mr. Yiannopoulos has said he will hold a four-day free speech event in September on Berkeleys Sproul Plaza.

This time, he vowed in a Facebook post, he will bring an army if I have to.

{{= c_phrase }}

(Please note: We regularly highlight articles on news sites that have limited access for nonsubscribers.)

A Democratic state senator who voted in favor of a gas tax has faced a well-funded recall effort. So his party colleagues are trying to change the election rules. [Sacramento Bee]

The Trump administration is expected to decide this week whether the status of five national monuments in California should be revoked, shrunk or let be. [San Francisco Chronicle]

Its called arrogance. The gate is still padlocked at Martins Beach, despite a judges order that a Silicon Valley billionaire could no longer block public access. [The Mercury News]

Hundreds of homeless people live in makeshift dwellings along the Santa Ana River Trail. Many local residents say the time has come to clear them out. [Orange County Register]

Keak Da Sneak, a well known Bay Area rapper, was critically wounded in a shooting. [East Bay Times]

A Los Angeles jury awarded $417 million in damages to a woman who sued Johnson & Johnson claiming baby powder caused her cancer. [The New York Times]

The top leadership of The Los Angeles Times was ousted in a shake-up that stunned many members of the newsroom. [The New York Times]

My life has been a constant hell. For some Sunnyvale residents, its not easy living next to Apples new $5 billion spaceship campus. [The Mercury News]

Daybeds, scented candles and organic seaweed snacks. Inside the $22 million private terminal at Los Angeles International Airport. [Vanity Fair]

We need more softness and more silence and more pause through the chaos. A conversation with the actress Shailene Woodley. [The New York Times]

The arrival of Apple, Facebook and Google means that the hypercompetitive world of scripted television is going to become even more ferocious. [The New York Times]

What $1,700 rents you in San Francisco right now. [San Francisco Curbed]

The eclipse on Monday delivered the country a welcome, if brief, moment of unity.

Americans across the country paused to peer skyward as the moon cast a shadow that traveled from Oregon to South Carolina.

From California, the show was hit or miss.

Most of the state got a clear view of the crescent-shaped sun. But morning fog along the coast effectively canceled the experience for many people, who resorted instead to online broadcasts.

They can take some solace. Another chance is coming in a mere seven years, when a total solar eclipse will travel along a route from Texas to Maine.

Yesterday we asked you to send us your eclipse photos. Here is a selection:

Want to submit a photo for possible publication? You can do it here.

California Today goes live at 6 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: CAtoday@nytimes.com.

The California Today columnist, Mike McPhate, is a third-generation Californian born outside Sacramento and raised in San Juan Capistrano. He lives in Los Osos. Follow him on Twitter.

California Today is edited by Julie Bloom, who grew up in Los Angeles and graduated from U.C. Berkeley.

More:

California Today: Berkeley's New Chancellor and a 'Free Speech Year' - New York Times

The Assault on Free Speech – Wall Street Journal (subscription)


Wall Street Journal (subscription)
The Assault on Free Speech
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Two recent events on either side of the globe have underscored the importance of free speechand the peril it faces today. Just days ago, Cambridge University Press yielded to pressure from the Chinese government to remove more than 300 articles from ...

and more »

Read the original post:

The Assault on Free Speech - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Alt-Right ‘America First’ Rallies Move Online After Boston ‘Free Speech’ Protest Is Overrun – Newsweek

Sixty-seven planned rallies in 36 states that were meant to attract members of the so-called alt-right and other racist groups are moving online after a free speech rally on Saturday in Boston attended by white supremacists was drowned out by demonstrators.

ACT for America is deeply saddened that in todays divisive climate, citizens cannot peacefully express their opinion without risk of physical harm from terror groups domestic and international, reads a statement from the anti-Islamic group behind the rallies, which were meant to begin September 9.

Instead, a Day of ACTion will be conducted through online and other media, ACT said, but it did not detail what shape that would take.

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

A demonstrator holds a U.S. flag in front of white supremacy flags and banners as self-proclaimed white nationalists and members of the "alt-right" gather for what they called a Freedom of Speech rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., June 25. Jim Bourg/Reuters

The group accuses extremist individuals and groups inspired by the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) as well as anti-fascists, neo-Nazis and the KKK of creating security issues at similar free speech events this month.

In recent weeks, extremist and radical organizations in the United States and abroad have overrun peaceful events in order to advance their own agendas, and in many cases, violence has been the result, the group said. Protests against neo-Nazis were held in Germany last week.

Tens of thousands of anti-racist demonstrators also marched in Boston Saturday, dwarfing the number of alt-right members who gathered to express their views in Boston Common. The alt-right label was coined by white nationalist Richard Spencer and acts as an umbrella term for white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and misogynists.

The counterprotest was largely peaceful and followed a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, that turned violent the week before. In Charlottesville, one counterprotester was killed and 19 others injured when police said a right-wing activist drove his car into a group of pedestrians. Anti-fascist groups in Charlottesville also pepper-sprayed and beat white supremacists.

Related: U.S. authorities consider shutting down hard-right rallies after Charlottesville

The ACT for America statement was first given to the hard-right website Breitbart. The sites executive chairman, former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, has called the outlet a platform for the alt-right.

Two hate group watchdogs, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Anti-Defamation League (ADL), identify ACT for America as the largest anti-Muslim group in the U.S. ACT propagates the hateful conspiracy theory that Muslims are infiltrating U.S. institutions in order to impose Sharia law, according to the ADL.

In June, ACT organized simultaneous March Against Shariah events throughout the U.S. that attracted armed militia groups, white nationalists and other members of the alt-right, including the Blood and soil fascist group Vanguard America and white nationalists Identity Evropa.

Shariah law in Europe and North America refers mainly to an Islamic family law court system set up for religious adherents that can be used to mediate and settle disputes. Many hard-right Americans see the system as encroaching on the traditional European court systems jurisdiction. Since 2010, 15 anti-Sharia bills have been passed in various states. A total of 42 have been tabled across the U.S.

ACT for Americas membership is patriotic citizens whose only goal is to celebrate Americas values and peacefully express their views regarding national security, according to group, which claims to have 750,000 members.

In 2007, the groups founder,Brigitte Gabriel, saidat the Department of Defenses Joint Forces Staff College that any practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah...who goes to mosque and prays every Friday, who prays five times a daythis practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen of the United States. She has made a number of other anti-Islamic statements.

Despite these statements, ACT says that any organizations or individuals advocating violence or hatred towardanyone based on race, religion, or affiliation are not welcome at ACT for America events, or in the organization.

The groups online day of action is planned for September 9.

See more here:

Alt-Right 'America First' Rallies Move Online After Boston 'Free Speech' Protest Is Overrun - Newsweek

The Fight Over Free Speech Online – The New Yorker

Generally speaking, anyone can say anything online. But, lately, things have started to get complicated. Last week, after neo-Nazis and white supremacists descended on Charlottesville, the neo-Nazi blog the Daily Stormer disappeared from the Internet. GoDaddy, the registrar of the sites domain, had discontinued its service. The Daily Stormer switched its domain to Google, which promptly shut it down as well. The site is now back up, on the dark Web, with its publisher pleading victimhood on social media. (I am being unpersoned.) What happened to the Daily Stormer wasnt a violation of the First Amendmentprivate companies are allowed to stifle speechbut it enraged people on the right, many of whom were already deeply skeptical of the puppet masters in Silicon Valley. Before any of this happened, a pro-Trump activist named Jack Posobiec was organizing a multicity March on Google, calling the company an anti-free-speech monopoly. (Last week, Posobiec announced that the march had been postponed, citing threats from the alt-left.)

Jack Conte is not an alt-right activisthes a bald, bearded musician from San Franciscobut he, too, once resented the titans of Silicon Valley. A few years ago, Conte was trying to make a living on YouTube. His music videosfunk covers of pop songs, homemade robots playing percussion padsoften went viral. I made a video that took many, many hours and cost me thousands of dollars, Conte said. My fans loved it. It got more than a million views. And I made a hundred and fifty bucks from it. I realized, Clearly, there is a problem with how stuff on the Internetwhat we now call content, what used to be called artgets monetized. Conte co-founded his own tech company, Patreon, a Web site that allows artists and activists to get paid directly by fans and supporters. A creator posts a description of what she intends to makea comic strip, a podcastand patrons sign up to fund it, each chipping in a few dollars a month. Patreon takes a five-per-cent cut. The company now has about eighty employees and a hundred-and-fifty-million-dollar valuationbig enough that many Web denizens consider Conte a new kind of puppet master.

Last month, Lauren Southern, a right-wing activist and pundit who was earning a few thousand dollars a month on Patreon, received an e-mail from the companys Trust and Safety team. Here at Patreon we believe in freedom of speech, it read. When ideas cross into action, though, we sometimes must take a closer look. Southern, a videogenic Canadian in her early twenties, whose book was blurbed by Ann Coulter, was known for videos like White Privilege Is a Dangerous Myth. Her Patreon page now reads This page has been removed.

Southern had participated in an anti-immigration action in the Mediterranean Sea, in which a motorboat tried to prevent a ship from bringing refugees to Europe. In an apologetic YouTube video, Conte insisted that Southern had been banned not for her politics but for her risky behavior. I didnt expect to convince everyone, and thats O.K., he said.

Predictably, Southerns fans were not pleased. Youre an idiot and a beta cuck, one commented. Some called for lawsuits. Others linked to a copycat site called Hatreon. (Motto: A platform for creators, absent thought policing.) Southern set up her own site, patreonsucks.com. Big liberal silicon valley companies want me to become a friendly little vlogger that spouts all the right lines, she wrote. I wont let that happen. She made a YouTube video directing followers to her new site, adding, As for Patreon, you guys can suck my balls.

Then came Charlottesville. Jason Kessler, the organizer of the Unite the Right rally, had a Patreon page (three backers, generating thirty-three dollars a month). It was swiftly removed for violating Patreons rule against affiliations with known hate groups. Meanwhile, another Patreon user, the progressive activist Logan Smith, began sharing photos of the torch-wielding mob on his Twitter handle @YesYoureRacist. He urged people to help him identify the participants: Ill make them famous. Online vigilantes complied, and several marchers lost their jobs. A few people were incorrectly identified, causing nonparticipants to receive death threats. Doxingpublishing someones private information onlineis against Patreons rules. Smith claims that his activism wasnt doxing. If these people are so proud of their beliefs, then they shouldnt have a problem with their communities knowing their names, he said last week.

Patreon disagreed, and Smiths page was removed. It doesnt matter who the victim is, Conte said. It could be a convicted murderer. If someone is releasing private information that an individual doesnt want to be made public, then thats doxing. And we dont allow it. (One person tweeted at Patreon, He is identifying nazis and you are stopping him at the request of nazis .) Conte went on, Weve been getting it from all sidesof course. I get it. Taking away someones income is a hugely onerous thing, and we dont take it lightly. He sighed. Weve dealt with a huge range of stuff in the past few years, a wider variety than I ever would have imagined. But the fact that were talking about swastika flags right now? It just makes me sad.

Read more:

The Fight Over Free Speech Online - The New Yorker

Free Speech Under Attack in Germany – National Review

Any sort of extremism in Germany sets off alarm bells, and Michael Stuerzenberger may well be some sort of extremist. He sounds as if he is making a reasoned argument against the mass immigration that is changing the identity of Germany but theres no way of knowing whats really going on in his head. He has been mixed up with the Freedom Party and PEGIDA, both of them small anti-immigration pressure groups that their critics make sure to call racist and Islamophobic.

A Munich court has just sentenced him to six months imprisonment. This is because he put on Facebook a photograph taken in Berlin in about 1942 of Haj Amin Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, greeting a prominent Nazi in uniform complete with swastika arm-band, by the look of him it is Robert Ley. Other Nazis in uniform are in the background. There is nothing very special about it. Often reproduced are far more compromising photographs of the Mufti in the company of Hitler or Himmler. The Mufti hoped to participate in the Holocaust and the Allies hoped to try him as a war criminal. Whatever might have been Stuerzenbergers motive in publishing that photograph, the judge sentencing him is forbidding free speech and dropping the historical record down the memory hole. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and re-inscribed exactly as often as was necessary. George Orwell, where are you? Worst of all, officially sanctioned abuse of the law compels the violence it is trying to defuse.

Original post:

Free Speech Under Attack in Germany - National Review

Free Speech & Firearms – Commonweal

The heavy weaponry put police at a distinct disadvantage as they tried to maintain safety. Chief Thomas denied that his officers were intimidated by the protesters weapons, but the armaments must have affected their strategy. That some of the counter-protesters also carried riflesthe Redneck Revolt, which styles itself after abolitionist John Brownheightened the fear of a violent confrontation. The fatal weapon turned out to be a Dodge Challenger rather than a firearm. But from the start, firearms made the battle between rival protesters much more than a war of words, or even of fists and sticks. That set the stage for the attack that took the life of Heather Heyer and could well have claimed many more.

No country in the world protects the right to hate speech as strenuously as America, and as painful as that can be at times, it has served the nation well by providing a release valve that repressive societies lack. Such is the American commitment to freedom of expression that even hateful speech advocating violence is lawful unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. (In the 1969 ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court threw out the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who advocated violence.)

Free speech is a valuable right to protect, and were fortunate that courts have gone to great lengths to preserve it. But the semi-automatic weapons that protesters toted at the Charlottesville rally, along with a collection of shields, clubs and other riot paraphernalia, provided an actively threatening dimension to the violence-tinged speech being exercisedand that should not have been ignored. It was, though. Judge Glen E. Conrads ruling avoids the entire question of whether there was to be an incitement toward imminent lawless action, and makes no mention of the police chiefs concern about guns. Then again, court records indicate that the city of Charlottesville provided the judge with only sketchy details about the danger that firearms added to the Emancipation Park rally.

Still, the city did correctly predict violence. We firmly believe there is a threat of violence if it takes place in Emancipation Park, City Attorney S. Craig Brown told the judge the day before the rally, urging that the protest be moved to a larger park where it would be easier for police to do their job.

What can be done now?

A statement that numerous Catholic organizations issued on August16including Franciscan Action Network, major religious orders and their conferences, and Pax Christioffers the path of vigorous, nonviolent resistance. This is how it concludes:

We are called by our faith to be bold witnesses to nonviolence, and to nonviolently resist any display of hatred and violence.

As Catholics, we uphold the finest traditions and examples of nonviolence, and commit ourselves, in Pope Francis' words, "to make active nonviolence our way of life." Our faith calls on us to accompanyand protect our African American sister and brother, and all God's people, and to work for a day when the Beloved Community will become a reality, and hatred, intolerance, institutional racism, violence and injustice will find no place among us.

But we must be vigilant. Now is the time to be bold, to be public, and to let our voices be heard.

Read more:

Free Speech & Firearms - Commonweal

Freedom of speech is for all – The Register-Guard

The First Amendment has been getting a workout lately, from white supremacist rallies and counter-protests to attempts to censor or block opposing viewpoints on college campuses.

The First Amendment is a broad guarantee of free and open discourse; its easier to list what isnt protected under the Bill of Rights than what is.

Unprotected speech includes obscenity, fighting words (those that inflict injury or are likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace), defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats and solicitation to commit a crime. The nonprofit Newseum Institute notes that some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list.

Noticeably absent from the list is hate speech which the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled is protected, no matter how unpopular or bigoted, and speech that others find offensive or rude.

The First Amendment puts a great deal of responsibility for protecting free speech in the hands of the American people, counting on them to understand its importance and cherish it.

But when there are neo-Nazis and white supremacists holding rallies and issuing hateful, bigoted comments, it can be difficult for people to understand that protection of this is just as important as protecting words of peace, tolerance and brotherhood. For if one of these can be silenced, so can the other.

In recent years, there has been a troubling number of well-intentioned people wanting to silence speech they found hurtful or hateful or, on a lesser level, just obnoxious.

Some object to far-right speakers on college campuses, some object to far-left demonstrators. Some Register-Guard readers have objected to conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg, others have said they would be willing to give up Goldberg if liberal columnist Paul Krugman also disappeared. (Editors note: We intend to continue publishing both.)

Banning, or censoring, other viewpoints is not the way to unite what seems to be an increasingly divided country. In the instances of true hate speech neo-Nazis, white supremacists and others of their ilk those who object have other options.

They, too, have the right to free speech, to stand up and peacefully protest. And they have the right to ignore hate groups: While their speech is protected, people do not have to provide these groups with a venue or an audience. Depriving hate groups of attention is to deprive them of oxygen, making them less newsworthy and less likely to garner attention.

As for speech and viewpoints that the hearer simply disagrees with, rather than attempting to silence or block it, a better option is to listen. Listen to the concerns, listen to the fears and frustration, listen to the hopes and the proposals. People of good will can have different views when it comes to the causes and cures for social and economic ills. But they also can find common ground in their concerns or experiences and that can be the start of bridging the divide between people. That is what free speech is meant to do.

More Editorial articles

Here is the original post:

Freedom of speech is for all - The Register-Guard

Why Even Nazis Deserve Free Speech – POLITICO Magazine

The events in Charlottesville last weekend have provoked understandable fear and outrage. Potential sites for future alt-right rallies are on edge. Texas A&M University, the University of Florida and Michigan State University have all decided to cancel or deny prospective events by white nationalist Richard Spencer. All cited safety concerns. All raise serious First Amendment issues.

Even though weve been called free speech absolutistssometimes, but not always, as a complimentwe will not pretend that Spencers speaking cancellations make for a slam-dunk First Amendment lawsuit. Yes, hateful, bigoted and racist speech is fundamentally protected under the First Amendment, as it should be. However, if were honest about the law, we have to recognize that Spencer faces toughthough not insurmountablelegal challenges.

Story Continued Below

First, he is not a student at any of the aforementioned universities and was not invited to the campuses by students or faculty. He was seeking space on campus that is available to the general public to rent out. In at least some cases, courts have found that public colleges have a somewhat freer hand to regulate the speech of non-students on campus who are not invited by students or faculty.

Second, although a general, unsubstantiated fear of violence is not enough to justify cancelling an approved speaking event, recent violence in Charlottesville and the fact that one of the organizers of the Texas A&M rally used the promotional tagline TODAY CHARLOTTESVILLE TOMORROW TEXAS A&M make security concerns more concrete, at least in the short term. The more concrete the security concerns are, the easier it is to justify the cancellation or denials.

Third, as David Frum, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern point out, judges might decide cases differently when protesters are liable to show up brandishing guns, as happened in Charlottesville. Bad facts make bad law, so the saying goes. The general legal standard now is that if a public college opens itself up to outside speakers, it cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination. Most cases of prior restraint censorship will fail in court under this standard. But in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy in Charlottesville, judges may look differently at these facts.

And that should trouble us: If a court decides in favor of the prior restraints, it could set a precedent that would do considerable harm to the free speech rights of speakers, students and faculty far beyond Spencer.

But what happens in a court of law is one thing. What happens in the court of public opinion is perhaps more important. As the famous jurist Learned Hand once said, Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.

And, unfortunately, there is evidence that freedom of speech needs a pacemaker.

If your social media newsfeed doesnt provide ample anecdotal evidence that free speech is suffering a public relations crisis, look to the polling: A recent Knight Foundation study found that fewer than 50 percent of high school students think that people should be free to say things that are offensive to others.

The New York Times opinion page, for its part, has run three columns since April questioning the value of free speech for all, the most recent imploring the ACLU to rethink free speechthe same ACLU that at the height of Nazism, Communism and Jim Crow in 1940 released a leaflet entitled, Why we defend civil liberty even for Nazis, Fascists and Communists. The ACLU of Virginia carried on this honorable tradition of viewpoint-neutral free speech defense in the days before the Charlottesville protests. However, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that the ACLU will no longer defend hate groups seeking to march with firearms.

And how is the birthplace of the 1960s free speech movement faring? In the wake of the riots that shut down alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos speech at the University of California, Berkeley on February 1, multiple students and alumni wrote that the violence and destruction of the Antifa protests were a form of self-defense against the violence of Yiannopoulos speech. Watching videos of the protest, it is fortunate nobody was killed.

Whats to account for this shift? One of our theories is that this generation of students comprises the children of students who went to college during the first great age of campus speech codes that spanned from the late 1980s through the early 90s. This is when colleges and universities first began writing over-broad and vague policies to regulate allegedly racist and sexist speech. Although that movement failed in the court of law, these codes have stubbornly persisted, and the view that freedom of speech is the last refuge of the three Bsthe bully, the bigot and the robber baronfound a home in classrooms.

When we speak on college campuses, our explanations of the critical role the First Amendment played in ensuring the success of the civil rights movement, the womens rights movement and the gay rights movement are often met with blank stares. At a speech at Brown University, in fact, a student laughed when Greg pointed out that Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was a steadfast defender of freedom of speechas if it were impossible for a black icon of the civil rights movement to be a free-speech champion.

However, we dont fault students for holding these opinions. The idea of free speech is an eternally radical and counterintuitive one that requires constant education about its principles. Censorship has been the rule for most of human history. True freedom of speech is a relatively recent phenomenon. It perhaps reached its high point in the United States in the second half of the 20th century.

Most Americans claim that they venerate free speech in principle. So do most world leaders. Even censorial dictators like Turkeys Recep Tayyip Erdogan sometimes feign support for it. Despite this, its common for people to have their exceptions in practice: their I believe in free speech, but responses. But even the free speech, but responses seem to be falling out of favor. In the last few yearsand especially after Charlottesvillewe have observed increasing squeamishness about free speech, and not just in practice; also in principle.

So how do we respond to the calls for censorship after Charlottesville?

For most of our careers, the charge what if the Nazis came to town? has been posed as a hypothetical retort to free speech defenses. (Godwins law extends to free speech debates, too.) But the hypothetical is no longer a hypothetical: In Charlottesville, neo-Nazis carried swastikas through the streets and revived the Hitler salute.

If you were to listen to scholars like Richard Delgado, the response should be to pass laws, to put people in jail, to do whatever it takes to stop the Nazi contagion from spreading. Its a popular argument in Europe and in legal scholarship, but not in American courts.

There are a few problems with this response that free speech advocates have long recognized. For one, it doesnt necessarily work; since the passage of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism laws in Europe, rates of anti-Semitism remain higher than in the U.S., where no such laws exist. In fact, the Anti-Defamation League found that rates of anti-Semitism have gone down in America since it first began measuring anti-Semitic attitudes in 1964.

Whats more, in the 1920s and 30s, Nazis did go to jail for anti-Semitic expression, and when they were released, they were celebrated as martyrs. When Bavarian authorities banned speeches by Hitler in 1925, for example, the Nazis exploited it. As former ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier explains in his book Defending My Enemy, the Nazi party protested the ban by distributing a picture of Hitler gagged with the caption, One alone of 2,000 million people of the world is forbidden to speak in Germany. The ban backfired and became a publicity coup. It was soon lifted.

We cannot forget, too, that laws have to be enforced by people. In the 1920s and early 30s, such laws would have placed the power to censor in the hands of a population that voted in large numbers for Nazis. And after 1933, such laws would have placed that power to censor in the hands of Hitler himself. Consider how such power might be used by the politician you most distrust. Consider how it is currently being used by Vladimir Putin in Russia.

What does history suggest as the best course of action to win the benefits of an open society while stemming the tide of authoritarians of any stripe? It tells us to have a high tolerance for differing opinions, and no tolerance for political violence. What distinguishes liberal societies from illiberal ones is that liberal societies use words, not violence or censorship to settle disputes. As Neier, a Holocaust survivor, concluded in his book, The lesson of Germany in the 1920s is that a free society cannot be established and maintained if it will not act vigorously and forcefully to punish political violence.

But we should not be so myopic about the value of freedom of speech. It is not just a practical, peaceful alternative to violence. It does much more than that: It helps us understand many crucial, mundane and sometimes troubling truths. Simply put, it helps us understand what people actually thinknot even if it is troubling, but especially when it is troubling.

As Edward Luce points out in his excellent new short book The Retreat of Western Liberalism, there are real consequences to ignoring or wishing away the views that are held by real people, even if elites believe that those views are nasty or wrongheaded. Gay marriage champion and author Jonathan Rauch reminds us that in the same way that breaking a thermometer doesnt change the temperature, censoring ideas doesnt make them go awayit only makes us ignorant of their existence.

So what do we do about white supremacists? Draw a strong distinction between expression and violence: punish violence, but protect even speakers we find odious. Let them reveal themselves.

As Harvey Silverglate, a co-founder of our organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, says, its important to know who the Nazis are in the room.

Why?

Because we need to know not to turn our backs to them.

Greg Lukianoff, an attorney, is president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Nico Perrino is director of communications for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and host of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast.

See original here:

Why Even Nazis Deserve Free Speech - POLITICO Magazine