Pssst, wanna know a secret? MongoDB has confidentially filed for IPO, reports suggest – The Register

Posted on by

NoSQL business MongoDB has filed confidentially for IPO, according to reports.

The document database company started life as 10gen in 2007 and has secured a total of $303.4m in equity funding to date.

According to Crunchbase, its last round, for an undisclosed amount, was in August 2015, having gained $80m in the January of that year.

MongoDB was last valued at $1.2bn in October 2016, when it pulled in $150m from investors that included Red Hat, Salesforce Ventures, EMC, Intel Capital and Sequoia Capital.

There have been rumours of a potential IPO from MongoDB, which has previously stated its aim to take on Oracle, for some time.

During an interview with The Reg last year, CEO Dev Ittycheria indicated the company was at a scale where the option could be acted upon quickly.

Ittycheria told The Reg that, with revenues between $100m and $200m annually, "there's companies who've gone public who are smaller and going slower than us."

The firm is now thought to have moved one step closer, with TechCrunch reporting that it has submitted an S-1 filing in recent weeks and plans to go public before the end of the year.

Under the US JOBS (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) Act, introduced in 2012, companies are now allowed to confidentially submit initial statements like this, which them weigh interest from investors before alerting the public to the filing. The idea is to encourage more companies to IPO.

The companies must reveal their financials at least 15 days before they embark on their investor roadshow.

TechCrunch reports that a number of companies that have filed confidentially for IPO will go public between September and the end of November.

Commenting on the reports, Greg Henry, CFO of Couchbase (a competitor of MongoDB's in the NoSQL space), said: "In confidentially filing its S-1, MongoDB is on track to become the first IPO in the non-Hadoop big data space, which stands as a pivotal milestone for the industry and provides more validation that there is life beyond analytical and relational databases."

MongoDB has gained some positive publicity last week, when CTO Eliot Horowitz emailed staff condemning the now infamous "Google memo".

"This manifesto, however, is not part of a healthy dialogue at all," Horowitz wrote.

"It advances a false equivalence between diversity efforts and discrimination built on a substrate of reasonable statements and context-free references to research. It is just another attempt to disguise prejudice in the clothing of rationalism."

Sponsored: The Joy and Pain of Buying IT - Have Your Say

Excerpt from:

Pssst, wanna know a secret? MongoDB has confidentially filed for IPO, reports suggest - The Register

From Darwin to Damore – the ancient art of using "science" to mask prejudice – New Statesman

Posted on by

In addition to the Lefts affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females, wrote James Damore, in his now infamous anti-diversity Google memo. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more co-operative and agreeable than men. Since the memo was published, hordes of women have come forward to say that views like these where individuals justify bias on the basis of science are not uncommon in their traditionally male-dominated fields. Damores controversial screed set off discussions about the age old debate: do biological differences justify discrimination?

Modern science developed in a society which assumed that man was superior over women. Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolutionary biology, who died before women got the right to vote, argued that young children of both genders resembled adult women more than they did adult men; as a result, woman is a kind of adult child.

Racial inequality wasnt immune from this kind of theorising either. As fields such as psychology and genetics developed a greater understanding about the fundamental building blocks of humanity, many prominent researchers such as Francis Galton, Darwins cousin, argued that there were biological differences between races which explained the ability of the European race to prosper and gather wealth, while other races fell far behind. The same kind of reasoning fuelled the Nazi eugenics and continues to fuel the alt-right in their many guises today.

Once scorned as blasphemy, today "science" is approached by many non-practitioners with a cult-like reverence.Attributing the differences between races and gender to scientific research carries the allure of empiricism.Opponents of "diversity" would have you believe thatscientific research validates racism and sexism, even though one'sbleeding heart might wish otherwise.

The problemis that current scientific research just doesnt agree.Some branches of science, such as physics, are concerned with irrefutable laws of nature.But the reality, as evidenced by the growing convergence of social sciences like sociology, and life sciences, such as biology, is that science as a whole will, and should change. The research coming out of fields like genetics and psychology paint an increasingly complex picture of humanity.Saying (and proving) that gravity exists isn't factually equivalent to saying, and trying to prove, that women are somehow less capable at their jobs because of presumed inherent traits like submissiveness.

When it comes to matters of race, the argument against racial realism, as its often referred to, is unequivocal. A study in 2002, authored by Neil Risch and others, built on the work of the Human Genome Project to examine the long standing and popular myth of seven distinct races. Researchers found that 62 per cent of Ethiopians belong to the same cluster as Norwegians, together with 21 per cent of the Afro-Caribbeans, and the ethnic label Asian inaccurately describes Chinese and Papuans who were placed almost entirely in separate clusters. All that means is that white supremacists are wrong, and always have been.

Even the researcher Damore cites in his memo, Bradley Schmitt of Bradley University in Illinois, doesnt agree with Damores conclusions. Schmitt pointed out, in correspondence with Wired, that biological difference only accounts for about 10 per cent of the variance between men and women in what Damore characterises as female traits, such asneuroticism. In addition, nebulous traits such as being people-oriented are difficult to define and have led to wildly contradictory research from people who are experts in the fields. Suggestingthat women are bad engineers because theyre neurotic is not only mildly ridiculous, but even unsubstantiated by Damores own research. As many have done before him, Damore couched his own worldview - and what he was trying to convince others of - in the language of rationalism, but ultimately didn't pay attention to the facts.

And, even if you did buy into Damore's memo, a true scientist would retort- so what? It's a fallacy to argue that just because a certain state of affairs prevails, that that is the way that it ought to be. If that was the case, why does humanity march on in the direction of technological and industrial progress?

Humans werent meant to travel large distances, or we would possess the ability to do so intrinsically. Boats, cars, airplanes, trains, according to the Damore mindset, would be a perversion of nature. As a species, we consider overcoming biology to be a sign of success.

Of course, the damage done by these kinds of views is not only that theyre hard to counteract, but that they have real consequences. Throughout history, appeals to the supposed rationalism of scientific research have justified moral atrocities such as ethnic sterilisation, apartheid, the creation of the slave trade, and state-sanctioned genocide.

If those in positions of power genuinely think that black and Hispanic communities are genetically predisposed to crime and murder, theyre very unlikely to invest in education, housing and community centres for those groups. Cycles of poverty then continue, and the myth, dressed up in pseudo-science, is entrenched.

Damore and those like him will certainly maintain that the evidence for gender differences are on their side. Since he was fired from Google, Damore has become somewhat of an icon to some parts of society, giving interviews to right-wing Youtubers and posing in a dubious shirt parodying the Google logo (it now says Goolag). Never mind that Damores beloved science has already proved them wrong.

Continued here:

From Darwin to Damore - the ancient art of using "science" to mask prejudice - New Statesman

When Disease Is Bigger Than A Body – HuffPost

Posted on by

I had a film crew from Good Morning America in my home yesterday morning to film an interview about the documentary, What the Health.Along with everyone else, I wait to see what sound bites survive from roughly an hour of detailed commentary.In case you are wondering, the gist of my impressions, of the films mission and methods, is that the former is admirable, the latter quite questionable.We can leave it there, both because the GMA producers will do the rest, and because at present I really have another matter on my mind.

I am routinely chastised in my various social media channels for posting political content or commentary, something I concede I am not overly inclined to do in the first place.I am, after all, a health expert, not a political scientist- and that is by choice.

On the other hand, I was an American before a doctor, a human before that.I have a perfectly robust riposte to those disapproving Facebook friends, admonishing connections on LinkedIN, and dissenting fellow tweeters: what, exactly, do you think health is FOR?

One of the great and common mistakes in medicine is to adopt the view that health is a virtue, implying that ill health is a vice.I have seen far too many bad medical things happen to the best of people to sanction any such nonsense.There is no place in genuine care for an admonishing wag of the finger. Everyone prefers good health to bad; failing to get there is an injury to which the insulting burden of victim blaming need not be appended.

A related mistake is to think or imply that health, per se, is the prize.Perhaps- goes this argument- health is not a virtue, per se, but the laurels claimed by those with the right combination of pluck and luck.This, too, is misguided.I know many people who have dodged innumerable slings and arrows of outrageous medical misfortune to live lives of deep meaning and happiness that have enriched all around them.I admire these people greatly.We all know people who put perfectly intact health to less replete purpose.

Health is neither virtue, nor prize; it is means to an end.Other things being equal, good health makes it far easier to do the things you like to do, whatever those may be.Other things being equal, healthy people have more fun.

Health is the means; quality of living is the ends.

And, so, personal health and the politics of our time are inextricably conjoined.Public health and public policy are ineluctably linked.Political poison that assaults our senses and sensibilities, policies that degrade our environments, positions that undermine civility, and proclamations that menace the essence of humanism itself- are one step worse than bad for health; they are directly injurious to what health isfor.

I not only refute the contention that abstinence from political commentary is the rightful place of health professionals; I repudiate it.Health and what its for are the inevitable consequence or casualty of politics and policy.The rightful place of health professionals is to renounce the complicity of silence when evil assaults the very thing we have pledged ourselves to protect.

I am not interested in a career change to political science.I prefer topics decisively in my native professional purview to those connected along troubling tangents.But I renounce the irrelevance of those tangents.They are the very lines conscience follows to find the connections between pernicious politics and maladies of bodies, and the body politic alike.Sometimes, disease is simply too big to fit within the skin of only one of us.

Where the deeply disturbing erosion of our civics commingles with rising reliance on antidepressants and rampant use of opioids- silence in defense of health and the higher aims it serves will invite every manner of illness to prevail.To the critics of every alternative to such silence, my answer is: what the health, indeed.

Senior Medical Advisor, Verywell.com

Continued here:

When Disease Is Bigger Than A Body - HuffPost

The architecture of censorship – The Hindu

Posted on by

Independence Day is an occasion to celebrate freedom from a colonial regime that not only cast chains of economic and political bondage upon Indians, but also fettered their freedom to think, dissent, and express themselves without fear. Demands for a right to free speech, and for an end to political, cultural and artistic censorship, were at the heart of our freedom struggle, and which culminated in the celebrated Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Last week, however, two events revealed that 70 years after Independence, the freedom of speech still occupies a fragile and tenuous place in the Republic, especially when it is pitted against the authority of the State. The first was the Jharkhand governments decision to ban the Sahitya Akademi awardee Hansda Sowvendra Shekhars 2015 book, The Adivasi Will Not Dance, for portraying the Santhal community in bad light. And the second was an order of a civil judge at Delhis Karkardooma Court, restraining the sale of Priyanka Pathak-Narains new book on Baba Ramdev, titled Godman to Tycoon.

Neither the ban on The Adivasi Will Not Dance, nor the injunction on Godman to Tycoon, are the last words on the issue. They are, rather, familiar opening moves in what is typically a prolonged and often tortuous battle over free speech, with an uncertain outcome. Nevertheless, they reveal something important: censorship exists in India to the extent it does because it is both easy and efficient to accomplish. This is for two allied reasons. First, the Indian legal system is structured in a manner that achieving censorship through law is an almost costless enterprise for anyone inclined to try; and second, the only thing that could effectively counteract this a strong, judicial commitment to free speech, at all levels of the judiciary does not exist. Together, these two elements create an environment in which the freedom of speech is in almost constant peril, with writers, artists, and publishers perpetually occupied with firefighting fresh threats and defending slippery ground, rather than spending their time and energy to transgress, challenge and dissent from the dominant social and cultural norms of the day.

The Jharkhand governments ban on The Adivasi Will Not Dance followed public protests against the writer, with MLAs calling for a ban on the book on the ground that it insulted Santhal women. The legal authority of the government to ban books flows from Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which, in turn, was based upon a similarly worded colonial provision). Section 95 authorises State governments to forfeit copies of any newspaper, book, or document that appears to violate certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code, such as Section 124A (sedition), Sections 153A or B (communal or class disharmony), Section 292 (obscenity), or Section 295A (insulting religious beliefs). Under Section 96 of the CrPC, any person aggrieved by the governments order has the right to challenge it before the high court of that State.

The key element of Section 95 is that it allows governments to ban publications without having to prove, before a court of law, that any law has been broken. All that Section 95 requires is that it appear to the government that some law has been violated. Once the publication has been banned, it is then up to the writer or publisher to rush to court and try and get the ban lifted.

The CrPC is therefore structured in a manner that is severely detrimental to the interests of free speech. By giving the government the power to ban publications with the stroke of a pen (through a simple notification), the law provides a recipe for overregulation and even abuse: faced with political pressure from influential constituencies, the easiest way out for any government is to accede and ban a book, and then let the law take its own course. Furthermore, litigation is both expensive and time-consuming. Section 95 ensures that the economic burden of a ban falls upon the writer or the publisher, who must approach the court. It also ensures that while the court deliberates and decides the matter, the default position remains that of the ban, ensuring that the publication cannot enter the marketplace of ideas during the course of the (often prolonged and protracted) legal proceedings.

The most noteworthy thing about the Karkardooma civil judges injunction on Godman to Tycoon is that it was granted without hearing the writer or the publisher (Juggernaut Books). In an 11-page order, the civil judge stated that he had given the book a cursory reading, and examined the specific portion produced by Baba Ramdevs lawyers in court which he found to be potentially defamatory. On this basis, he restrained the publication and sale of the book.

In this case, it is the judicial order of injunction that is performing the work of Section 95 of the CrPC. Effectively, a book is banned without a hearing. The book then stays banned until the case is completed (unless the writer or publisher manages to persuade the court to lift the injunction in the meantime). Once again, the presumption is against the rights of writers, and against the freedom of speech and expression.

In fact, the Karkardooma civil judges injunction order is contrary to well-established principles of free speech and defamation law. Under English common law which is the basis of the Indian law of defamation it is recognised that injunctions, which effectively amount to a judicial ban on books, have a serious impact upon the freedom of speech, and are almost never to be granted. The only situation in which a court ought to grant an injunction is if, after hearing both sides in a preliminary enquiry, it is virtually clear that there could be no possible defence advanced by the writer or publisher. The correct remedy, in a defamation case, is not to injunct the book from publication on the first hearing itself, but to have a full-blown, proper trial, and if it is finally proven that defamation has been committed, to award monetary damages to the plaintiff.

In 2011, the High Court of Delhi held that this basic common law rule acquired even greater force in the context of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and reiterated that injunctions did not serve the balance between freedom of speech and a persons right to reputation. The high court reaffirmed the basic principle of our Constitution: that the presumption always ought to be in favour of the freedom of speech and expression. In this context, the Karkardooma civil judges order granting an injunction before even hearing the writer and publisher is particularly unfortunate.

While the banning of The Adivasi Will Not Dance reflects the structural flaws in our criminal law that undermine the freedom of speech, the injunction on Godman to Tycoon reveals a different pathology: even where the law is relatively protective of free speech, it will not help if judges who are tasked with implementing the law have not themselves internalised the importance of free speech in a democracy.

The first problem is a problem of legal reform. The solution is obvious: to repeal Sections 95 and 96, take the power of banning books out of the hands of the government, and stipulate that if indeed the government wants to ban a book, it must approach a court and demonstrate, with clear and cogent evidence, what laws have been broken that warrant a ban. The second problem, however, is a problem of legal culture, and therefore, a problem of our public culture. It can only be addressed through continuing and unapologetic affirmation of free speech as a core, foundational, and non-negotiable value of our Republic and our Constitution.

Gautam Bhatia, a Delhi-based lawyer, is the author of Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech Under the Indian Constitution

Read the original post:

The architecture of censorship - The Hindu

[OPINION] Withdrawal of Mandela book nothing short of censorship – Eyewitness News

Posted on by

This article first appeared on The Conversation.

Mandelas Last Years, written by retired military doctor Vejay Ramlakan, has become a sought-after commodity since the publisher, Penguin SA, withdrew it from the shelves in July. Ramlakan was the head of the medical team that looked after Nelson Mandela until his death in 2013.

The withdrawing and pulping of a book represents a huge expense for a publisher, as well as a source of some embarrassment. So why did the publisher do it?

Soon after the book was published, members of the Mandela family, led by his widow Graa Machel, threatened legal action. It must be admitted that the basis for any legal action wasnt clear, although it was probably linked to defamation. The book, Machel argued, constituted an assault on the trust and dignity of her late husband.

Soon afterward, the authors employer, the South African National Defence Force, distanced itself from the book, suggesting that it may have contravened doctor-patient confidentiality.

The publisher bowed to this pressure and withdrew the book, stating that no further copies would be issued out of respect for the family. This is almost unprecedented, anywhere, and needs to be teased out more fully. After reading the book, Ive considered how and why the publisher may have come to this decision.

REASONS FOR PULPING A BOOK

The decision-making process for a publisher in a case like the Mandela book revolves around balancing the potential costs against reputational damage. The costs can be extensive - in publishing, all costs relating to editing, design, production, printing and distribution are made up front. It is relatively easy to make a decision to withdraw a book after publication when it may have contravened the law, mostly due to defamation of character.

Books may also be withdrawn after allegations of plagiarism, or because the accuracy of the content has been called into question. Publishers sometimes cancel contracts with their authors based on the standard waivers dealing with defamation and inaccuracies.

Publishers try to avoid these kinds of situations by performing due diligence to see if manuscripts contain anything defamatory or that breaches privacy. They employ fact checkers to avoid inaccuracy. And they require authors to warrant that their work is original and accurate.

This doesnt mean that errors dont sometimes slip through. But it is very unusual for a book to be withdrawn simply because its controversial. In fact, publishers usually support controversial titles because they create publicity, and publicity generally leads to sales.

So, what happened in this particular case?

The first set of questions would relate to the credibility of the author, and the publishers relationship with him. Ramlakan was the head of Mandelas medical team and had unique access to the former president over a long period of time.

This means that he certainly had the access and authority to write the book, and as far as I know, nobody is questioning its accuracy.

This is important, because truthfulness is one of the main defences against defamation, as is the issue of public benefit or interest. It seems highly unlikely that a publisher would allow a nonfiction title to include material that is patently untrue or that would harm the reputation of a man like Mandela. Is there really still a need to protect the reputation of a man of such global stature?

FAMILY PERMISSION

Linked to the question of authority is whether the work was authorised. The author has repeatedly claimed he wrote the memoir at the request of family members, and with their permission. In such a large family, it would be difficult to obtain permission from every family member, and it is quite common for family members to protest their treatment in a biography of a famous public figure.

Family members often argue that there has been a breach of privacy or that embarrassing private details have been made public. But the truth is that their authorization is not actually necessary. Many authors write unauthorised biographies or memoirs, and while they may prove controversial, they certainly do not contravene the law. The broad variety of books already available on Mandela shows that there is ongoing public interest. It seems unlikely that each one of them was authorised by the family.

What complicates this scenario is that, as a medical doctor, Ramlakan is also expected to uphold ethical standards that an ordinary writer wouldnt be subject to. I am not an expert in medical ethics, but there are very few medical details in the book that are not already in the public domain.

In fact, one of the purposes of the book was to counter the rumours and speculation around Mandelas medical condition in the last years and months of his life. It does this by quietly countering inaccurate statements and setting out the bare facts. It appears that the author made a deliberate effort to avoid breaching confidentiality, and ended up writing a very respectful book.

Some have suggested that the publisher and author were simply attempting to cash in on the Mandela legacy. Whatever their motives, they shouldnt be the basis for withdrawing a book from public circulation. Taste and motivation are not legal issues.

CENSORSHIP

Given that there is no apparent material basis for a legal attack on the book, its withdrawal reveals self-censorship on the part of the publisher. South Africa no longer has censorship laws in place, but an influential family can bring pressure to bear that amounts to the same thing. But also given that the book was already on the market, it should be asked what the effect of the withdrawal will be.

While fewer copies will be sold in bookshops, and fewer people will have access to it, its not possible to entirely withdraw a book from the online market. The book reviews already mention all of the most controversial parts of the book, and the action of withdrawal only serves to highlight them. The best course of action would be to allow the book to circulate freely and to stand - or fall - on its own merits. Anything else is censorship.

Beth le Roux is an Associate Professor, Publishing, University of Pretoria

View original post here:

[OPINION] Withdrawal of Mandela book nothing short of censorship - Eyewitness News

‘Free speech’ rally in Boston to get two-hour permit with stiff restrictions – The Boston Globe

Posted on by

John Medlar, an organizer of Saturdays free speech rally on Boston Common.

No bats. No sticks. No backpacks.

Those are on the list of zero tolerance rules that Commissioner William B. Evans and Mayor Martin J. Walsh on Wednesday issued to organizers of a controversial free speech rally scheduled to be held on Boston Common on Saturday.

Advertisement

The Boston Free Speech Coalition, which also goes by the name New Free Speech Movement, received permit, but it will have major restrictions.

No weapons, no backpacks, no sticks, Walsh explained. We are going to have a zero-tolerance policy. If anyone gets out of control at all it will be shut down.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

That goes for everyone, he stressed.

The group has become a source of outrage in Boston, a bane for City Hall, and an outlet for those who feel their voices are being shut out.

The approved permit, which was reviewed by the Globe, was issued to John Medlar, spokesman for the coalition, at 2:47 p.m. Wednesday. It is for a total five hours, including two from noon to 2 p.m. for the rally. Three hours are reserved for setting up and shutting down.

Police officials met with organizers from the free speech rally and a separate solidarity march and explained the high expectations for Saturday, Evans told reporters. He said members from both groups were cooperative.

Advertisement

We asked like we do to any large-scale events that people dont bring backpacks, Evans said. They are going to be subject to search because we still worry about ... the threat of terrorism. Any large sticks [and] anything that can be used as a weapon are banned.

Medler confirmed the meeting with police, including Superintendent Kevin Buckley, at police headquarters around 10 a.m. Wednesday. He also had a separate meeting with city permitting director Paul McCaffrey to discuss logistics related to the rally.

Reached Wednesday afternoon, Medler said he was relieved the permit issue is resolved.

Its one thing to be told its going to happen, said Medler, a spokesman for the coalition. Its another thing when you actually have real confirmation.

The police commissioner and other law enforcement officials met separately with organizers of a racial justice solidarity march that is also planned for Saturday, said Tanisha Sullivan, president of the Boston branch of the NAACP.

Sullivan said the NAACP is not holding the march but hosted the meeting at its Roxbury offices to help ensure a clear understanding of the public safety measures that will be in place Saturday.

Monica Cannon, a Roxbury advocate who heads the Violence in Boston Movement, is leading the racial justice solidarity march organized in response to the free speech rally also attended the meeting.

The meeting was informative, and the NAACP will continue to monitor the impact of any new developments, Sullivan said. It is very likely that there will be large numbers of people converging on the Boston Common Saturday afternoon. Our hope is that the message of racial justice and equality rings loud, while at the same time everyone makes it home safe.

The free speech rally garnered major attention after the bloodshed that tarnished Charlottesville, Va. Virginia authorities said neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and white nationalists incited the violence. And many across social media feared some of the people involved in Charlottesville might also attend Saturdays rally.

Organizers of the Boston free speech rally who are mostly young white men in their 20s insist their event is all about the freedom of expression. They said they denounce violence.

But civil rights activists, noting the extreme, white nationalist views of some of the speakers who were initially invited, criticized the coalition for offering a platform to people who spew hate and racial violence.

As the rally day nears, a handful of faith leaders gathered under a glowing sun on City Hall Plaza around lunchtime Wednesday to lock hands and pray for healing and peace in Boston and the White House.

The prayers came a day after a vigil at the New England Holocaust Memorial, which was vandalized Monday for the second time this summer.

The mayor used the opportunity to again deliver a message to any group that wants to stir trouble Saturday.

You can have your free speech all day long, but lets not speak about hate, bigotry, and racism, Walsh said.

Evans, the police commissioner, said officers will monitor Saturdays events as they do any major gatherings. There will be barricades separating the free speech rally and the social justice march, he said, adding that he is not sure of how many people are expected to fill the Common.

Evans also said that although police met with organizers of the free speech rally, he said he has no way to know whether they support white supremacist views.

Obviously they are claiming they are all about free speech, but thats not my role to determine who and what they are, Evans said. I know we have a job to do and that is to keep people safe.

More:

'Free speech' rally in Boston to get two-hour permit with stiff restrictions - The Boston Globe

UC Berkeley chancellor unveils ‘Free Speech Year’ as right-wing speakers plan campus events – Los Angeles Times

Posted on by

Carol T. Christ, UC Berkeleys 11th chancellor and the first woman to lead the nations top public research university, unveiled plans Tuesday for a Free Speech Year as right-wing speakers prepare to come to campus.

Christ said the campus would hold point-counterpoint panels to demonstrate how to exchange opposing views in a respectful manner. Other events will explore constitutional questions, the history of Berkeleys free speech movement and how that movement inspired acclaimed chef Alice Waters to create her Chez Panisse restaurant.

Now what public speech is about is shouting, screaming your point of view in a public space rather than really thoughtfully engaging someone with a different point of view, Christ said in an interview. We have to build a deeper and richer shared public understanding.

The free speech initiative comes after a rocky year of clashing opinions on campus. In February, violent protests shut down an appearance by right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos, prompting President Trump to question the campus federal funding. A few months later, conservative commentator Ann Coulter canceled a planned appearance after the campus groups hosting her pulled out.

Yiannopoulos has announced plans to return next month to spend days in a tent city in Berkeleys iconic Sproul Plaza. Conservative author and columnist Ben Shapiro is scheduled to visit Sept. 14.

The free speech issue drew the biggest spotlight in the new chancellors daylong media interviews and welcoming remarks to 9,500 new students. Christ, dressed in blue ceremonial robes, told the new arrivals that Berkeleys free speech movement was launched by liberals and conservatives working together to win the right to advocate political views on campus.

Particularly now, it is critical for the Berkeley community to protect this right; it is who we are, she said. That protection involves not just defending your right to speak, or the right of those you agree with, but also defending the right to speak by those you disagree with, even of those whose views you find abhorrent.

She drew loud applause when she asserted that the best response to hate speech is more speech rather than trying to shut down others, and when she said that shielding students from uncomfortable views would not serve them well.

You have the right to expect the university to keep you physically safe, but we would be providing you less of an education, preparing you less well for the world after you graduate, if we tried to protect you from ideas that you may find wrong, even noxious, she said.

Although everyone wants to feel comfort and support, Christ said, inner resilience is the the surest form of safe space.

But she also emphasized that public safety also is paramount. At a morning news conference dominated by free speech questions, Christ said the February violence triggered by the Yiannopoulos event had underscored the need for a larger police presence. Only 85 officers were on the scene, she said, when a paramilitary group 150 strong marched onto campus with sticks, baseball bats and Molotov cocktails.

Under an interim policy that took effect this week, campus police will provide a security assessment for certain large events that could endanger public safety, and the hosting organizations will be responsible for basic costs. Such organizations will have to give advance notice, preferably eight weeks or longer, and provide detailed timetables and contracts with speakers may not be finalized until the campus has confirmed the venue and given final approval. The rules will be applied to all events, regardless of viewpoint.

Most of the rules already exist but have not been laid out in a unified, consistent policy known to all, Christ said. She said the student group hoping to host Coulter, for instance, offered her a date and time without checking with campus administrators that a venue was available; none was. Berkeley did not cancel the event, as has been reported, Christ said.

Campus spokesman Dan Mogulof said, We want to eliminate all gray areas and make sure theres clarity about what people need to do so we can help support safe and secure events.

The campus is accepting public comments on the interim policy until Oct 31.

Christs focus on free speech heartened Alex Nguyen, a sophomore studying molecular cellular biology. She said she took the issue especially to heart because her parents were born in Vietnam, where criticizing the government could lead to imprisonment.

I want her to really protect free speech because theres really high political tensions here, Nguyen said of the chancellor. Were at the university to learn new things and disprove our ideas.

teresa.watanabe@latimes.com

Twitter: @teresawatanabe

See original here:

UC Berkeley chancellor unveils 'Free Speech Year' as right-wing speakers plan campus events - Los Angeles Times

Who is the Boston Free Speech Coalition behind Saturday’s rally? – The Boston Globe

Posted on by

John Medlar, one of the organizers of Saturday's Boston Free Speech Coalition rally on Boston Common.

The Boston Free Speech Coalition evolved quietly online and out of the view of authorities in recent months, shaped in part by outrage over violent protests at political rallies and riots on a California campus, a spokesman for the group said Tuesday.

John Medlar, the 23-year-old spokesman, said he and other young men began communicating on the Internet to express alarm over what they viewed as support for protesters who set fires, damaged property, and started fights following the University of California Berkeleys decision to invite controversial conservative figures to speak.

Advertisement

We were alarmed that people were OK with fringe anarchists burning down a campus and driving [out] speakers, Medlar said.

As the coalition which also goes by the name The New Free Speech Movement prepares to hold a controversial rally on Boston Common on Saturday, a picture of the sponsoring organization has emerged. The group, which until recently planned to include speakers with white nationalist ties at Saturdays event, has become a source of outrage in Boston, a bane for City Hall, and an outlet for those who feel their voices are being shut out.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

We are not professional activists, Medlar said. We are just a bunch of volunteers who set out to go do something.

Medlar said he has been in contact with police and the city and is working to ensure a permit for Saturdays event. The city had said the group did not apply for one. But records show an organizer started the process by filling out an online application on the citys special events portal in July. He did not apply for a permit with the Boston Parks and Recreation Department, which issues permits for large-scale events in the citys parks.

Medlar said the organizer was confused by the process, but the group is working with parks and police officials to address the matter. City officials had said that if a permit is issued there would be conditions.

Advertisement

Many Boston-area activists said the group is giving a platform to those who spew racial hate and incite violence.

Ivn Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice, said the coalition is naive to think that the issue is about the right to free speech if the expression at their rally dissolves into bigotry and violence.

You have the right to speak. You dont have the right to threaten or intimidate people, he said. You dont have a right to promote racial violence.

The group describes itself on Facebook as a coalition of libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and independents that is willing to peaceably engage in open dialogue about the threats to, and importance of, free speech and civil liberties.

They are mostly young white men in their 20s from places like Newton, Cambridge, and Charlestown who like to think of themselves as free speech absolutionists, members of the group said.

But civil rights specialists say the group is alt-lite, and that Saturdays event is part of a broader effort among some right-wing groups to bring their ideological battles into the streets.

Medlar acknowledged that at least one white nationalist group has been trying to use the rally to insert itself. But he distanced the coalition from that group or any group that espouses violence.

We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence. We denounce the actions, activities, and tactics of the so-called Antifa (militant leftists) movement. We denounce the normalization of political violence, the groups Facebook posting said.

One of the Virginia rallys speakers and another alt-right member who attended it were also invited to speak at the Boston event months ago. Both are no longer speaking.

The group came on scene in May with a small rally on the Common that drew protests. Police Commissioner William Evans had said the free speech group that held the event was not affiliated with Saturdays rally. But Medlar said he helped to organize the May rally. Police officials said they are trying to determine who was involved in both rallies.

Coalition members did not anticipate the uproar they would cause when they began planning Saturdays event at the Parkman Bandstand in May, Medlar and others said.

Just last week, a rally led by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and white racists led to bloodshed in Charlottesville, Va. Immediately after, there was worry on social media that the speakers who police said incite violent and hate would also speak on the Common.

Amid the uproar, Medlar said the Boston rally organizers were unsure how to respond and panicked. They wavered over whether to continue with their rally or cancel it.

In the confusion, he added, one of the groups six organizers notified headliner Augustus Invictus, an Orlando activist who took part in the Charlottesville rally, to not to come to Boston. Invictus attracted support from white supremacists when he ran for the US Senate as a Libertarian in Florida in 2016. He told the Globe this week that organizers said they were worried about statements he has made espousing support for a second American civil war.

Tensions between Invictus and the group soared.

We do not support him due to his willingness to support violence, as well as his Holocaust denial, said one member who would only identify himself as Louis. So he has been disinvited, and he has pulled out.

Six other participants also dropped out as of Tuesday afternoon, Medlar said, and the groups list of speakers remains in flux. Part of the speakers exodus stemmed from uncertainty over whether the event would be held, and the other part has to do with the disinvitation of Invictus. There was a breach of trust between the coalition and speakers, he added.

It was a mistake on our part we believe, Medlar said. It created the impression that we are not fully committed to free speech.

As of Tuesday afternoon, only three people are confirmed to speak, he said.

Hoping to get a handle on the situation, Medlar said the group decided it needed a public face to address reporters questions and work with the city and police.

Postponing the rally now is not an option. If organizers postpone or cancel it, they would be seen as caving to pressure, the coalition said. Plus, members added, people are going to come.

In many ways it has already [become] bigger than us, Medlar added. And we need to get our act together and take control of the reins to make sure we are on course.

View original post here:

Who is the Boston Free Speech Coalition behind Saturday's rally? - The Boston Globe

President Trump is endorsing free speech – Baltimore Sun

Posted on by

It appears that the only person who is endorsing free speech is President Donald Trump. Politicians should be saying that they don't agree with the message of the KKK and other hate groups but that they support their right to express their views. The Supreme Court has affirmed this right. By not denouncing the violence on both sides, the leftists feel encouraged to use violence to oppose those with whom they disagree such as the Tea Party and other Republican groups. Marco Rubio, John McCain and others have given tacit approval to leftist violence. The media was not reporting what I saw on television. Many people with clubs and flaming aerosol cans were attacking those who had come to Charlottesville to protest the removal of Confederate statutes. All violence should be denounced. Both sides have blame for violence in Charlottesville. Saying this does not show approval for the KKK. That is how the media is trying to spin this.

Ronald Kuhns, Nottingham

Send letters to the editor to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

See more here:

President Trump is endorsing free speech - Baltimore Sun

Free speech, abhorrent or not, must be protected – Miami Herald

Posted on by
Free speech, abhorrent or not, must be protected
Miami Herald
My African-American professor merely laughed when I suggested that I was wrong for the job, making it clear he would be there every step of the way. The court readily agreed free speech does not permit content to be regulated by the government, forcing ...

and more »

See the article here:

Free speech, abhorrent or not, must be protected - Miami Herald

Boston Free Speech Rally Permit Approved – CBS Boston / WBZ

Posted on by

BOSTON (CBS) The city of Boston has approved a permit for a controversialFree Speech Rally scheduled to take place on Boston Common Saturday.

After a meeting with Boston Police and city officials Wednesday morning, event organizer and Boston Free Speech Coalition spokesman John Medlar told WBZ-TV the city gave them the green light for the event to take place.

READ: Permit For Boston Free Speech Coalition Rally

According to Medlar, the two parties agreed in the meeting that the rally will be barricaded by police.

The police are going to be there in full force, Medlar told WBZ-TVs Beth Germano. Theyre going to have physical barriers around the Parkman Bandstand separating the rallygoers from counter-protesters to make sure that everyone stays safe. Theyre going to be escorting people in and escorting people out. If things get out of hand, they will evacuate people.

Boston Free Speech Coalition spokesperson John Medlar. (WBZ-TV)

Medlar said no weapons will be permitted, and anyone can be searched.

They will not be allowing people to bring weapons of any kind, anything that could be used as a weapon, so blunt instruments like flagpoles, he said. They will be allowing people to bring flags, just not attached to any pole or stick.

At a prayer service outside City Hall Wednesday afternoon, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh addressed the tension surrounding the rally.

In our city, weve been dealing with anticipation of whats going to happen on Saturday, Walsh said. I ask everyone who comes to Boston Common on Saturday, you can have your free speech all day long, but lets not speak about hate. Lets not speak about bigotry, racism.

He stood with faith leaders from around the city and asked protesters and rally-goers to refrain from hateful or violent behavior.

We are a better people than what were seeing on TV, Walsh said. And Im asking people, when you come into Boston, respect this city, because we respect your right to come in and speak. If were gonna respect your right to come in, we expect you to respect our city, our people, the people that live here. Dont pass hate, dont pass judgement on people, and thats what were asking for.

Earlier Wednesday, Medlar told WBZ NewsRadio 1030s Carl Stevens that people have the wrong impression about the eventand that he and his group absolutely disavow white supremacy.

Contrary to a lot of the rumors out there, the purpose of the rally is to denounce the kind of political violence that we have seen, a sort of rising tide throughout the country, Medlar said. And particularly most recently in Charlottesville.

A post on the Boston Free Speech Facebook pageTuesday night disavowed last weekendswhite nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, which led to the death of a woman protesting white supremacy and left 19 others injured.

This Free Speech Movement is dedicated to peaceful rallies and are in no way affiliated with the Charlottesville rally on 8/12/17, the post read. 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.

Medlar said most of those involved are local volunteers and activists who want to de-escalate what they see as a rising tide of political violence across the country.

We want to get people talking and listening to each other again, to exchange words rather than to exchange fists on the streets, Medlar said.

Medlar said his group opposes groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis because they use free speech and the First Amendment as a shield while rejecting the same rights for the people they disagree with. He said some of those groups were among those inaccurately equating the Boston Free Speech Coalition with the events in Charlottesville.

In all the confusion out there, there do seem to be legitimate white supremacist groups on social media that are attempting to hijack the rally, Medlar said. It is very troublesome to us.

He said his group carefully vetted speakers, and said the list included people with varied backgroundsincluding supporters of Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein as well as more right-leaning figures.

Though the Boston Free Speech Coalition is not affiliated with the organizers of the Unite The Right rally in Virginia, they did invite at least one of the speakers from that rally in Charlottesville. Listed on a flyer for the event was a speaker going by the name Augustus Invictus who, according to the Orlando Sentinel, had prominent billing in Charlottesville.

Poster for the August 19, Free Speech Rally. (Photo credit: WBZ-TV)

Medlar described Invictus as a fringe figure and a very out-there person but said that regardless of the other stuff, hes ultimately a libertarian.

There was actually a mistake made, Medlar said. In all the confusion that happened, one of our other organizers told Augustus that he was being disinvited.

He said that mistake created a breach in trust that led to other speakers dropping out.

On Tuesday, speaker Brandon Navomtold WBZ-TV he was dropping out because hes been receiving death threatsand thinks the rally should be cancelled.

The environment has just become so hostile and so toxic that I am completely concerned for the city of Boston, Navom said.

Medlar said the group considered cancelling the rally after Charlottesville, but decided against it.

If anything, the events in Charlottesvillewhich did take us very much by surprise, we were shocked and horrified by the things that went down thereif anything, that only makes the kind of thing that were trying to do all the more necessary, Medlar said.

He added that even if they told people not to go, hes sure theyd show up anyway.

Last weekends violence in Virginia prompted Boston Mayor Marty Walsh and Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker to issue tough statementsa week ahead of the Boston rally thathate groups would not be welcome in the city.

Boston does not welcome you here. Boston does not want you here. Boston rejects your message, said Walsh. We reject racism, we reject white supremacy, we reject anti-Semitism, we reject the KKK, we reject neo-Nazis, we reject domestic terrorism, and reject hatred. We will do every single thing in our power to keep hate out of our city.

Medlar said my objective is to coordinate with police and with city officials to make sure that logistics are entirely in place and everything is kept orderly, everything is kept safe, and at the end of the day, everyone is able to go home with no trouble.

Medlar in part echoed the spirit of President Donald Trumps recent comments, saying that groups on the left as well as the right were responsible for political violence.

We absolutely denounce violent extremists on both sides of the aisle, like the Antifa movement on the left, and Identity Europa and Vanguard on the right, he said.

RELATED:Trump Again Blames Both Sides For Charlottesville Violence

In Roxbury Tuesday night, members of the NAACP and the local faith community planned a peace rally to coincide with the Boston Free Speech Rally Saturday.

White supremacists who are okay with being public now feel emboldened and protected by the person in the White House, said the Boston NAACPs Segun Idowu.

Meanwhile, a group that calls itself Fight Supremacy says they will be organizing a counter-rally Saturday.

In a post on their Facebook page, Fight Supremacy organizers wrote, On Saturday, August 19th, White Nationalists are converging on Boston Common to reinforce their white supremacist ideology and attempt to intimidate queer and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, POC) communities.

That group has not received a permit yet.

Monica Cannon, founder of a group called Violence In Boston that is among the sponsors of the Fight Supremacy event, told WBZ-TV why the counter-protest was being organized.

Mainly, to stand up and show that Boston is not the city, that you cant come here with those views, but also to highlight the fact that a lot of those people arent visiting Boston, she said. They actually live here, and although Boston tries to come across as progressive and liberal, theres a great deal of racism here.

But Medlar disagrees with Fight Supremacys characterization of his event.

Im afraid that they are very much misinformed, and we regret that, said Medlar. Were campaigning for people like them to rally as well. We have no problem with them exercising their freedom of assembly, we just wish they would do it for the right reasons, rather than mistaking us for something were not.

No matter whether or not city officials give the Boston Free Speech Coalition a permit, Cannon says her group will show up Saturday.

Whether they have their rally or they dont have their rally, were going to be there, because we need to send a message, she said.

WBZ NewsRadio 1030s Carl Stevens reports

See the article here:

Boston Free Speech Rally Permit Approved - CBS Boston / WBZ

Free Speech and Assembly in Hong Kong – New York Times

Posted on by

Photo Joshua Wong during an October 2014 protest outside the offices of Hong Kongs chief executive. Credit Tyrone Siu/Reuters

To the Editor:

Re Three Young Voices Versus a Superpower (editorial, Aug. 15):

The three students were convicted because their disorderly and intimidating behavior broke the law during a protest. They were found guilty based on evidence presented in a fair and open trial.

Under Hong Kongs common law legal system, like others around the world, both the prosecution and the convicted can seek an appeal of sentence. The court will consider the case independently, fairly and openly. There is simply no basis to imply that political motive or the students political views are the reason for the appeal.

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are protected in Hong Kongs Basic Law, our constitutional document, and underpinned by the rule of law and an independent judiciary. Hong Kongs judicial independence is ranked eighth globally by the World Economic Forum (the United States is 29th).

Your eagerness to label the alleged kidnapping case of Howard Lam, a member of Hong Kongs Democratic Party, as a brazen crackdown is also wide of the mark. Independent journalists have published evidence that contradicts his allegations. Mr. Lam has since been arrested on suspicion of misleading the police by false information.

CLEMENT LEUNG, WASHINGTON

The writer is Hong Kongs commissioner to the United States.

See original here:

Free Speech and Assembly in Hong Kong - New York Times

Strange bedfellows: The ACLU, free speech and Neo-Nazis – ABC News

Posted on by

The violent clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia, have turned a spotlight on the freedom of speech one of the first rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, and one of the messiest.

In Charlottesville, white nationalists and other extremist groups including neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan rallied but only after a federal judge ruled they had the right to gather at Emancipation Park and protest the removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Their rights were defended by the American Civil Liberties Union, despised by many conservatives as a liberal bastion. The ACLU deplored the "voices of white supremacy," and condemned the violence that killed a 32-year-old woman and injured dozens of others. But the ACLU made no apologies for its defense of speech that many find distasteful or even dangerous.

"The First Amendment is a critical part of our democracy and it protects vile, hateful, and ignorant speech," the organization said.

So what are the boundaries of free speech? And how is it playing out in this politically charged landscape?

FREE SPEECH RIGHTS

"Even groups that have hateful messages still have a right under the First Amendment to express those positions, whether it's in rallies or protests or gatherings or writing," says Roy Gutterman, a First Amendment expert at Syracuse University.

But free speech does have boundaries. "You have no right to incite violence, you have no right to defame someone or disseminate child pornography," he says. "There are limits and some of the limits are easier to define than others. Even the concept of inciting a riot can get into some subjective and nebulous standards."

The limits of free speech were recognized in a 1919 Supreme Court decision in which the justices said the First Amendment could be restricted if the words represented a "clear and present danger." In that ruling, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

The ACLU has a long history of defending free speech rights, at times on behalf of bigoted groups with offensive messages. In one of its most controversial cases, the ACLU in the late 1970s argued that a neo-Nazi group should be allowed to march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, which was home to thousands of Holocaust survivors. The demonstrators planned to wear Nazi uniforms with swastika armbands. Attorneys for Skokie argued that would be traumatic for many residents. The neo-Nazis ultimately won the legal battle as a free speech argument, but didn't follow through with the march. Instead, they held a rally in a federal plaza in downtown Chicago.

In a recent case the ACLU said it was defending right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulos in a free speech lawsuit even though it disagrees with his positions, saying he has fostered "anti-Muslim views and disdain for women" and has compared Black Lives Matter activists to the Klan.

"We understand the pain caused by Mr. Yiannopoulos' views," James Esseks, director of the ACLU's LGBT and HIV Project wrote last week. "We also understand the importance of the principles we seek to defend. The constitutional principle here, of course, is that government can't censor our speech just because it doesn't like what we say."

TOLERANCE ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES

The debate over political expression and free speech has roiled college campuses in recent years, most notably at the University of California-Berkeley. An appearance by Yiannopoulos last winter was canceled after demonstrators dressed in black, broke windows, hurled rocks at police and set fires on the campus. A speech by conservative commentator Ann Coulter at Berkeley was later canceled because of safety concerns. And in Middlebury College, a small liberal arts campus in Vermont, scores of students shouted down political scientist Charles Murray, the author of "The Bell Curve," a controversial book that deals with race and intelligence.

Syracuse's Gutterman says what's happening now is a dramatic shift from the era between the 1940s and 1960s when people on college campuses who were being punished, censored and kicked out of school were on the political left. "Fast forward to today," he says. "It's people on the right or the far right who feel they're not getting a chance to articulate their viewpoint."

"'I think college campuses are a pretty precarious place for the free exchange of information," he says. "Berkeley is the birthplace of the Free Speech movement in the '60s. There's a huge irony there. College campuses have become kind of soft places because of speech codes, codes of conduct and things like that that tend to over-insulate people."

But Fanta Aw, interim vice president of campus life at American University in Washington, D.C., told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June: "As an institution, we draw the line when expression has the potential to incite violence and/or is a direct threat to members of our community."

THE VIEW FROM ABROAD

Many other democracies do not share America's broad protections of speech.

After World War II, several European countries enacted laws that were designed to curb religious and racial hatred. The punishment can range from fines to prison. In 2006, British historian David Irving was sentenced to prison in Austria for denying the Holocaust and gas chambers at Auschwitz. In 2011, a French court found the flamboyant fashion designer John Galliano guilty of making anti-Semitic comments at a Paris bistro.

Original post:

Strange bedfellows: The ACLU, free speech and Neo-Nazis - ABC News

Free speech and White Supremacy at Texas A & M (and elsewhere) – Washington Post

Posted on by

At the height ofthe deadly racist mayhem last Saturday in Charlottesville, a so-called white nationalist named Preston Wiginton announced that he would hold a White Lives Matter rally on September 11 on the grounds of Texas A & M, a public university in College Station. The rally would feature Richard Spencer, a well-known white nationalist whose speech at an auditorium at the university in December sparked outrage and near violence on campus. The headline of Wigintons press release blared in all caps, TODAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, TOMORROW TEXAS A&M.

An opposing group immediately announced a counter-protest to be called BTHO Hate, borrowing from a campus sports-program acronym meaning beat the hell out of.

On Monday night, Texas A & M announced it was canceling Wiggintons rally, and issued the following statement:

After consultation with law enforcement and considerable study, Texas A&M is cancelling the event scheduled by Preston Wiginton at Rudder Plaza on campus on September 11 because of concerns about the safety of its students, faculty, staff, and the public.

Texas A&M changed its policy after Decembers protests so that no outside individual or group could reserve campus facilities without the sponsorship of a university-sanctioned group. None of the 1200-plus campus organizations invited Preston Wiginton nor did they agree to sponsor his events in December 2016 or on September 11 of this year.

With no university facilities afforded him, he chose instead to plan his event outdoors for September 11 at Rudder Plaza, in the middle of campus, during a school day, with a notification to the media under the headline Today Charlottesville, Tomorrow Texas A&M.

Linking the tragedy of Charlottesville with the Texas A&M event creates a major security risk on our campus. Additionally, the daylong event would provide disruption to our class schedules and to student, faculty and staff movement (both bus system and pedestrian).

Texas A&Ms support of the First Amendment and the freedom of speech cannot be questioned. On December 6, 2016 the university and law enforcement allowed the same speaker the opportunity to share his views, taking all of the necessary precautions to ensure a peaceful event. However, in this case, circumstances and information relating to the event have changed and the risks of threat to life and safety compel us to cancel the event.

Finally, the thoughts and prayers of Aggies here on campus and around the world are with those individuals affected by the tragedy in Charlottesville.

Texas A & M is a public university subject to the demands of the First Amendment. It cannot ban speech on campus simply because the content of that speech is objectionable to many or all. Even hate speech like that of White Supremacists is fully constitutionally protected. Courts long ago held that Nazis bearing swastikas must be allowed to march down the streets of a neighborhood populated by Holocaust survivors. Furthermore,Texas A & M permitsRudder Plaza to be used as a free-speech zone, whether or not the speakers are sponsored by a student group.

University lawyers know this, so officials have not announced a total ban on racist hate speech on campus. They are cancelling this particular event. And they are offering purported content-neutral justifications for the cancellation. Are they on solid First Amendment ground?

The first and potentially most compelling justification for the cancellation is a public safety concern. Given violent clashes in other places where political extremists have rallied, and especially the demonstration four days ago at the University of Virginia, its easy to sympathize with the university. Moreover, September 11 is an especially sensitive day on the American calendarwhich is no doubt the reason it was chosen for the rally. Protecting public safety is certainly a legitimate and indeed powerful concern of public officials. Speakers may not threaten violence or incite others to violence. Any actual acts of violence by speakers or counter-protesters could be punished.

The problem for Texas A & M is that, judging by the public record, we have no indication so far that organizers have made what courts would likely consider threats of violence. Its true that Wiginton linked his event to Charlottesville. But avague publicity reference to Today Charlottesville, Tomorrow Texas A &M is not enough to qualify as an unprotected true threat.

Theres also no evidence that organizers directly encouragedincitedothers to commit acts of violence. To constitute unprotected incitement, the speech must clearly advocate actual lawlessness (not merely hint at it) and be likely to immediately cause such lawlessness (not merely increase its likelihood). Under this test, the Supreme Court reversed the criminal conviction of a Klan leader who told armed membersat a cross-burning rally that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken against niggers and Jews.

Undoubtedly,many people feel provoked to violence when they see swastikas or Confederate flags or hear slogans that evoke genocide like Jews will not replace us. Thus, the planned counter-protest in response to Wiginton employed the language of force (beat the hell out of hate). But provocation is not incitement.The university cannot bar controversial speech simply because listeners might be deeply offended or might themselves react violently when they hear the speech. Federal courts are wary of allowing such a hecklers veto of controversial speechespecially based on an undifferentiated fear that violence might possibly ensue. Shutting down or prohibiting speech is the last resort, not the first.

Minimizing and containing the threat of violence at the rally is a matter for negotiation between the speakers and the university, with a judge resolving outstanding differences. But safety concerns are unlikely to prevent the speech altogether.

The second justification for the cancellation is that the event would disturb the normal activities of the campus during a school day, including possible disruption to class schedules, and would impede the safe and free movement of pedestrians and vehicles through campus. These are legitimate content-neutral concerns of the government, but there is a fact question about whether a protest or event could be orchestrated in a way that would minimize disruption and allow adequate traffic flow. These are matters that could be negotiated by lawyers for the university and the speakers, with differences adjudicated by a judge. Again, these concerns wont justify wholly forbidding the speech.

The universitys cancellation is an opening bid in a negotiation with lawyers for the speakers. It may be that a different date or time or specific place on campus for the event can be arranged to address safety and other concerns. Certainly the university can take steps to protect the peace, like increasing police presence and erecting barriers between opposing groups. But I doubt the University will succeed in simply prohibiting this event on campus.

Texas A & M is not a one-off. The newly emboldened and brazen white racist movement is seeking similar publicity around the country. The constitutional issues raised by the universitys purported cancellation of a White Supremacy rally will recur. The First Amendment is not an alt-right slogan. We cant let it be distorted by our fear of bigots. And we cant let it be a tool for them alone.

Read the original post:

Free speech and White Supremacy at Texas A & M (and elsewhere) - Washington Post

Free speech comes at a price – Spectrum News

Posted on by

Free speech isn't an absolute and it doesn't mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want.

"First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech. The protection is mainly from the government, and it doesn't protect against the consequences of the freedom of speech," saidJohn Elmore, a legal analyst.

Because of the First Amendment protections, it's rare that a government will deny a permit to assemble, even if it is for a recognized hate group, like the White Nationalists who organized the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia over the weekend. Plus, those groups can sue if their assembly permit is denied. But the government can restrict a protest to a certain place and time.

"The court has always had the ruling that if the government restricts speech based on the content of that speech, they have a very high standard. And it is very reluctant to allow that restriction," saidPeter Yacobucci, Ph.D., a SUNY Buffalo State political science associate professor.

The exceptions to freedom of speech include incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity and lies, just to name a few. And there's a fine line between freedom to spew hate speech and inciting violence.

"For hate speech, as long as nobody is acting on it, it's still protected. If people are acting on it, we can say this person was engaging in incitement and incitement, we have laws against," saidClairissa Breen, Ph.D., a SUNY Buffalo State criminal justice professor.

Yacobucci added, "If a common person understood it that they were being directed to that violence, then the speech can be restricted, but that's a pretty high standard. To just say, 'I want to kill that person,' that's not a enough to be a threat. There has to be something substantial behind it."

Elmore said, "No matter how untasteful the language is, that's protected speech."

But freedom of speech and assembly rights can be revoked if things turn violent. Plus, freedom of speech doesn't protect you from potential consequences.

"A private employer may be embarrassed by extreme political views of a person that is publicized, somebody that publicizes their Nazi views, their KKK views, extreme racist views. The government says you can say those things, but a private employer has the right to discharge an employee because that would affect their business," said Elmore.

But for government employees, it's more of a gray area. If the hate speech is something that could affect the way they do their job, like a police officer, they would be at risk for getting fired.

View post:

Free speech comes at a price - Spectrum News

IGP warns atheist group not to cause uneasiness – Free Malaysia Today

Posted on by

The police chief reminds group that Islam is the official religion and there is no provision for atheism in the constitution.

KUALA LUMPUR: Police today warned an atheist group not to cause uneasiness among Malaysians, particularly the Muslims, with their activities.

Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar, who issued the warning, said the group must abide by the laws.

I advise this atheist group not to cause uneasiness, particularly among Muslims who reject atheism, he told a news conference after witnessing a transfer of duty in the narcotics criminal investigation department and pinning on new rank insignias for senior officers.

Last week, the special officer to the prime minister, Rizal Mansor, expressed his concern over the appearance of an atheist club in Malaysia.

Rizal said the club should not be treated lightly.

Khalid said the nations constitution recognised Islam as the official religion without any provision in it for atheism.

He said the police would scrutinise the existing laws to enable appropriate action to be taken should the atheist group cause anxiety among Muslims.

The IGP was also asked what action the police would take if the group received threats from Muslims.

If they are threatened and there is an infringement of the laws, we will investigate and take action, he said.

On the discovery of the body of a South Korean woman found bound in a hotel room toilet in Genting Highlands today, Khalid said police had identified the killer and were hunting him.

We believe the killer is a Korean citizen and we have alerted the authorities at all exit points to detain him if he tries to leave the country.

This case involves a gambling debt. We believe it is connected with lending money to South Koreans to gamble in Genting Highlands.

When the borrower is unable to repay, this sort of thing happens, he said.

On the issue of Selangor menteri besar Azmin Ali seeking a court order to compel the IGP to arrest businessman Low Taek Jho or Jho Low in connection with the 1MDB scandal, Khalid said he would wait for the courts decision.

No matter, we wait for the courts order, he said.

The views expressed in the contents are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of FMT.

Continue reading here:

IGP warns atheist group not to cause uneasiness - Free Malaysia Today

Analysis: Future Shock – Baptist Standard

Posted on by

August 16, 2017 By Hal Ostrander and Daryl Smith

Watching my grandkids laugh, explore and have fun, I shake my head and wonder where this culture of ours will take them. Do we realize how fast the future is rushing to meet our posterity, and us? In the days ahead, the contours of civilization likely will radically alter, sacred and secular alike, and in ways staggering to think about.

Consider the past: In 1790, 90 percent of people worked on farms; 1870, 50 percent; today, less than 1 percent. In 1900, 90 percent of the population was rural; today 90 percent is urban. Folks worked 60 hours a week over six days with a life expectancy of 47 years. Three percent of homes had electricity, and 15 percent had flush toilets.

Only one in five households owned a horse, and an eighth-grade education was the norm with college graduates numbering a scant 7 percent. Halfway through 2017, its hard to fathom the scale of change weve undergone and harder still to grasp whats yet to take place.

Just look at computing

In 1965, Gordon Moore, Intels co-founder, predicted transistors on circuits would double roughly every two years. His estimate has held true, but he couldnt have foreseen 2017 as the 10th anniversary of the iPhone. Now we can contact anyone around the world instantly from our pockets!

Remarkably, smart phone circuitry is 150 million times more powerful than the computer NASA used to navigate Apollo 11 safely to the moon in July 1969. At the time, NASA computers stored only a megabyte of memory each, were car-sized, and cost $3.5 million apiece.

If the trend continues

Today theres no stopping things! Forgive the technicality, but the development of carbon-based transistors in hand with quantum/nano-biological computing will take whats listed below and advance things to ever higher levels:

If the trend continues, artificial intelligence (AI) could emerge exponentially, with no turning back! Processing power exceeding the human brain may suddenly slap an unsuspecting public in the face. The brightest minds in the industry are alleging that one day, hopefully soon, machines and robots will simulate human intelligence successfully, solving challenges previously reserved only for conscious thinking.

Weak and strong AI

There are three waves of weak AI. The first solves problems very fast and works very well in video games, Excel sheets, TurboTax, etc. The second is where machines seem to learn via millions of pieces of data Siri, Cortana, Watson, AlphaGo, Microsofts Tay, Twitter, Chatbox and self-driving cars. But none of these can explain the why of things.

Whether third-wave, weak AI is achievable is an open question. Because humans can abstract things based on small amounts of data, third-wave AI tries for the same, operating on minimal information.

The stuff of sci-fi for now, strong AI is what cognitive science is really striving for machines that function with human-like minds, crossing the threshold into self-awareness/consciousness. Eventually downloading human consciousness to a computer is part of the game plan as well.

Whos charting our future?

Some of the smartest and wealthiest people in Silicon Valley, the venture techno-capitalists, are teaming up to invest billions to make strong AI happen. Even Google and NASA are cooperating to this end.

Sanctioning the likes of Ray Kurzweils think-tank, Singularity University, and Zoltan Istvans Transhumanist Party, futurist investors are siding, paradoxically, with an inelegant duo a hyper-optimistic form of scientism (only science can get at truth) and a transhumanist vision striving to achieve omnipotence (as if achieving divinity).

One dissenting voice, Elon Musk, warns his colleagues optimism about AI isnt justified: If our intelligence is exceeded, its unlikely well remain in charge of the planet. Bill Gates himself comments about AI, I dont understand why some people are not concerned.

What is lacking

Coming too fast, Christians must begin thinking soundly about the implications of futurity ASAP! Most techno-futurists assume as true the rationale lying behind philosophical naturalism, which popularizes the universe as a closed system into which nothing god-like can intervene to impose its will.

In the beginning, only particles and impersonal laws of physics reigned, and human beings are just bio-chemical machines without souls. Put crassly, were meat machines. Christians, of course, recognize immediately how short-sighted this is.

It doesnt mean, however, believers wont be influenced or charmed by futurist agendas. Some will! While we know futurists lack an adequately Christian sense of reality, their impact on society may well create a sense of uneasiness about our next cultural steps as followers of Christ.

A google of questions

So, how far will God allow things to go? Theologizing about techno-futures is imperative if were to remain comprehensively Christian throughout. Responding to bizarre worlds in the making is paramount. The choices well make individually when faced with techno-options unavailable to earlier generations will be weighty. The church must push for answers to questions raised by the techno-future, however alarming:

Will Christians:

Brief conclusion

Answering questions related to future shock comes down to the worldview on the table, with profound implications about how individual lives and corporate society should conduct themselves considering the techno-futurist demands coming our way.

Too few Christians and church traditions ask the question, Just because we can, should we? The simple answer is no, but the issues require sophisticated reasoning. According to Scripture, what you see in the mirror is a uniquely ensouled eternal being, created in Gods image and likeness and more than sufficient for the purposes he grants us.

Hal Ostrander is online professor of religion and philosophy at Wayland Baptist University. Daryl Smith is former adjunct professor of religion at Dallas Baptist University and currently an information technology corporate manager.

View post:

Analysis: Future Shock - Baptist Standard

Dalai Lama ‘Dreams’ of NATO Relocating to Moscow – The Moscow Times

Posted on by

Dalai Lama Christopher Michel / Flickr

In a recent interview with Russian media in India, the Dalai Lama voiced a radical proposal to reduce tensions between NATO and Russia.

I have mentioned before an idea that may be an empty dream, but if NATO were to shift its headquarters to Moscow it might allay whatever misapprehensions Russians may feel, the Dalai Lama said in an interview with the Kommersant newspaper.

The Dalai Lamas comments come as NATO is bolstering deployments to the Baltic States and Poland ahead of Russian military exercises in Belarus in September.

Aware that his controversial suggestion might not be well received in Washington, the Dalai Lama said: I'm afraid now that after such a suggestion, I wont be allowed to go to America!

The Buddhist spiritual leader is a contentious figure in Russia. He last visited in 2004, and authorities in Moscow have repeatedly denied him permission to return ever since. China has publicly thanked the Kremlin on each occasion it bars the Dalai Lama.

In an outspoken interview in 2014, the Dalai Lama criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin for being self-centered. "His attitude is: I, I, I. This is the root of the problem, he told a German newspaper.

This time, he told Kommersant he saw positive changes. I look at Russia and I see protests against corruption and so on. In Stalinist times that was impossible, he said. Perhaps not as quickly as we would want, but change is happening.

I believe in a big future for Russia, he added. Russia could become a real bridge between East and West.

The Dalai Lama was in New Delhi for the first ever conference of Russian and Buddhist scholars.

Continue reading here:

Dalai Lama 'Dreams' of NATO Relocating to Moscow - The Moscow Times

Noble Partner Supports Georgia’s NATO Response Force Integration – Department of Defense

Posted on by

By Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Duncan, U.S. Special Operations Command Europe

VAZIANI, Georgia, Aug. 16, 2017 Georgian special operations forces took part in exercise Noble Partner here July 30-Aug. 12, developing interoperability with conventional forces from not only their own military, but that of the U.S. and participating nations.

Noble Partner is an annual U.S. Army Europe-led exercise designed to support Georgias integration into the NATO Response Force. The exercise allows multinational partners to work together in a realistic and challenging training event. About 2,800 troops from Armenia, Georgia, Germany, Slovenia, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the U.S. participated in multiple locations across Georgia.

"In many ways, the exercise was a new way of operating for GSOF," said a U.S. Army Special Forces advisor to GSOF.

U.S. Special Operations Command Europe played an advisory role with GSOF during the exercise in order to mentor the Georgian SOF on building interoperability with U.S., Georgian and other multinational conventional forces.

"Soceurs contribution was very helpful," said a GSOF officer involved in the planning of the exercise. "They helped us understand the capabilities and procedures that allowed us to integrate with multinational forces. They also served as a link to coordinate our activities."

State Partnership Program

In addition to Soceur, the GSOF also worked closely with the Georgia National Guard. The two have participated in the State Partnership Program, which pairs U.S. states with 22 European nations and 65 worldwide, since 1994.

"Working with the GSOF was awesome," said Georgia Army National Guard Capt. Christopher Pulliam, commander of the 121st Infantry Regiment s Hotel Company. "Our mission set requires that we work in small teams that gather specific intel in the area of operations," he said. "The GSOF understand this and can use our intel to create a better understanding of the situation on the ground and react accordingly."

Pulliam's company conducted combined airborne operations alongside GSOF troops, and during the field exercise was assigned under their command, allowing GSOF to complete objectives through their coordinated efforts. With the Georgia Army National Guard conducting reconnaissance, GSOF was able to execute a raid on an enemy position.

The Georgian troops also worked with the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard during Noble Partner.

"This is the first time the Georgians have jumped from a C-130," said Georgia Air National Guard Lt. Col. Donald Pallone, the vice air commander of the 165th Airlift Wing. "They are learning from us and we are learning from them. This helps us build our interoperability and furthers the Georgia National Guards [state] partnership with the Georgians."

Call For Fire

GSOF also trained on calling for indirect fire working with the U.S. Air Forces 2nd Air Support Operations Squadron. This training also provided them the ability to learn the same procedures as their conventional forces and U.S. forces and share these procedures throughout GSOF.

"The Georgian military was very motivated and eager to learn how to incorporate indirect fires control to enhance their combat capabilities," said U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Justin Tamayo, a joint terminal attack controller with the 2nd Air Support Operations Squadron. "We were able to train both the GSOF and conventional parties simultaneously, and from the classes we taught we are confident that interoperability was strengthened amongst their military as well as with U.S. forces and partner nations."

GSOF also trained on their military assistance mission by training Georgian and Ukrainian conventional forces on the tactics and procedures of clearing rooms and passing through friendly defensive lines.

"To be able to accomplish its military assistance mission, GSOF must be able to teach classes and train other soldiers," said the U.S. Army Special Forces advisor to GSOF. "Teaching and training is a skill that must be practiced. Noble Partner was a great opportunity for GSOF to build its military assistance skills while also improving the combat skills of Georgian and Ukrainian infantry."

The ability to plan training that involves both internal and multinational military forces is in itself a skill that has to be learned. Noble Partner provided the chance for GSOF staff to build upon their capability to conduct such training.

"This was a new experience for us," said a GSOF officer involved in the planning of the exercise. "It allowed us to develop how we will work with conventional and multinational forces in the future."

U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Mark Schwartz, the commander of Soceur, visited with GSOF leadership and observed soldiers participating in the exercise. During his visit, GSOF briefed Schwartz on upcoming exercise events and how GSOF plans to continue developing their interoperability with conventional forces.

"In the future, if GSOF and multinational forces have to work together, training together will allow us to understand how to work fluently with each other," said a team leader from the GSOF company conducting the training. "It will help us integrate our tactics with theirs and direct their efforts with ours."

Read this article:

Noble Partner Supports Georgia's NATO Response Force Integration - Department of Defense

NSA McMaster on Charlottesville: "Of course it was terrorism"

Posted on by

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump's national security adviser on Sunday minced no words and clearly labeled Saturday's deadly car attack in Charlottesville, Virginia, as terrorism.

"Certainly I think we can confidently call it a form of terrorism," the adviser, Lt. Gen H.R. McMaster, said on NBC's "Meet The Press."

"What terrorism is is the use of violence to incite terror and fear, and of course it was terrorism."

McMaster's words went further than Trump's did on Saturday, when Trump was widely criticized by members of both parties for placing blame on "many sides" for violence that was sparked by a white nationalist rally and for not specifically naming and condemning the racist groups involved.

McMaster said the president intended to denounce the racists.

"He condemned hatred and bigotry on all sides, and that includes white supremacists and neo-Nazis," McMaster said. "I think it's clear I know it's clear in his mind and ought to be clear to all Americans: We cannot tolerate, obviously, that bigotry, that hatred that is rooted in ignorance, ignorance of what America stands for, what America is."

But McMaster also offered very vague answers when asked more than once whether he can work with Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, since considerable friction between the two advisers has seeped into the public.

"I am ready to work with anybody who will help advance the president's agenda and advance the security, prosperity of the American people," McMaster answered.

Asked whether Bannon is someone who does that, McMaster didn't specifically answer. Instead, he replied, "I believe everyone who works in the White House, who has the privilege, the great privilege every day of serving their nation, should be motivated by that goal."

Later on "Meet The Press," Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, assessed McMaster's language.

"He used Washington-speak three times to basically answer your question: 'No, I cannot work with Steve Bannon,'" Lowry told host Chuck Todd.

McMaster also said Sebastian Gorka, a deputy assistant for the president who frequently appears on television to speak about national security issues, "is not in the National Security Council."

McMaster indicated that if Gorka represents himself as a spokesman on national security, he wasn't involved. "The scheduling people for the media and spokespeople is not my area of responsibility," he said.

McMaster also rebutted an assertion that Gorka made to BBC Radio on Thursday, when Gorka called it "nonsensical" for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to discuss military matters.

"We should always take Secretary of State Tillerson at his word," McMaster said. "He is a tremendously talented leader and diplomat."

See original here:

NSA McMaster on Charlottesville: "Of course it was terrorism"

Posted in NSA