Selfies, the disappearance of the natural world and nihilism – Thought Leader

I dont like shopping malls; they remind me of the weakness of our species when it comes to commodities that they must have, according to the spurious ethos of the prevailing economic system. Hence, when the woman in my life asked me to accompany her to that monstrosity known as the Baywest mall, outside the city, yesterday, to fetch a DVD that was only available at a music and video shop there, I agreed reluctantly. I had never been there in the time it has existed, and was quite proud that I had avoided this monument to greed, which had been built on, of all places, a wetland, which has a very important function in ecosystems.

As it turned out, it proved to be a very creative morning for me. As we walked in my eye was caught by a huge, poster-sized advertisement for some or other smartphone, and I was struck by the exemplary manner in which it graphically encapsulates the passive nihilism of our capitalism-ridden era. I immediately sat down on a bench and wrote this piece, while my partner went her way.

I have written on the varieties of nihilism distinguished by Friedrich Nietzsche in the 19th century here before (see http://thoughtleader.co.za/bertolivier/2015/12/15/we-live-in-a-nihilistic-age/ ); suffice it to say, therefore, that passive nihilism is the awareness that nothing has intrinsic value (any longer), combined with the simultaneous inability, or refusal, to accept it, followed by turning to anaesthetising practices in order to forget the absence of values. In Nietzsches time passive nihilism assumed the shape of seeing the shocking abyss of non-value and non-meaning, and promptly running back into the arms of the priests in order to avoid this terrible truth. Today, people run into the arms of Mammon, the god of money. So what does this have to do with advertisement for a smartphone? The latter graphically embodies such contemporary passive nihilism, as I shall try and show.

The advertisement in question is a photograph showing a group of children on a beach, the sea behind them, with their backs turned to it, huddling together so that the one taking the selfie (with the smartphone being advertised) can capture them all with one shot, the oceans crashing waves behind them. Here, in one brand-advertising image-configuration, the essence of the passive nihilism suffusing our time is paradigmatically captured.

First, it is significant that the ocean is behind them, their backs turned to it both literally and figuratively it is, in other words, a scene emblematically representing the current alienation between humanity and nature. Second, the smartphone as mnemo-technical device (which might just as well have been a digital camera, tablet or IPad) concretises the kind of enjoyment at stake here: it is mediated enjoyment. What used to be the sensory enjoyment of the sand, sunshine and waves on the beach, has been reduced to that of images on a screen, which, for better or worse, are the product of technical artifice.

In itself this is neither good nor bad, axiologically speaking (i.e. relating to values); as Bernard Stiegler persuasively argues, we are technical beings (Homo and Gyna technologicus) through and through. The difference, condensed in the composite image under scrutiny, is that the latter is symptomatic of a reductive tendency, globally, to replace the variegated spectrum of human experience with only one kind of privileged experience that which is technically mediated, in the process denuding the experiential world of its intrinsic value.

In the present instance the experience of a visit to the beach has been reduced to a selfie, in its turn made possible by the smartphone which is touted as the indispensable condition of an enjoyable visit to the beach. Behind this reductive iconic metonymy of the mnemo-technical capture of social life the destruction of savoir-vivre (knowledge of how to live your life), precisely lurks the Midas-touch of capital, which strives to transmute everything into proverbial gold, but at the cost of life.

To possess such a smartphone, one has to have access to capital, and quite a lot of it, too. Which means that you have to enter the consumerist loop: you have to earn money by working in the capitalist economy, and gain acceptance, not only by the system, but also by your peers, by being a good consumer spending money on consumer goods like the latest smartphone, car, and clothes, having a bank account, and most important, proving your consumerist virtue by demonstrating your willingness and ability to service debt.

All these consumerist-capitalist implications of the selfie on the beach are not incidental, of course; they cut to the cold heart of the matter. The technical capture of peoples attention (here, childrens; catch them young!) serves the objective of keeping the wheels of the consumer economy turning. In the process the natural world always culturally mediated, to be sure becomes a technically mediated world, where the instrinsic value of a beach, the ocean, flowers, mountains, streams, wildlife, is replicated (and concomitantly obliterated) by its mediating substitute, which, in its turn, functions as a metonymy (part for whole) of capital. Needless to stress, the latter is ultimately monodimensional, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

On the topic of wildlife, a friends tale of his experience during a visit to the Addo National Elephant Park near Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape is emblematic of what Stiegler has identified as the capture of peoples attention by means of the capital-serving mnemo-technical devices that function as a conduit for the reduction of the sensory diversity of the world to its ostensibly mediating counterpart (which turns out to be nothing more than a lure of capital).

The friend in question had taken visitors from the Netherlands to see elephant and other wild animals including rhinoceros, lion, kudu and buffalo while driving through the extensive area comprising the park. To his astonishment, when they encountered a sizeable herd of elephant, his visitors proved more interested in looking at the images of these majestic creatures on the viewing screens of their digital camera and video-camera than in the animals themselves, which were quite close to their vehicle. Even when he tried to draw their attention to a particularly striking bull among the rest of the herd, they merely looked up long enough to be able to locate the animal, and then proceeded to marvel at its image framed by the viewing screens of their cameras.

It is not the case that all photography has (and has always had) such a reductive effect regarding the experiential value of the visible world, of course. When photographs serve the purpose of directing ones attention back to the extant world natural or cultural, and whether in memory or in actuality the latter is left intact, instead of being replaced by its technically replicated counterpart. When we travel throughout South Africa or to other countries, often to climb foreign mountains, my partner takes photographs of beautiful landscapes, rivers, mountains and animals. These photographs are reminders, when we look at them afterwards, of the beauty and variegatedness of the world, instead of being fetishes that are increasingly replacing the world, to the point where they rekindle the desire in us to revisit these places.

Put differently, as long as photographs are a record, reminders and a celebration of the visible world, its indispensable axiological role in human life remains intact. But when techno-mediated images of the world become what Baudrillard calls hyper-reality, that takes the place of the visible world and makes it disappear, as it were, the very (malleable) foundation of value in human experience is eroded, and nihilism prevails.

The rest is here:

Selfies, the disappearance of the natural world and nihilism - Thought Leader

‘Troilus and Cressida’ at Pa. Shakespeare Festival: Energetic … – Philly.com

The Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival ends its 26th season with an energetic revival ofTroilus and Cressida.In itstraditional end-of-summer romp, the festival strives to recreate the spontaneity of Elizabethan theater by staging a play after only four days of rehearsal, scrounging set, props, and costumes from other shows.

Shakespeares play is an unwieldy blend of HomersIliadand ChaucersTroilus and Cressida, a platform for lampooningthe values of love and heroism. Its a flawed work, and directors Patrick Mulcahy and Dennis Razze give the actors lots of freedom in trying to rescue this problem play from its cardboard characters and nihilism.

Especially in the first act, the actors move the show in a cabaret direction. You laugh at the antics of Ajax (Andrew Goebel), a blockheaded man of valor. Pandarus (Carl N. Wallnau) is in the spotlight, comical as the go-between whose very name suggests pimp. Later, Troilus (Brandon J. Pierce) and Cressida (Mairin Lee) are exposed as false lovers, and revered Ulysses (Greg Wood) is reduced to the role of vicious, scheming courtier.

Almost every character is an object of ridicule. Only Hector (Luigi Sottile) invites sympathy, but hes mainly a foil for revealing the treachery of heroicAchilles (Justin Adams). Thersites (Susan Riley Stevens) may be the voice of Shakespeare, a limping slave who keeps popping up to cuss everyone out, like a Greek chorus gone crazy.

In Elizabethan England,Troilus and Cressidamay have been performed only for the Queen, perhaps full of inside jokes only those in the monarchy understood. With the pessimism that followed World War I, there was renewed interest in the play, but it never became mainstream. Its too troubled, with scenes that dont climax, and two story lines that never meld.

At his best, no writer can match Shakespeares marriage of psychological insight and poetry. Over and over, his characters deliver lines at climactic moments that buckle your knees. But there are no such moments here.Troilus and Cressidamay hold up as poetry to read, but as live theater, the orations of its burlesque, one-dimensional characters are unaffecting.

Its interesting to compareTroilus and Cressidawith the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, 300 years later. He, too, liked to examine the soft underbelly of stated beliefs and values. But Nietzsches revaluation ofallvalues includes biting criticism of the kind of cynicism that underlies Shakespeares play, and Nietzsche resonates with the larger goal of overcoming nihilism.

The same instinct motivates this revival. Isnt overcoming nihilism the goal of cabaret? Actors improve the plays climax, rushing on and off stage to create a brilliant, choreographed image that unifies confusion of values with the chaos of war. But, short of rewriting the script, the show cannot escape the burdens this play imposes suffering without meaning, ridicule for the sake of ridicule, and undramatic poetry.

Troilus and Cressida. Through Aug. 6 at the Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival, Labuda Center, DeSales University, 2755 Station Ave., Center Valley. Tickets: $25-$75. Information:610-282-9455,pashakespeare.org

Published: July 31, 2017 3:01 AM EDT | Updated: July 31, 2017 3:36 PM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Go here to read the rest:

'Troilus and Cressida' at Pa. Shakespeare Festival: Energetic ... - Philly.com

New Literary Novel Explores Philosophy of Hedonism | Benzinga – Benzinga

Author Donn Raffat has written a compelling novel that follows the collective story of five individuals whose lives unexpectedly intertwine in Cowpet Bay.

PHOENIX (PRWEB) July 31, 2017

Author Donn Raffat has published his most recent literary publication, "Hedonism - A Novel." Raffat received critical praise for previous works including reviews in The New York Times, The New York Times Book Review, The New Yorker, The Times Literary Supplement, and Publishers Weekly.

His latest novel examines the notion of hedonism as viewed and experienced by five characters three men and two women whose interaction leads to major changes.

A Wall Street banker, his young mistress, an aspiring academic, a retired professor of literature, a German graduate student of philosophy, and a local waitress all find their lives intertwined in a way none expected. As their collective story unfolds, the events are viewed sequentially from the standpoint of each, revealing their impact not only on each other but also, ultimately, on the whole Cowpet Bay community in St. Thomas.

"All of my novels deal with periods of transition. The characters are unprepared for it, however the readers know more about the transition than the characters do at first," said Raffat. "The same applies to Hedonism' as the characters are trying to determine what constitutes a good life."

To learn more about Raffat's novels, please visit http://www.draffat.com.

"Hedonism A Novel" By Donn Raffat ISBN: 978-1-4990-2200-1 (Hard Cover), 978-1-4990-2200-1 (Soft Cover), 978-1-4990-2199-8 (eBook) Available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble and the Xlibris Bookstore

About the author Donn Raffat has published seven books with one completed and another in progress. Much of Raffat's writing has been inspired by his experience and travel to various parts of the world and time living in several different countries. In addition to his novels, Raffat has also written reviews for publications such as The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Nation. He received a B.A. from Harvard, a doctorate from Michigan and was a visiting scholar at Cambridge.

For Review Copies & General Inquiries Contact: LAVIDGE Phoenix Lauren Dickerson ldickerson(at)lavidge(dot)com 480-998-2600

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/07/prweb14556179.htm

Continue reading here:

New Literary Novel Explores Philosophy of Hedonism | Benzinga - Benzinga

What do tourists really think of London? We asked them… – Time Out London (blog)

Londoners have strong opinions on visitors to the capital, but what do they make of us and our city? Isabelle Aron finds out. Portraits Andy Parsons

Tourists have a bit of a bad rep in this city. But for all the (selfie) stick we give them, theyre a huge part of London life. Want to know why Covent Gardens so damn busy? Because 19.88 million people from overseas came to London in 2016, making it the second most visited city in the world. (Bangkok scooped the top spot, but it does have tropical beaches nearby.)

People have long flocked to London for its hedonism, shopping and culture. (In 1900, the Charing Cross Turkish Baths complete with a chiropodist was a hotspot for visitors.) Tourists are as much a part of the city as locals.

We weary Londoners take so much of our brilliant city for granted. We try desperately to avoid tourist traps and barely bat an eyelid at the views as we rush along the South Bank. But tourists see things with fresh eyes, appreciating all the stuff we forget to. They celebrate the things that give London its identity from Beefeaters and double-decker buses to amazing parks and free museums. Plus, they bring a huge amount of cash into the capital (11.9 billion last year, to be exact).

So forget the stereotypes about escalator etiquette and giant rucksacks on the tube weve spent years having our say about tourists. Now its time to turn the tables. We headed to Londons biggest landmarks to find out what tourists had to sayabout us and our city.

Perhaps most surprisingly, none of them seemed tothink that Londoners were rude, although maybe they were just being polite. Either way,speaking to visitors highlighted how lucky we are to live in such a vibrant city. Tourists clearly have a lot of love for London so its timewe started showing them some back. Even when theyre standing on the wrong sideof the escalator

Is London how you expected it to be?

Im from New York, so I have high standards for cities and Im like, Wow! Im really impressed with London.

Got any big plans while youre here?

Were going to Sketch tonight I think thats a must-do. I want to check out the bars in east London because the vibe is like Brooklyn.

Have you found Londoners rude?

Its hard to top the rudeness of New Yorkers.

What about our public transport? Does it measure up to New Yorks?

We took the subway. I was surprised by how narrow the cars are. I figured it would be a bigger, er, tube.

How does London compare with Buenos Aires?

London is less crowded, much less noisy. Weve walked around the sights like St Pauls Cathedral and it seems quiet to us.

Is the city what you expected?

I was expecting more big buildings, very tall buildings, more office buildings. Instead, all the buildings are very low.

Have you seen the Shard? Thats about as tall as our buildings get.

I thought it was going to be taller.

What did you think a stereotypical Londoner was like before you came here?

I used to think Londoners were very closed people, lacking emotion you know, like in Downton Abbey? But when we came here I saw that Londoners like to laugh at themselves. For example, in Trafalgar Square, among the buildings in classic style, we saw the [David Shrigley] thumbs-up sculpture. Its very interesting.

Has London lived up to your expectations?

I think its been better. We cant believe all the museums are free its wonderful. Weve been to the National Gallery three times and wed like to go again.

Have you noticed anything weird here?

The food. Your beans taste sweet to me. In Brazil, beans are one of my favourite lunch dishes, but ours our salty. And there are the same restaurants and chains everywhere Costa, Nero, Starbucks, Pret its weird.

Have you tried fish and chips?

Yes. I love fish and chips but I dont like pie. I dont like that brown sauce.

Gravy?

Yes. Its disgusting.

What have you done so far?

We did the Emirates Air Line and we walked through the O2 Arena. They had some nice restaurants there.

Did you enjoy the Emirates Air Line? Its something Londoners never really do...

Yeah, it was a nice ride.

Youve just eaten at Angus Steakhouse. How was it?

The food was okay. I came here ten years ago after my sister got married. It was better then. Its very salty. Its not like that in Sweden. Our meat is much better.

What have you got planned for your trip?

Weve come to see the Meatloaf musical Im a big fan.

Any surprises here?

The telephone boxes. We got rid of them 20 years ago in Swedenwhen we got mobile phones. We also went on one of those bicycle cab things.

A rickshaw?

Yes. I think its probably a bit dangerous.

Youve just been to Buckingham Palace. Did you enjoy it?

Its smaller than I expected. Its actually a bit underwhelming.

Did you have any ideas of stereotypical Londoners before you came?

I thought: stiff upper lip, prim and proper. Actually, Londoners are warm and friendly.

What do you think of our public transport?

Amazing. In South Africa, our buses are normally stuck on the side of the road not working, and its too dangerous to catch trains. Here its safe to walk around at half-three in the morning.

Found anything a bit odd?

Your self-service tills. You have to put the money in and do it yourself I dont think well ever have that in South Africa, people will fight it.

Inspired to go exploring? Check out Londons top attractions.

Isabelle is deputy features editor at Time Out London. She has a hate-hate relationship with the Northern Line. Follow her on Twitter at @izzyaron

See original here:

What do tourists really think of London? We asked them... - Time Out London (blog)

Marin County Gets Another Smug Reprieve from Housing Quotas – Patch.com


Patch.com
Marin County Gets Another Smug Reprieve from Housing Quotas
Patch.com
... Will wrote at the time, a Baedeker guide to a desolate region, the monochromatic inner landscape of persons whose life is consumption, of goods and salvations, and whose moral makeup is the curious modern combination of hedonism and earnestness.

and more »

Original post:

Marin County Gets Another Smug Reprieve from Housing Quotas - Patch.com

A dangerous misunderstanding – Professional Planner

When I entered the accounting profession three decades ago, it was the preserve of middle-aged white males, conservative politics and the old school tie. I remember being expected to disclose my religion and school in order to win a graduate position at one of the big eight accounting firms in Sydney. And the cleanliness of my black lace-up Oxford-style business shoes (not brogues) was also a matter of considerable significance to the interviewer.

Comedian John Cleese reinforced this unattractive image of accountants in his description of them as appallingly dull, unimaginative, timid, lacking initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company, irrepressibly awful and whereas in most professions these characteristics would be considerable drawbacks, in chartered accountancy, theyre a positive boon.

While unkind observers might suggest that the personality traits of chartered accountants havent changed all that much, there is no doubt that the professional and business environment has changed a great deal. I was reminded of this when I received (circa 1985) an unusual letter from my professional body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, about the future of our profession. The letter informed me that the accounting profession had entered a new world of technology, marketing and economic policy, in which we would become chief executives, entrepreneurs and thought leaders.

As a result, the letter claimed, traditional professional partnerships were finished. These would be replaced by multi-disciplinary consulting businesses. They would be built on the modern concepts of profitability and return on equity, rather than the quaint notion previous generations adopted of engaging in a trusted professional vocation in the public interest, irrespective of commercial reward. We were told that if we didnt get with the program we would be left behind, reduced by the end of the 20th century to low-value bookkeepers and compliance officers.

Free-market origins

Its hardly surprising that the accounting profession jumped onto the 1980s bandwagon. Those were the days in which powerful and compelling forces of deregulation, securitisation, free markets and globalisation were transforming much of the world. Societies became economies and economics faculties became business schools. And it was into this securitised free-market environment that the aspiring profession we now know as financial planning was born.

One of the strongest political supporters of this ideology was UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who famously declared: I think weve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, its the governments job to cope with it. I have a problem, Ill get a grant. Im homeless, the government must house me. Theyre casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. Its our duty to look after ourselves and then also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. Theres no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.

Over the following decades, the dominance of these ideas, often referred to as economic rationalism or neo-liberalism was assured. Australian academic Michael Pusey describes economic rationalism as a dogma that argues markets and money can always do everything better than governments, bureaucracies and the law. Theres no point in political debate because all this just generates more insoluble conflicts. Forget about history and forget about national identity, culture and society. Dont even think about public policy, national goals or nation-building. Its all futile. Just get out of the way and let prices and market forces deliver their own economically rational solution.

This view of the world was channelled by corporate cowboy Gordon Gekko, played by Michael Douglas, in the 1987 film Wall Street: Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

An improper role

So pervasive has been the influence of this ideology, especially in the Anglosphere, that many professional designations have taken on the characteristics of product brands. This has coincided with the employment in professional associations of marketing managers and customer service specialists, many of whom apply their considerable expertise in the promotion of consumer products to the selling and protection of professional designations as though they are brands of soap powder.

As a result, the focus of many professional associations has turned to image, membership retention and growth at the cost of their traditional emphasis on the articulation and enforcement of professional and ethical standards. The problem with this approach is that it leads to the conclusion that the reputation and commercial value of a professional designation must be protected and upheld, right or wrong, rather than to the conclusion that the public interest must be protected and upheld, even to the detriment of the commercial interests of association members whose behaviour has been found wanting.

This misunderstanding of the proper role of professions in society has also led to the expectation amongst members that their associations exist principally to protect and enhance their commercial interests in a free market (as would a lobby group), rather than to protect the public interest in society as a whole. I was surprised to observe this confusion in the documents supporting the creation of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (formerly the Institute of Chartered Accountants), in which the following statement appeared: Our aspiration is for the new Institute to be recognised as the leading trans-Tasman voice for business. The danger here is that by taking on the attributes of a vested-interests lobby group, the public will conclude that chartered accountants are hypocritical and untrustworthy. I suspect many financial planners already think that.

At the heart of any true profession must be its members duty to society. This is often called our duty to protect the public interest. It is a higher duty than our duty to act in our clients (or our employers) best interests and it must always receive priority in the ordering of our duties as professionals.

Simon Longstaff, executive director of the Ethics Centre, explained it this way: The point should be made that to act in the spirit of public service at least implies that one will seek to promote or preserve the public interest. A person who claimed to move in a spirit of public service while harming the public interest could be open to the charge of insincerity or of failing to comprehend what his or her professional commitments really amounted to in practice If the idea of a profession is to have any significance, then it must hinge on this notion that professionals make a bargain with society in which they promise conscientiously to serve the public interest, even if to do so may, at times, be at their own expense. In return, society allocates certain privileges. These might include the right to engage in self-regulation, the exclusive right to perform particular functions and special status.

We risk being devalued

Given this unique and privileged role in society, it follows that when aspiring professions such as financial planning choose to become involved in thought leadership and the development of public policy, our commentary must not be primarily motivated by a desire to engage in a public relations exercise or a brand management campaign. Furthermore, we should never allow commercially motivated pressure from vested interests to dictate our conclusions.

Sadly, we have seen the latter occur in recent years in our industrys compromised and misguided attitude toward the development of ethical and professional standards. In that regard, professional associations often refer to the importance of balancing stakeholders interests when, in truth, all they are seeking to do is maintain the commercial status quo of powerful members (or a section of powerful members). I accept that avoiding commercial pressures is not always easy, especially when they are sourced from our own profession. However, unless we do so, our members, government, the media and, most importantly, the public whose interests we are privileged to serve, will devalue or ignore our contributions to important debates in which our professions voice should be heard and respected and they will ultimately mistrust and devalue our advice.

Therefore, as we grow and evolve the profession of financial planning we must defend without fear or favour the fundamental ethical principles on which any true profession is built: namely trust, integrity, objectivity, conflict avoidance (not mere disclosure), technical competence, due care, confidentiality, professional behaviour and uncompromising support of the public interest. Of course, as individual financial planners, we are obliged to make important contributions to our clients wealth and financial independence, but that must never be at the expense of our overarching responsibility as a profession to create a fairer and more equitable society for all citizens.

TOPICS:Ethics and financial planning,Market forces,Professional associations,professional standards,professionalism

See original here:

A dangerous misunderstanding - Professional Planner

Apple Accused Of Removing Apps Used To Evade Censorship From Its China Store – NPR

Apple has been accused of removing apps from its China App Store that can be used to skirt the country's Internet filters. Above, customers at an Apple Store in Beijing in 2016. Mark Schiefelbein/AP hide caption

Apple has been accused of removing apps from its China App Store that can be used to skirt the country's Internet filters. Above, customers at an Apple Store in Beijing in 2016.

Updated at 5:56 p.m. ET

There are iPhone apps that make it possible to get around China's notorious Internet filters. And on Saturday, makers of those apps said Apple had removed their products from its App Store in China.

It would be another sign of Apple's willingness to help Beijing control its citizens' access to the Internet.

The apps create virtual private networks connecting a user to the Internet via an encrypted connection. In China, VPNs can be used to skirt the government's extensive system of internet controls, sometimes called the "Great Firewall."

"We received notification from Apple today ... that the ExpressVPN iOS app was removed from the China App Store," app maker ExpressVPN said in a blog post. "Our preliminary research indicates that all major VPN apps for iOS have been removed."

"We're disappointed in this development, as it represents the most drastic measure the Chinese government has taken to block the use of VPNs to date, and we are troubled to see Apple aiding China's censorship efforts," the company added.

ExpressVPN, which says it is headquartered in the British Virgin Islands, posted a screenshot of the notice from Apple that its app "includes content that is illegal in China."

Another company, Star VPN, tweeted that its apps were also removed from the China App Store.

In an email to NPR, Apple said: "Earlier this year China's [Ministry of Industry and Information Technology] announced that all developers offering VPNs must obtain a license from the government. We have been required to remove some VPN apps in China that do not meet the new regulations. These apps remain available in all other markets where they do business."

The New York Times reports that Internet crackdowns in China tend to happen about every five years, timed to precede an upcoming congress of the Chinese Communist Party. The Times notes that China is Apple's largest market outside the U.S. In December, Apple pulled the Times app from its app store in China.

ExpressVPN says its apps for other operating systems remain accessible and that it's possible (though it's not easy) for Chinese users to create an account to access another country's App Store, if they list a billing address elsewhere. If they can do so, they can still download VPN apps for the iPhone.

The government's focus on cutting out VPNs is said to be taking other forms, as well.

"A southern China data-services company with over 160 clients said it received orders last week from the Ministry of Public Security, which runs China's police forces, to cut off access to foreign providers of VPNs," The Wall Street Journal reported. "Those orders came days after a luxury hotel in Beijing, the Waldorf Astoria, said in a letter to guests that it had stopped offering VPNs 'due to legal issues in China.' " The newspaper noted that it was unusual for Apple to remove several apps at once.

Apple announced earlier this month that it's building a new data center in Guizhou its first in China that will comply with new Chinese cloud storage regulations. It's part of a $1 billion investment in the southwestern province.

Bloomberg reports the tech company's market share has "fallen as consumers wait for an updated iPhone 8, which is likely to be released later this year, or switch to cheaper Android devices."

More:

Apple Accused Of Removing Apps Used To Evade Censorship From Its China Store - NPR

Lawsuit challenges Gov. Bevin’s social media censorship – WLKY Louisville

FRANKFORT, Ky.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed a federal lawsuit Monday regarding Gov. Matt Bevin banning or blocking users from his official social media accounts.

The suit seeks a declaration that Bevin's practices are a violation of individuals' First Amendment rights. The ACLU asked for an injunction to prevent the governor from permanently blocking users on Facebook and Twitter.

The suit was filed on behalf of a retired social justice activist from Eastern Kentucky and a politically engaged resident from Louisville who were permanently blocked from posting on Gov. Bevin's official Facebook and Twitter accounts. Their comments involved politics but were not obscene, abusive or defamatory.

"Ive been very active in my community and in Frankfort for the past two years," ACLU client Mary Hargis said. "Ive been frustrated with Gov. Bevins stances on a number of social justice issues. I was shocked when I discovered that I was blocked from further commenting on the governors posts. I may not have voted for Gov. Bevin, but Im one of his constituents. He shouldnt be permanently dismissing my views and concerns with a click."

"I often use the official social media pages of my local, state and federal representatives as a way to share feedback," ACLU client Drew Morgan said. "I was surprised when Gov. Bevin blocked my access to his Twitter page, particularly because of how many times he has asked Kentuckians to follow his social media pages to hear about his ideas and policies directly from him."

The lawsuit states the governor's policy of permanently banning users from engaging in political discussions on his official social media pages isn't tailored to promote legitimate interest in moderating the pages and constitutes unlawful restraint of speech.

"The First Amendment does not allow the government to exclude speakers from a public forum because it disagrees with their viewpoint," ACLU of Kentucky Legal Director William Sharp said. "And even when the government seeks to enforce permissible limits in such a forum, permanently excluding individuals for violating those limits goes too far."

The lawsuit was filed after the governor's office ignored a demand letter from the ACLU regarding more than 600 users whose First Amendment rights had been violated after they were permanently blocked after posting comments on the governor's social media accounts.

The letter asked Bevin to unblock the affected users and develop written criteria for how his administration will moderate its social media pages in the future.

Originally posted here:

Lawsuit challenges Gov. Bevin's social media censorship - WLKY Louisville

Apple Bows To Chinese Regulators, Removes Internet Censorship-Defying Apps – Benzinga

Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) notified a number of software developers Saturday that their virtual private network iOS apps would no longer be accessible in censorship-heavy China.

Consumers use the VPNs to circumvent the governments Great Firewall filtering internet content and limiting access to overseas sites, which renders some of the app features illegal and non-compliant with App Store guidelines.

A spokesperson implied that the decision is punitive merely for VPN developers failing to secure a government license.

We have been required to remove some VPN apps in China that do not meet the new regulations, Carolyn Wu, Apples China spokeswoman, told Bloomberg.

The apps are still available in other global markets, and at least one developer noted its continued accessibility in China through non-iOS platforms. ExpressVPN confirmed that users with international billing addresses will still be allowed to access the app in China.

Still, it expressed concern with the latest restrictions.

Were disappointed in this development, as it represents the most drastic measure the Chinese government has taken to block the use of VPNs to date, and we are troubled to see Apple aiding Chinas censorship efforts, the firm wrote in a press release. ExpressVPN strongly condemns these measures, which threaten free speech and civil liberties.

Golden Frog and Star VPN responded similarly.

We view access to internet in China as a human rights issue, and I would expect Apple to value human rights over profits, Golden Frog President Sunday Yokubaitis told the New York Times.

While many took the occasion to debate Apples social responsibility, some discussed the firms Catch-22 business position. Nearly a quarter of global sales come from China.

One argument is that, for the sake of its continuation in the Chinese market, Apple needed to submit to government standards and comply with regulations.

Conversely, some point out that its decision effectively repels consumers, whose only incentive to buy Apple over Android was the formers capacity to bypass security.

Related Links:

Can Apples Mega Cycle Overcome Chinese Demand Issues?

What The Future Holds For Apple In China

________ Image Credit: By Simon Wade - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Posted-In: News Topics Legal Global Markets Tech Media General Best of Benzinga

2017 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

See the original post here:

Apple Bows To Chinese Regulators, Removes Internet Censorship-Defying Apps - Benzinga

Joining Apple, Amazon’s China Cloud Service Bows to Censors – New York Times

The move came at roughly the same time that Apple said it took down a number of apps from its China app store that help users vault the Great Firewall. Those apps helped users connect to the rest of the internet world using technology called virtual private networks, or VPNs.

Taken together, the recent moves by Apple and Amazon show how Beijing is increasingly forcing Americas biggest tech companies to play by Chinese rules if they want to maintain access to the market. The push comes even as the number of foreign American tech companies able to operate and compete in China has dwindled.

Beijing has become increasingly emboldened in pushing Americas internet giants to follow its local internet laws, which forbid unregistered censorship-evasion software. Analysts say the government has been more aggressive in pressuring companies to make concessions following the passage of a new cybersecurity law, which went into effect June 1, and ahead of a sensitive Communist Party conclave set for late autumn.

The government has been intent on tightening controls domestically as well. It recently shut down a number of Chinese-run VPNs. New rules posted to government websites in recent days said Communist Party members can be punished for viewing illegal sites and that they must register all foreign or local social media accounts.

Also in response to the new law, Apple said it planned to open a new data center in China and store user data there.

Ms. Wang, who said that Sinnet handles Amazon Web Services operations across China, said that the company has sent letters warning users about such services in the past but that the government had been more focused on other issues.

Amazon Web Services allows companies small and large to lease computing power instead of running their websites or other online services through their own hardware and software. Because Amazons cloud services allow customers to lease servers in China, it could be used to give Chinese internet users access to various types of software that would help them get around the Great Firewall.

Keeping in line with censorship rules is only a part of it. In cloud computing, China requires foreign companies have a local partner and restricts them from owning a controlling stake in any cloud company. New proposed laws, which have drawn complaints of protectionism from American politicians, further restrict the companies from using their own brand and call for them to terminate and report any behavior that violates Chinas laws.

While Microsoft and Amazon both run cloud services in China, similar ones run by local Chinese internet rivals dwarf them in scale. In particular Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba runs its own cloud services, which have grown rapidly in China. In order to operate in the country, Chinas biggest internet companies must stay in close contact with the government and carry out Beijings various demands, whether they be a request for user data or to censor various topics.

While China is not a major market for Amazon, the company has been in the country for a long time and has been pushing its cloud computing services there. Also recently the company announced a partnership with the state-run telecom China Mobile to create a Kindle, the companys e-reader device, aimed at the local Chinese market.

Adam Wu in Beijing contributed reporting.

Originally posted here:

Joining Apple, Amazon's China Cloud Service Bows to Censors - New York Times

Harsanyi: Be worried about the future of free speech – The Detroit News

David Harsanyi Published 10:56 p.m. ET July 31, 2017

Opaque notions of fairness and tolerance have risen to overpower freedom of expression in importance, Harsanyi writes.(Photo: Max Ortiz / The Detroit News)Buy Photo

Ads That Perpetuate Gender Stereotypes Will Be Banned in U.K., but Not in the Good Ol USA! reads a recent headline on the website Jezebel. Yay to the good ol USA for continuing to value the fundamental right of free expression, you might say. Or maybe not.

Why would a feminist or anyone, for that matter celebrate the idea of empowering bureaucrats to decide how we talk about gender stereotypes? Because these days, foundational values mean increasingly little to those who believe hearing something disagreeable is the worst thing that could happen to them.

Sometimes you need a censor, this Jezebel writer points out, because nefarious conglomerates like Big Yogurt have been targeting women for decades. She, and the British, apparently, dont believe that women have the capacity to make consumer choices or the inner strength to ignore ads peddling probiotic yogurts.

This is why the U.K. Committee of Advertising Practice (and, boy, it takes a lot of willpower not to use the cliche Orwellian to describe a group that hits it on the nose with this kind of ferocity) is such a smart idea. It will ban, among others, commercials in which family members create a mess, while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up, ones that suggest that an activity is inappropriate for a girl because it is stereotypically associated with boys, or vice versa, and ones in which a man tries and fails to perform simple parental or household tasks.

If you believe this kind of thing is the bailiwick of the state, its unlikely you have much use for the Constitution. Im not trying to pick on this one writer. Acceptance of speech restrictions is a growing problem among millennials and Democrats. For them, opaque notions of fairness and tolerance have risen to overpower freedom of expression in importance.

You can see it with TV personalities like Chris Cuomo, former Democratic Party presidential hopeful Howard Dean, mayors of big cities and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It is Sen. Dianne Feinstein arguing for hecklers vetoes in public university systems. Its major political candidates arguing that open discourse gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

If its not Big Yogurt, its Big Oil or Big Somethingorother. Democrats have for years campaigned to overturn the First Amendment and ban political speech because of fairness. This position and its justifications all run on the very same ideological fuel. Believe it or not, though, allowing the state to ban documentaries is a bigger threat to the First Amendment than President Donald Trumps tweets mocking CNN.

Its about authoritarians like Laura Beth Nielsen, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University and research professor at the American Bar Foundation, who argues in favor of censorship in a major newspaper like Los Angeles Times. She claims that hate speech should be restricted, and that Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies. Nearly every censor in the history of mankind has argued that speech should be curbed to balance out some harmful consequence. And nearly every censor in history, sooner or later, kept expanding the definition of harm until the rights of their political opponents were shut down.

When I was young, liberals would often offer some iteration of the quote misattributed to Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

You dont hear much of that today. Youre more likely to hear I disapprove of what you say, so shut up. Idealism isnt found in the notions of enlightenment but in identity and indignation. And if you dont believe this demand to mollycoddle every notion on the left portends danger of freedom of expression, you havent been paying attention.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at the Federalist.

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2tT2KmJ

See original here:

Harsanyi: Be worried about the future of free speech - The Detroit News

Active Morals: Carrying out the American Spirit of Free Speech – HuffPost

This post was written by Global Citizen Year alum Nathan Edwards.

I recently saw an interview with the always sharp Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon) from the summer of 2016. Bezos was asked to share thoughts on Donald Trumps then candidacy. Bezos exercised caution in not turning the interview into a political debate but he did offer commentary on Trump's aversion to criticism and potential threats to squash his naysayers. Bezos argued that the leader of a country such as America, one that champions free speech, should welcome critiques defended by free speech because it is the cultural norm that forms the bedrock of our society. Without cultural norms, the constitution is just a piece of paper, Bezos said. Laws of the land are important. But I agree with Bezos - more important than the law itself, is how laws are given life and incorporated into society.

Currently, I see discord between law and societal implementation in the area our forefathers agreed was the most important pillar of any just society: free speech. Our laws protect our right to free speech but society has no such obligation to tolerate different viewpoints. We are seeing increasing consequences for people speaking their minds and an aversion to engage people with different viewpoints. As a result, I believe it is warranted to question whether the spirit of free speech is being carried out; if individuals are welcoming challenges to their current beliefs and organizations are promoting critical thought and different experiences. Otherwise, the constitution could be becoming just a piece of paper, a historical memento to what Americans once emboldened.

I was fortunate to be a Global Citizen Year fellow in 2012-2013, where I lived abroad as a volunteer in Ecuador. Instead of pursuing the fluorescently lit aseptic aisles in my Colorado hometown, I bought my food from rickety wood carts in the open air streets where credit cards were not accepted. In my eight months abroad, this very real experience challenged me to think in new ways and connect thoughts that I had ignored before. I am now more rooted in the importance of education, having seen 14 year old women with children stay in abusive relationships because of the inability to support themselves without a trade or education. I still marvel at the hospitality of the Ecuadorian people across the whole country who accepted me and other Fellows into their homes and insisted all visitors get a heaping plate of food upon entering. These different experiences from what I was accustomed to, not all necessarily enjoyable, are a part of what shapes me today. They could not have been gained without seeking out a different culture from what I was previously accustomed to.

Whole Foods CEO and co-founder, John Mackey, is a good example of an individual welcoming differing perspectives. Mackey was at a shareholders meeting in 2003 where people protested Whole Foods treatment of animals. Although he could have had the protesters removed and dismissed their message, Mackey opened up a dialogue with the protest organizer, Lauren Ornelas, to better understand why his company of all food suppliers was being targeted by animal activists. In 2006, as a result of his research and dialogue with Ornelas, Mackey gave up all animal products in his personal diet and began to enforce higher ethical standards for the livestock of Whole Foods Markets.

Global Citizen Year and Whole Foods are organizations that encourage different experiences and opinions, permitting the world to speak and subsequently engage in what resonates as true and real. Unfortunately, there are many organizations taking actions contrary to this spirit, perhaps most evident in our universities. Earlier this spring, conservative speaker Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her speech at University of California Berkeley as student protesters threatened violence against her. The Berkeley administration acquiesced to these threats and told Coulter they could not provide adequate security for her safety, a lousy excuse considering the high-profile speakers that pass through Berkeley annually. President Obama lamented the craziness of this spectacle, calling it ridiculous that she not be allowed to speak. He is absolutely right. An institution that seeks to educate people should have enough faith in their members to allow exposure to wide ranging thoughts and let the student decide what they believe in. It is highly ironic that these practices are most prevalent in our institutions of learning; for people to be so assured of their own beliefs that they can in good-conscience drown out opposing beliefs is to abandon being a learner.

As corny as it sounds, free speech is a way of life. It challenges us to be exposed to ideas we may not be accustomed to and to form our own opinions. Bezos pointed out that we need cultural norms to give life to the constitution. Weve reached a point in time where it is fair to question whether we look at free speech only when discussing law and government, or if we as individuals and institutions embody free speech as our cultural norm. As such, I am hopeful that we can actively engage people with different ideas and experiences, do not become so assured of ourselves as to result to censorship and dogmatic discourse, and appreciate what a privilege it is to be a member of a permissive society. Pointing to the first amendment is not sufficient when saying we have a free speech society. It is contingent upon us as individuals to participate in free speech and protect it for the good of ourselves and the overall health of society.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Go here to see the original:

Active Morals: Carrying out the American Spirit of Free Speech - HuffPost

Free Speech, Safe Spaces Hot Topics at Politicon – Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

July 31, 2017 | :

PASADENA, Calif. The unconventional convention Politicon brought together political wonks and fans from all over the country for a full weekend of panels, debates, art and entertainment. A debate sponsored by Turning Point USA, a non-profit organization that promotes conservative grassroots activism, sparked both praise and criticism of safe spaces on college campuses.

The wave of student protests over the past academic year as a result of conservative speakers being invited to college campuses served as an opening focal point for the debate. Among the incidents cited were administrators at De Paul University banning conservative speaker and author Ben Shapiro from entering the campus and Ann Coulter losing a speaking engagement at the University of California at Berkeley after officials informed her that they could not accommodate her due to threats of violence.

Turning Point USA Executive Director Charlie Kirk took on The Young Turks host Hasan Piker on the necessity of safe spaces and the idea that conservatism deserves a place in academia in a session moderated by the bipartisan Millennial Action Project founder Steven Olikara.

College campuses represent a microcosm of American society, Piker said. Definitions of safe spaces are not narrow and conservatives are claiming that liberals are looking for safe spaces yet believe they are victims because they are less popular. Free speech allows people to say what they want but it does not make people more popular.

Kirk, who said he had not attended college, agreed with Piker that conservative speakers such as Shapiro should be able to speak at campuses that will host them. It was pointed out, however, that when colleges promote intellectual diversity, higher education administrators still are responsible for serving the best interests and safety of students.

UMBCs President Hrabowski Pursues Greatness Agenda

Should college administrators not listen to what the students want? asked Piker. Every speaker has the right to exercise their free speech rights. If there a divisive speaker that wants to come to a campus, administrators have to decide whether to put up money to protect an extremist speaker when students protest their appearance.

Piker indicated that he was at Rutgers University when freshman Tyler Clementi was cyber bullied for being gay by his dorm roommate and committed suicide in 2010. After that happened the Rainbow perspective housing dorms were created at Rutgers, said Piker. If you have been discriminated against your entire life and then enroll at a diverse college where people should tolerate you and then be bullied by your roommate for something you cannot change . . . A safe space would have saved his life.

Kirk rejected Pikers justification for safe spaces on college campus. There is a difference between a space where students can go receive mental health treatment and a space that is discriminatory and creates a culture that is inherently for students that are offended by something because they experience trigger words and microaggressions and complain they need a safe space.

The debate was packed with both conservative and liberal onlookers, particularly young people and college students. While carrying a hardbound copy of the U.S. Constitution, College of the Desert student Crystal Pasztor said that she wished the debate wasnt peppered with petty attacks on each other.

I came here to learn something. Although I learned a couple of things about what Kirk and Piker individually do, there was not enough about conservatives views or progressives views, she said. I love Hasan and watch The Young Turks but debates should not be about personal attacks. Debates like this should use official rules that have timed responses and rebuttals so people can take away more of the issues.

Leader of Pennsylvanias Public University System to Retire

MSNBC contributor and Morgan State University School of Global Journalism and Communication professor Dr. Jason Johnson referred to Politicon as an explosion of political fandom.

As a first-time attendee, I wanted to see what happens when you have rival political parties in the same space, said Johnson, who also noted that students should be versed in politics when pursuing journalism. I do think that students should be more informed about politics [when they] are pursuing journalism and I found that they are not. It is not [an] HBCU issue, its a preparedness issue. What I bring back to the classroom to teach political communication is making sure students have some sense of humanity at the center of why you are pursuing this line of work.

Jamal Evan Mazyck, Ed.D. can be reached at j.e.mazyck@gmail.com or on Twitter @jmbeyond7

Read the rest here:

Free Speech, Safe Spaces Hot Topics at Politicon - Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

Protect Free Speech Guarantees of Communications Decency Act – Competitive Enterprise Institute (blog)

One of the most important but unsung laws that gave us the Internet we know today is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Passed at the dawn of the Internets popularization in 1996, that law immunized providers of interactive communications serviceswebsites and suchfrom responsibility for the actions of their users.

CDA section 230 is rooted in an eminently sound, common-law theory of justice: that people are responsible for their own acts and not those of others. Its unwise to deviate from timeless rules of right and wrong, even when doing so appears efficient.

The practical upshot of CDA section 230 was to give us the Internet weve got today. If operators of websites were responsible for what each of their users posted online, they could be on the hook for every potential defamation, infliction of emotional distress, trade secret violation, and so on.

That isnt some curious legal corner. If they were liable for the wrongdoing of others, websites and services wouldnt just hire a bunch of compliance staff to police every post and settle every online dispute. From the biggest to the smallestfrom Facebook and Google down to the smallest niche hobby sitethey would clampdown on what we get to do online. Our ability to interact would diminish, and we wouldnt have half the sites and services that today allow us to upload, comment, and share material and ideas.

So it was with dismay that I noted the introduction this spring of a bill that makes inroads against CDA section 230. The awkwardly named Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 is a standard think-of-the-children bill that undercuts the protections of CDA section 230 and thus all of our access to online participation and content.

Because some people use web sites in furtherance of sex trafficking crimes, the legislation begins to reverse timeless standards of responsibility and make automated websites and services responsible for what people do with them. The bill allows operators of websites and other services to be criminally responsible if they exhibit reckless disregard as to whether information posted on them furthers a sex trafficking offense.

That sounds eminently reasonable, and it goes after a crime that everyone agrees is deeply disturbing and wrong, but there is nothing in justice that makes a website responsible for the wrongful acts of its users.

If a web operator is actually involved in crime, of course, the benefits of CDA section 230 should and do vanish. But the rule against deputizing websites into law enforcement should stay in place. Even requiring them to have a quick look at what their users post would be very costly.

The incursion on the CDAs rule of justice suggested by the House bill is just the beginning of the breakdown that could come. Just last week, for example, Dallas police sergeant Demetrick Pennie wrote about his lawsuit arguing that Internet and social media giants Twitter, Facebook, and Google should bear responsibility for an attack that killed five of his friends and colleagues last year.

Here again, the subject matter evokes our sympathy. Killing is a dreadful wrong, and the vast majority of police officers have committed themselves to the betterment of their communities. But police killings do no more than sex crimes to undercut the solid rule of justice embedded in CDA section 230.

Sgt. Pennies article speaks of unregulated social media providers as if communications platforms are naturally supposed to be regulated. Not so. Not in an America committed as we are to free speech. Whats subtly on display in Sgt. Pennies piece is the direction of the Internet if CDA section 230 gives way: a less-free, less-robust medium for us all.

My dismay deepened today upon learning that Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Claire MCaskill (D-MO) plan to introduce legislation that may hem in on the Internet and undercut sound principles of justice in similar ways to the House bill.

They have a well-known effort underway to expose and punish Backpage.com for what they say is knowing facilitation of online sex trafficking. Thats a very sympathetic cause, and Backpage may have been skirting the CDAs liability line. But it would be profoundly concerning and regrettable for all of us fully law-abiding Internet users if the effort to stop Backpage were to undercut the sound principle that online intermediaries hosting or republishing others speech are not legally responsible for what those others say and do.

Read the original:

Protect Free Speech Guarantees of Communications Decency Act - Competitive Enterprise Institute (blog)

Trump openly supports free speech, criticizes fabricated hate speech – Belleville News-Democrat

Trump openly supports free speech, criticizes fabricated hate speech
Belleville News-Democrat
Just a brief reply to a reply from letter writer Lee Pitzer. Within a letter I had recently written I mentioned the suppression of free speech by liberals. Examples include, but not limited to the contents of a book currently being sold by liberal ...

Read the rest here:

Trump openly supports free speech, criticizes fabricated hate speech - Belleville News-Democrat

North Carolina Campus Free Speech Act: Goldwater Proposal … – National Review

With Governor Roy Cooper (D) taking no action on the bill, the state of North Carolina has enacted the Restore Campus Free Speech Act, the first comprehensive campus free-speech legislation based on the Goldwater proposal. That proposal, which I co-authored along with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute, was released on January 31 and is now under consideration in several states. Its fitting that North Carolina should be the first state to enact a Goldwater-inspired law.

North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has been the guiding force behind the Restore Campus Free Speech Act and deserves great credit for moving it through the legislature. Im particularly grateful to Forest, with whom Ive been working since shortly after I laid out A Plan to Restore Free Speech on Campus here at NRO in late 2015. Forest and his staff provided critical early encouragement and support for the approach that eventuated in the Goldwater model bill. With the passage of the first state law based on that model, Forest has established himself as a national leader on campus free speech.

The final version of the North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act passed by a margin of 80 to 31 in the House, with 10 Democratic ayes (about a quarter of the Democrats present). The final version passed the Senate by a margin of 34 to 11 along strict party lines. Given the intense party polarization in North Carolina, the substantially bipartisan House vote was impressive. Governor Coopers decision to let the bill become law with no action is also interesting and instructive.

The North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act achieves most of what the Goldwater proposal sets out to do. It ensures that University of North Carolina policy will strongly affirm the importance of free expression. It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers whom members of the campus community wish to hear from. It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others, and ensures that students will be informed of those sanctions at freshman orientation. It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself. And it authorizes a special committee created by the Board of Regents to issue a yearly report to the public, the regents, the governor, and the legislature on the administrative handling of free-speech issues.

Although the University managed to weaken the bill at points, with one significant exception that weakening amounts to less than meets the eye. Some of the bills language on institutional neutrality was struck, for example, yet the law still affirms the importance of administrative neutrality.

The dependence of campus freedom of speech on institutional neutrality was famously affirmed by the University of Chicagos Kalven Report of 1967. Likewise, the annual reports on campus free expression to be released in North Carolina will assess the universitys successes or failures at maintaining a posture of institutional neutrality. This will discourage the University from, say, joining the fossil fuel divestment campaign, or the campaign to boycott, divest, and sanction the state of Israel.

The University did manage to weaken the cause of action provision, which would have allowed anyone whose expressive rights under the new law were violated to recover reasonable court costs and attorneys fees. However, individuals whose rights under the new law are violated still have the option of suing, and can turn to any number of organizations (e.g. the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Center for Individual Rights, or the Goldwater Institute) for representation.

The university also succeeded in weakening the provision that designates public areas of the campus as public forums. Potentially, this would allow the university to cabin free speech to restricted zones. That is a serious concern and certainly bears watching. It should be noted, however, that the law also sets up a special committee within the UNC Board of Governors to issue an annual report on campus barriers to free expression. This provision draws the Board of Governors into more active oversight of campus free speech and serves as a check on administrative abuse on issues like free-speech zones.

In one area, however, the North Carolina bill is substantially weaker than the original Goldwater proposal. Although the North Carolina law will establish sanctions for students who shut down the speech of others, will protect the due-process rights of the accused, will inform students at freshman orientation of penalties for shout-downs, and will see that the administration of discipline is monitored by the Board of Governors, the provision that would have mandated suspension for students twice found responsible for silencing others was struck.

That provision is important for a number of reasons. First, the punishment is just. A student who twice silences visiting speakers or fellow students obviously hasnt learned a lesson from the initial punishment. Yales famous Woodward Report of 1974, the classic statement on campus free-expression, recommended suspension or expulsion after only a single shout-down. The Goldwater proposal is mild by comparison. Second, since universities regularly ignore shout-downs or hand out meaningless punishments, the mandatory suspension for a second offense is the only way to prevent schools from undermining the law by handing out wrists-slaps ad infinitum. Finally, when students learn at freshman orientation that state law requires a significant suspension for participation in a second shout-down, this will have a powerful deterrent effect.

Without the mandatory suspension for a second offense, the university could conceivably undermine the law through lax enforcement. Yet its not as simple as that. If the university refuses to discipline shout-downs in the wake of passage of this law, there will be consequences. For one thing, the annual report of the Board of Governors will either condemn the refusal to discipline, or the committee will itself be subject to public criticism. A negative report on the administrative handling of discipline would give the Board of Regents a reason to replace administrators, and legislators a reason to cut university funds.

A university that refuses to discipline students who silence others is also inviting a renewed campaign to pass the mandatory suspension for a second offense. This applies to other states as well. Tennessee, for example, has just passed a campus free-speech bill. While the Tennessee law is excellent in many respects, it does not systematically address the issue of discipline for shout-downs. Should the University of Tennessee refuse to discipline shout-downs in the coming years, the limitations of the new law will be evident and a campaign to add discipline provisions will ensue.

Right now only bills based on the Goldwater proposal systematically address the problem of shout-downs. If Goldwater-based bills are weakened or campus free-speech bills that dont deal with shout-downs are passed, universities that refuse to discipline shout-downs are sure to face further legislative campaigns. Knowing that laws can be revisited and that public scrutiny will now be high should encourage universities to take their enforcement responsibilities seriously.

The same applies to provisions regarding public forums and a legal cause of action. Campaigns to restore or strengthen these provisions can easily be launched should a state university system fail to protect free speech.

So we are at the beginning of a new state-legislative era, and that beginning is auspicious. The North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act accomplishes the lions share of what the Goldwater model proposed, including important steps forward on discipline for shout-downs. Goldwater-based bills are under consideration in several states, with more likely to follow next year. And any state bill can be strengthened in a second legislative round if universities continue to abuse their powers. Campus free-speech legislation is now in play as never before. Administrators will have to take that into account when they decide how to handle free speech. In short, the public has awakened and is actively pushing back against the illiberal assault on speech. That is a silver lining in the current crisis.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

Read the original here:

North Carolina Campus Free Speech Act: Goldwater Proposal ... - National Review

Talking Campus Free Speech on Capitol Hill – FrontPage Magazine


FrontPage Magazine
Talking Campus Free Speech on Capitol Hill
FrontPage Magazine
On July 27, two House subcommittees held a joint hearing on Challenges to Freedom of Speech on College Campuses. Congressman James Raskin (D-MD) called it the most fascinating hearing he's attended during his his six months in office.
Adam Carolla Goes to Washington For Campus Free Speech: 'We Are the Adults, We Need to Act Like It'Mediaite
Adam Carolla Schools Congress on Campus Free SpeechIndependent Women's Forum (blog)
Adam Carolla's Testimony to Congress on Free Speech Should Be Required Reading at Every CollegeIndependent Journal Review
OneNewsNow
all 7 news articles »

View post:

Talking Campus Free Speech on Capitol Hill - FrontPage Magazine

Letter to the Editor: Johnson County Sheriff’s Office protects free speech – The Daily Iowan

An encounter at the Johnson County Fairgrounds with law enforcement made me thankful that the Sheriffs Office protects freedom of speech.

We often hear criticism about law enforcement, so I wanted people to hear my story.

I am a disabled Marine veteran. I was protesting with a friend last week at the Johnson County Fairgrounds; we opposed the childrens rodeo and were peacefully and legally expressing our views on public property near the entrance to the fair. We oppose the rodeo because concern about the treatment of the animals and because we believe that participating in these events teaches children to repress their natural sense of compassion and empathy for animals.

On the second day we were there, two teenage boys came out with a large 4H banner and began harassing me while standing directly in front of me. I am in a wheelchair and could not see over or around their banner, and the public could no longer see my sign. When I moved to a different position, the boys followed me and again blocked my view. This happened five or six times and was continuing, so I called the Sheriffs Office to request that a deputy come to clarify the legal bounds of our protest. Sgt. Brad Kunkel obtained a body camera and came over to talk to me as well as the boys and their friends who had gathered to support them.

Kunkel was very professional in explaining to them that I/we had a right to be there and that they needed to find a different place to stand.

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right that I defended as a Marine. I want to thank all of the staff from the Sheriffs Office who were present while we were at the fair, especially Kunkel. Its their continued service to our local communities that ensures our safety and constitutional freedoms in America.

Sincerely,

Lori Kendrick

Read the original post:

Letter to the Editor: Johnson County Sheriff's Office protects free speech - The Daily Iowan

‘Heretics!’ Illustrates the Contentiousness Surrounding Philosophy – PopMatters

(Princeton University Press) US: Jun 2017

The period of European modern philosophy covered in this clever and informative new book was unusually fertile. From roughly 1600 to 1700, significant philosophical positions were articulated by the likes of Rene Descartes, Bento (Baruch) Spinoza, Gottfried Liebniz, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Galileo Galilei, Sir Isaac Newton, and many others. Barring the birth of philosophy in ancient Greece, this might be the most intellectually fruitful era in all of philosophy.

In this telling of the story of modern philosophy, esteemed historian of philosophy Steven Nadler, who has previously authored or edited academic books on Spinoza, Leibniz, Descartes, Nicolas Malebranche, Antoine Arnauld, and Jewish modern philosophy, teams with his son, illustrator Ben Nadler, to turn these complex theories into a visual journey through the history of ideas. The focus here tends to be on the scientific (Bacon, Newton, Galileo) and the epistemological/ metaphysical (Leibnizs monads, Spinozas pantheism, Cartesian knowledge and mind-body dualism) although some of the most significant developments in ethics and political philosophy (including Hobbess theory of government, Spinozas views on democracy, and Lockes influential views on property) get some coverage as well.

This story of modern ideas unfolds in the style of a comic book, with chapters (usually centered around a thinker and his critics) divided into panels on each page. The panels are generally limited to six or fewer per page, with each panel featuring expository passages and/or dialogue between these characters from the period.

Ben Nadlers art is colorful and expressive, and he has taken some pains to make these figures look like their classic depictions from historical art. Leibniz, for example, is drawn with impressively poodle-like hair and a prominent nose, much like the Christoph Bernhard Francke portrait from the early 1700s. However, Nadlers art softens their stern features and makes them more approachable and fun. By adding in plenty of humorous moments to their livesfrom Descartes , a thinking thing by definition, with a giant brain (26) to a Cartesian mind-body picnic (39) echoing the Bart Sells His Soul episode of The Simpsonsthe reader gets to laugh at some of these clever intuition pumps and thought experiments.

The anachronistic Disco Malebranche (109), for example, offers an explanation for the notoriously counter-intuitive theory of occasionalism, the view that God is the only cause and that all other apparently self-directed things (like a leisure-suit bedecked Malebranche in a disco) are moved only by the occasional decision of God to move them. Im not sure how many professors have ever used disco dancing to explain occasionalism, but it is a clever and resourceful way to present an idea that students usually respond to with blank stares and open mouths.

The combination of comic art and complex ideas is particularly helpful with some of the more arcane and confusing theories presented here. Take, for example, Leibnizs metaphysical monadology, always a head-scratcher for intro students (95-99). In the care of Nadler and Nadler, the puzzle of corporal substances and Leibnizs solution, windowless monads, is presented in a clear, visual manner that includes a cat, a volcano, a shark, and Leibniz himself. It sounds puzzling, but it makes sense, with brief and deft explanations paired with eye-catching illustrations. Spinozas solution to the mind-body problem, and the pantheism (or panentheism) that is entailed by it on pages 58-63 is another case where the illustrations serve to illuminate an often puzzling theoretical view, tying Spinozas view to Hamlets pondering of fate and free will. Its skillfully explained and depicted, and in five short pages, the view that led Spinoza to be branded a heretic is laid bare.

One of the more interesting questions this book leaves open is a meta-textual one: who or what is the intended audience? It crosses the borderlines between popular philosophy, general introduction, and academic text. It might, for example, serve as a useful introductory text (supplemented by some of the source works) for a course in modern philosophy, particularly for students with no background in philosophy at all. Its an excellent text for a non-academic audience, although the ideas and concepts discussed probably require at least a little knowledge of religious and political history. It might, with some scaffolding, be useful for younger readers who are trying to wrap their minds around the development of philosophical views in general.

The narrative arc of this story of modern philosophy is bound up in Spinozas abominable heresies and monstrous deeds (as the Herem against him claimed) and the so-called heresies of many of these modern philosophers, who shared both intellectual endeavors and a willingness to challenge the status quo. Conflicts and challenges between these figures, including bad blood between philosophers, schisms between iterations of faith, and political upheavals, dot the terrain of modern philosophy. Almost all of these figures had at least one view that was considered a heresy in the eyes of some other key figure or institution, and this willingness to put forth challenges to the prevailing views is part of the identity of philosophy in the modern era.

Given the heretical arc, it is very fitting that the book ends with an epilogue focused on Voltaires Candide. Voltaires brilliant satire took the intellectual gymnastics of modern philosophy, particularly that of Gottfried Leibnizs famous Best of All Possible Worlds theodicy, to the woodshed and gave them a beat-down. This is not to say that Nadler is trying to jump into the frayhis portrayal of these philosophical views is tempered and charitable, but also critical and questioning. Voltaire took philosophers to task, but Nadler gives them their due.

They might be heretics, but we owe them (and ourselves) the intellectual honesty to take their ideas seriously before moving on to those ideas that are less threatening and more comfortable. Its a lesson sorely lacking in our current intellectual culture, and this lovely introduction helps to present it in a historically relevant way.

Rating:

Eric Rovie teaches high school AP English in suburban Atlanta. He has also contributed to The A.V. Club and to several Chunklet publications. In his previous iteration, he was an academic philosopher and he might have edited a book and published a few articles. Originally from the Twin Cities, he worships at the altars of The Replacements, Hsker D, and The Hold Steady, as any good son of the Cities should. He re-reads The Catcher in the Rye at least once a year, but he has never tried to assassinate anyone.

See the rest here:

'Heretics!' Illustrates the Contentiousness Surrounding Philosophy - PopMatters