Laos: No Progress on Rights – Human Rights Watch

Australian officials should press the government of Laos to respect human rights at the Australian-Laos human rights dialogue, scheduled for July 18-19, 2017, in Vientiane, Human Rights Watch said today in a submission to the Australian government. Key areas of concern in Laos are freedom of speech, association, and assembly; enforced disappearances; abusive drug detention centers; and repression of minority religious groups.

The Lao governments suppression of political dissent and lack of accountability for abuses stand out in a human rights record that is dire in just about every respect, said Elaine Pearson, Australia director at Human Rights Watch. As a major development partner of Laos, Australia can and should press for greater respect for basic rights.

Restrictions on civil and political rights in Laos include draconian controls over freedom of speech, association, and peaceful assembly. The lack of fair trials of criminal suspects, widespread judicial corruption,and entrenched impunity for human rights violations are continuing problems, Human Rights Watch said.

All TV, radio, and printed publications are strictly monitored and controlled by the Lao government. The constitution prohibits all mass media activities that run contrary to national interests or traditional culture and dignity.

The government has arbitrarily arrested and detained civil society activists and those deemed critical of the government. The penal code contains broad limitations that prohibit slandering the state, distorting party or state policies, inciting disorder, or propagating information or opinions that weaken the state.

In July 2015, the government enacted a cybercrime law that provides vague definitions of web content criminalized under the law, giving authorities maximum discretion in determining what can trigger a prosecution. Citizens who share information, images, or animations that the government deems to distort truth are subject to re-education and disciplinary measures.

The government not only monitors and suppresses free speech inside the country, but also that of citizens living abroad. In May, three Lao workers were fined and sentenced to prison terms of between 12 and 20 years in a secret trial after criticizing the Lao government while working in neighboring Thailand.

The government has also failed to make progress on at least 10 cases of enforced disappearance. The December 2012 enforced disappearance of prominent activist Sombath Somphone is emblematic of the governments failure to meet its international human rights obligations. Despite CCTV camera footage showing Sombath being taken away from a police checkpoint in downtown Vientiane, Lao authorities have repeatedly denied that the government took Sombath into custody or provided any information on his fate or whereabouts.

Sombath Somphone, a prominent Lao activist, has been forcibly disappeared in Vientiane since December 2012.

The Lao government remains suspicious of the countrys religious minorities, particularly Protestant Christians, whom the government has long accused of having allegiances to the United States and the West. In some areas, authorities harass and repress Protestant groups. In December 2016, seven Christian families in Luang Prabang province had their identification cards, family books, and land titles confiscated by police, who forced them to leave their village after the families refused to renounce their faith. Other reports include arson attacks on Christian churches and homes, government authorities seizing harvested crops from Christians, and beatings for celebrating Christmas and refusing to renounce the Christian faith.

Laos continues to arbitrarily detain people suspected of using drugs in compulsory drug detention centers without judicial oversight or due process. Human Rights Watch found that detainees at Somsanga, the largest of eight such centers in the country, are locked in cells inside barbed wire compounds. Those who try to escape have been brutally beaten.

Human Rights Watch urged the Australian government to issue a public statement outlining serious issues of concern, as Australia did last year following the dialogue with Vietnam. The annual human rights dialogues should not be the only forum where human rights are discussed, Human Rights Watch said. Concerns about human rights should also be aired privately and publicly at the highest level, so that Australian officials can convey the serious role human rights and the rule of law play in its partnership with Laos.

Australia should issue a public statement after the dialogue to show the people of Laos that the countrys human rights situation is a global concern. Pearson said. These dialogues are an opportunity to raise human rights issues frankly and forcefully but should not be the only forum to discuss abuses.

Originally posted here:

Laos: No Progress on Rights - Human Rights Watch

Researchers Assess Progress on Nation’s Move to Value-Based Care – AAFP News

How is the United States faring in terms of phasing out fee-for-service health care and replacing it with a value-based system? New research shows some momentum, but much work remains.

For the second year in a row,(ddx.questdiagnostics.com) Quest Diagnostics and Inovalon, a leading technology company, commissioned a study to find evidence that the needle is moving in this direction. The 2017 study, titled "Progress on the Path to Value-Based Care,"(ddx.questdiagnostics.com) was released last month.

Results of the latest study were based on the responses of 452 individuals who participated in an online survey undertaken April 7-17. Of those respondents, 302 were primary care physicians -- all employed in private practices but also affiliated with hospitals -- and 150 were health plan executives.

"Overall, the study shows progress toward valued-based care, but that progress has been slow because physicians lack the appropriate tools to close gaps in health care," said Patrick James, M.D., chief clinical officer of health plans, policy and medical affairs at Quest Diagnostics, in an interview with AAFP News.

Authors found that the percentage of surveyed physicians and health plan executives who think the U.S. health care system already has achieved value-based status increased to 29 percent in 2017 from 25 percent in 2016.

Additionally, the percentage of physicians who said they lack needed information about patients dropped from 65 percent in 2016 to 62 percent in 2017.

The survey revealed some areas of disconnect between health plan executives and physicians. For instance, 70 percent of health plan executives said progress has been made in aligning health plans and physicians in the quest for value-based care; just 47 percent of physicians agreed.

This indicates "an opportunity for greater alignment" in this area, said James.

On the other hand, a whopping 83 percent of physicians and health plan executives agreed that alignment between the two groups was crucial to providing value-based care.

When asked about the availability of tools needed to achieve valued-based care, 53 percent of health executives said physicians already had those tools, but just 43 percent of physicians agreed.

Study authors speculated that a possible reason for the "striking gap in perception" on this topic centered on "differing views about the value of EHRs" (electronic health records).

They noted that 75 percent of executives -- and just 54 percent of physicians -- said EHRs had everything physicians need.

In addition,

What's the significance of this information moving forward?

"In our study, 71 percent of physicians said they'd be willing to spend more time using technology if EHRs could yield insights unique to patients," said James. "And 87 percent of physicians and health plan executives agreed that access to quality and performance measures specific to patients would be key to achieving value-based care.

"This reveals that both physicians and payers want more from EHRs, so there is a path forward, particularly if extending the value of EHRs can lead to improved patient care and lower costs," he added.

Authors suggested that co-investment in health IT (HIT) could be the key to progress.

"Perhaps health plan executives are mindful of the significant investment required of physician practices to implement HIT solutions and the potential for co-investment to help surmount this challenge," they wrote.

James agreed and added that 85 percent of health plan executives polled in the study said that co-investment in HIT by health plans and physicians would accelerate value-based care. As an example, he said health plans are sometimes willing to shoulder the costs of technology that gives physicians actionable, patient-specific data that includes quality metrics.

"They believe that over time, it will pay off in the form of better financial performance," James said.

James described the level of progress toward value-based care this way: "The study shows that progress has been made over the past year, but obstacles still persist. Chief among them are differing perceptions of health plan executives and physicians about the tools and data needed to deliver on value-based care."

Related AAFP News Coverage MACRA: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act

More From AAFP MACRA Basics: Prepare for the Quality Payment Program

See the original post:

Researchers Assess Progress on Nation's Move to Value-Based Care - AAFP News

Mexico’s Gold Cup side a work in progress, not the finished article – ESPN FC (blog)

Sebastian Salazar evaluates Mexico's draw with Jamaica and compares it with the U.S.'s draw with Martinique. Herculez Gomez breaks down Mexico's underwhelming win over El Salvador, and the changes he expects against Jamaica.

SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- It's sometimes difficult to sift through the layers of hype and/or criticism and arrive at objective conclusions when assessing Mexico. El Tri simply generates so much interest.

Over three Gold Cup group games in the United States against minnows El Salvador, Jamaica and Curacao, El Tri has drawn an average of 48,500 fans per match. The news conferences for coach Juan Carlos Osorio are packed and it doesn't seem ridiculous to suggest there could be more journalists covering Mexico at the Gold Cup than all the other nations put together.

The green-clad supporters packing the stadiums are all there to cheer on the side and expect to see El Tri win. If the victory includes multiple goals to assert the notion of Mexico's regional dominance, then all the better. But here's the dilemma for Mexico at the 2017 Gold Cup: the experimental squad and tournament (the best players were all at the Confederations Cup) is all about Osorio testing and getting to know the players likely to be challenging the established figures over coming years. It's about those players getting used to life with Mexico; seeing how comfortable they are and readying them for the future.

Those inside the squad know that. And perhaps that is why Jesus Duenas was slightly upset after last Thursday's 0-0 draw against Jamaica, after which Mexico was booed and chants of "Osorio out" rained down from the stands in Denver.

"People are like that," he said. "If you lose or draw everything is against you; if you win you are the best. We don't play to make people happy, we play to make ourselves content personally, as a group, and then as a consequence the people [will be happy]."

There was outrage in Mexico and Duenas' words became the main talking point on many sports shows. The Tigres midfielder was forced to apologize and while his words may have been slightly clumsy, he was only being honest.

The group stage was a chance for Osorio and the coaching staff to draw some conclusions, safe in the knowledge that the standard of opposition wasn't likely to complicate Mexico's passage to the quarterfinals. The Colombian coach used 21 of his 23 available players over the group stage in a rotation that is extreme even for Osorio.

But the Gold Cup has not been pretty so far for El Tri. There are growing pains, clear evidence that the squad hasn't played together much and difficulties both in defensive cohesion and attacking incisiveness. The win over El Salvador was generally a good display, but Jamaica frustrated Mexico, who were then reliant on a great goalkeeping performance against Curacao.

On the positive side, Elias Hernandez has stepped up to be a major contender for a spot moving forward and goalkeeper Jesus Corona has shown he still has it at 36. There have been solid performances from midfielder Orbelin Pineda, a deserved debut for centre-back Cesar Montes and 22-year-old Erick Gutierrez has captained the side.

"We continue consolidating a very good group of talented, young players than are the present and will be the future of Mexican football," said Osorio ahead of the Curacao game. "That factor, for me, is most gratifying and what I enjoy most in life."

It's a tricky situation for Osorio. If the scrutiny wasn't so intense, the experimentation would be more readily accepted and the wobbly performances viewed for what they are in the context of a tournament that was never the priority this summer. Now Osorio has to walk the tight-rope between fielding players -- and combinations of players -- he wants to see and also winning the tournament, which is pretty much the only thing that could happen to calm the critics, at least temporarily.

Memories can also be short. Two years ago Mexico may have won the Gold Cup but El Tri was far from convincing. Mexico finished second to Trinidad and Tobago in the group, was reliant on a very late and dubious penalty against Costa Rica in the quarterfinal, another couple of penalties against Panama in a raucous and controversial semi, before finally playing a decent game against Jamaica in the final.

And all that was with a squad including Carlos Vela, Guillermo Ochoa, Guardado, Giovani dos Santos, Diego Reyes, Hector Herrera, Jesus "Tecatito" Corona and Jonathan dos Santos.

This time around and with Mexico's reserve squad not clicking as fans, pundits and Osorio himself would have liked, it is clear that the United States is now favourite for the Gold Cup.

Bringing in Tim Howard, Michael Bradley, Jose Altidore, Clint Dempsey and Darlington Nagbe at half-time of the competition gives the U.S. the edge, although the experience that Mexico's young squad would get from playing Americans in the final on July 26 would be worth its weight in gold regardless of the result.

Tom Marshall covers Liga MX and the Mexican national team for ESPN FC. Twitter: @MexicoWorldCup.

Visit link:

Mexico's Gold Cup side a work in progress, not the finished article - ESPN FC (blog)

Don’t let DeVos unravel progress on campus rape response – The Missoulian

The University of Montana, for all its struggles in recent years, can proudly claim some important successes. One of the most important of these is its work in prevention and response to sexual assaults on campus.

The reforms instituted at UM have been held up repeatedly as a model not just for other education institutions in Montana, but across the U.S. And that comes not a moment too soon, given the longstanding, nationwide problem of sex assault on campuses. The U.S. Department of Education puts the number of college victims, admittedly under-reported, at 20 percent of women and 6 percent of men.

And yet the Education Department, under new Secretary Betsy DeVos, appears poised to roll back critical improvements like those made at UM, returning college campuses to an outdated system that allows rapists to go unpunished and free to rape again.

This line of thinking must be disputed in no uncertain terms. We cannot allow all the progress made at UM to unravel due to ignorance and a too-weak response to bad suggestions.

Montana Attorney General Tim Fox, who was so instrumental in helping the Missoula County Attorneys Office under former County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg reach an understanding with the U.S. Department of Justicice, must take a firm position in support of the campus sex assault guidelines adopted during the Obama administration.

Fox, a Republican, must be among those making a forceful argument to Trump administration officials. He must unequivocally support the current recommended system, which makes it easier for university officials to support students who reported sexual assaults and penalize students who commit sexual assault.

Last week DeVos held listening sessions that rightly garnered backlash for including representatives from so-call mens rights groups in an apparent attempt to provide balance. Unbelievably, the acting director of the civil rights office for the Education Department, Candice Jackson, told the New York Times that Title IX investigations have not been balanced because 90 percent of accusations fall into the category of 'we were both drunk,' 'we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right.'"

Jackson has since apologized, but it should concern every American that the person in charge of handling civil rights for the Education Department holds beliefs about rape that would have been considered ill-informed and outdated more than 20 years ago, and which is disproved by data from her own department.

The University of Montana became the focus of federal investigations five years ago, after allegations of sexual assault and the universitys handling of those reports, as well as the response from local police and prosecutors, were brought to the attention of the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education. Settlements were subsequently reached with each entity involved, and local agencies have since fulfilled the terms of those agreements.

In 2011, before the federal investigations began, the U.S. Department of Education directed all universities to use a preponderance of evidence standard for sexual assault investigations involving students. Previously, some campuses had relied on a clear and convincing legal standard that did not meet Title IX requirements. The Education Department mandate clarified the process and made it more consistent across campuses.

Most importantly, however, it allowed universities that found it more likely than not that sexual violence had occurred to discipline or expel the offender. This did not, of course, affect the criminal investigation process, which is conducted outside the university system.

Universities are not courts of law and do not have the investigative or legal authority of police. Rather, they are tasked with educating students in an environment where the civil rights of are students are respected equally. Title IX is based on ensuring equal access to federally supported education programs regardless of gender.

But the clear and convincing standard of evidence used by some universities wrongly applied a criminal legal definition to a civil rights matter, and stacked the deck from the get-go against those who reported being sexual assaulted. It meant that a university investigation might conclude that sexual violence had occurred, but result in no punishment whatsoever for the rapist.

The current guidelines have provided an important tool for universities to crack down on sexual assault, a widespread problem that has been allowed to fester for far too long. It boggles the mind that DeVos reportedly does not consider these guideline appropriate and is open to tossing them out.

That would return Americas college campuses to a system that should be left in the dustbins of history.

The entire Montana University System must swiftly and clearly communicate that to DeVos. AG Fox must speak up in support of the current guidelines as well. Politics aside, maintaining policy improvements that make our college campuses safer and protect our students from sexual assault is clearly the right thing to do.

See more here:

Don't let DeVos unravel progress on campus rape response - The Missoulian

No-till corn planters among machinery demos planned for Ag Progress Days – Penn State News

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. Those interested in a firsthand look at the latest in agricultural innovations and state-of-the-art farm machinery won't want to miss this year's Ag Progress Days, Aug. 15-17.

"The Ag Progress Days exposition is a must-see for all farmers, growers and anyone with an interest in agricultural advancements," said Jesse Darlington, Ag Progress Days interim manager. "The demonstrations provide a comprehensive look at new goods, services, and the latest equipment and methods to improve efficiency and profitability."

Darlington said attendees should plan to come early and stay late as there will be 500 commercial and educational exhibits, as well as numerous field demonstrations and workshops. Commercial exhibitors will display virtually every product category, including field machinery, milking systems, animal genetics, storage structures, seed, feed, tools, trailers, sprayers, mixers, livestock housing, utility vehicles, fertilizers, fencing, financial products, insurance and more.

Field demonstrations are always a draw, Darlington said, and enable potential buyers to see and compare equipment in action. A new demonstration in 2017 will spotlight pull-type, no-till corn planters. Other demonstrations will feature hay mowers, rakes and tedders, hay balers, and bale handlers. All demonstrations are weather-permitting.

At the Farm Safety Demonstration Area, safety specialists will promote equipment designed to reduce the risk of accidents, such as hay-hole covers. Seminars focusing on guidance systems, sprayers and drones and how they can be used safely also are planned. The safety specialists also will address some of the potential dangers for children on the farm.

Darlington encourages producers attending Ag Progress Days to ask questions of Penn State faculty specialists and extension educators and talk with experts about the latest research findings, best practices, business issues and governmental regulations that could affect their operations. Information will be available on issues related to dairy, livestock and crop production; animal health; soil conservation; water quality; and ag renewable energy.

In addition, horse enthusiasts can get the latest information on tack and equipment, training, handling, health and business practices, as well as view a six-horse hitch and various breeds at the Ag Progress Days Equine Experience.

Sponsored by Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences, Ag Progress Days is held at the Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Center at Rock Springs, 9 miles southwest of State College on Route 45. Hours are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Aug. 15; 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. Aug. 16; and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Aug. 17. Admission and parking are free.

For more information, visit the Ag Progress Days website. Twitter users can find and share information about the event by using the hashtag #agprogress, and Facebook users can find the event here.

Follow this link:

No-till corn planters among machinery demos planned for Ag Progress Days - Penn State News

Dance Like Nobody’s Watching To Shock Machine’s Unlimited Love Video – The FADER

As a member of the now-departed Klaxons, James Righton channeled pure adolescent hedonism and a nostalgia for '90s rave culture into a short-lived but memorable phenomenon. Now working solo under the name Shock Machine, he's about to release his debut album. Today the video for new single "Unlimited Love" is premiering on The FADER.

The song itself is a giddy and romantic ode to unbridled romance with nods to Todd Rundgren and more modern psych like Tame Impala. The accompanying visuals complement this kaleidoscopic style with bright pops of color appearing throughout, chiefly from Righton's sharply cut suits, which thankfully don't restrict him from dancing wildly and expressively to the song.

Filmed and directed by Righton himself alongside directorial newcomer Sam Taylor-Edwards, "Unlimited Love" features scenes shot in both London, and Bucharest. "I wanted a simple performance video. Something bold and strong, something that captured the essence of how I perform live," Righton told The FADER via email.

Shock Machine is out on August 25. Check out the "Unlimited Love" video below.

Read the original post:

Dance Like Nobody's Watching To Shock Machine's Unlimited Love Video - The FADER

We Asked the Happiest People at Lovebox About Their Worries – Noisey

Ah, Lovebox. A true melting pot. For two days in July, the festival welcomes individuals from all walks of life to the green pastures of an east London park, so they can partake in some carefully controlled hedonism between the hours of 12PM and 10PM, or as some preferred to sit under a tree and repeat the phrase, "I'll be fine in a minute"

This year, the event celebrating 15 years spanned a huge scope of punters. This was partly down to Frank Ocean, the supernova Friday headliner, counting fans in every demographic; we met Essex lads sporting identikit testicle-crushing Topman jeans, patellas artfully exposed, who waxed as emotionally about the artist FKA Christopher Breaux as queer art students in towering rainbow platform heels. But it was also testament to an excellently curated line-up, designed to pull in crowds with wildly different Spotify favourites, from Slen, Kaytranada, Mac Miller and Rex Orange County to 67, AJ Tracey and Mist. Saturday was the electronic lover's wet dream; a roster including Andy C, Annie Mac and Chase in Status had teens with clenched jaws and cross-body bags thrusting their phones above pulsing crowds, capturing the drop on Insta Stories for posterity. Standard festival fun. Friday though? Friday was a moodt.

The presence of Sampha, Solange and Frank on one date was potent, their politically significant releases injecting an electric current into proceedings. Add to the mix acts like Ray BLK and energy was built to almost unbearable levels. Solange, a clear festival highlight, snatched everyone's collective wig at the Noisey stage with a set featuring a note so Minnie Riperton-high the girl next to me cried. Then, it was just Frank left to deliver the final, transcendent coda; 50,000 people singing "Solo", seeming to set a blissful seal on proceedings. But I wanted to go further. Sure, everyone looked pretty joyful but what burdens were bubbling away under the face glitter? We decided to hold an impromptu therapy session. Wisdom goes that those most in need are the ones who seem least likely so we hit up the happiest-looking people to dig deep into their inner fears.

Noisey: You all look very chipper do you ever get stressed? Will: I was when we going through security and the dogs were out. Spencer: My virginity stresses me I'm never going to lose it. Elliot: My only worry is that Tottenham won't win the League.

Who are you going to see to blank out your worries? Will: Kaytranada! Those vibes. Very funky. I want him to bring Craig David out.

Noisey: You guys seem very chill is this for real? Ashley: Anxiety is actually a huge thing for me; music definitely helps. Solange and Frank's albums have got me through panic attacks I've experienced. Brianna: We're from California and getting here was quite stressful. We were two hours late and on edge but once we stepped through the gates and saw everyone's vibes it put my mind at ease. How do you deal with something like anxiety on a daily basis? Ashley: I listen to music and work out a lot. Weight training is great I hate cardio. Brianna: Working out for sure. I really like Crossfit.

Is there anyone on the line-up who particularly soothes your stress like exercise? Ashley: Being a woman of colour, Solange makes me feel like my worries are heard. She's so angelic and calming. Brianna: She puts my mind at ease and helps me be comfortable in myself, like loving my hair; I can come here in my braids!

Noisey: Hi happy people, tell me your problems. Alero: I'm a stressed person! I overthink things. I don't want to lose myself; I'm scared of losing purpose or doing stuff I normally wouldn't because I feel down.

Wow, that's real. How do you push those thoughts aside? Nicolai: Partying a lot! Alero: Getting a psychiatrist or a therapist is a good start.

Are your worries playing on your mind today? Nicolai: Nah, fuck them! Alero: Ditto fuck them when I've finished my vodka Red Bull.

Noisey: You both have huge smiles. Let me wipe them off. Are you secretly stressing? Bronwen: No! I don't worry about anything, I'm a really laid back person. Daniel: I try not to worry but my work makes me stressed. There's a lot of pressure there.

What's your remedy for that? Daniel: Going to festivals and enjoying myself. I let my hair down at weekends.

What about today have you managed to detach yet? Daniel: All my worries were gone as soon as I realised I wasn't at work. Bronwen: He had his playlist on this morning when he was getting ready, it was a very chilled situation.

Who's going to do the best job of blanking out your worries? Bronwen: Jamie xx, he's really upbeat. "Loud Places" is a great song, he did it at Glastonbury and it was really good. Isn't that about a breakup? Bronwen: I don't read into the lyrics that much! That's too deep for me.

Noisey: As the officially designated voice of the Lovebox youth, what about the world worries you? Kate: I worry about where the world is going. I don't know where my place is. The current political situation makes me scared but I voted Labour and Jeremy Corbyn gives me a lot of hope. Things like Lovebox, where people come together and celebrate it's such a good thing for the UK. Natalia: I worry a lot. Climate change freaks me out.

That's a lot of stress to carry how do you deal with it? Kate: It's always at the back of your mind but you try and get on with life and enjoy yourself. Natalia: I volunteered at Wireless Festival with Greenpeace; I recycled plastic and paper and that made me feel better.

Is there anyone here today who might be able to help with your burden? Stee: Mac Miller he speaks the fucking truth! Kate: Frank Ocean; he's the reason I came. I'm bi and he really speaks to me. He understands me. Blonde got me so deep.

Noisey: You look full of magic beans. Is this your normal mode? David: I'm from California and thanks to my recently-elected President, I'm stressed on a daily basis. But right now I'm having a great time I've been dancing my butt off for an hour. Although there's a lot of gentleman shufflers I've been trying to make dance too.

Trump is enough to make anyone antsy. He doesn't seem to be bothering you now though. What's the opposite of stressed? I'm currently that.

What's your advice for reaching the level of chill you're on right now? I go to a lot of festivals I just went to Coachella as well. I love movies too; I'm a teacher and run a film club. I took all my kids to see Baby Driver and they loved it.

Who should I go and see today if I want to de-stress? Mac Miller. He always helps me let go completely. "Dang!" gets me going in the best way.

Noisey: Hello boys. You seem to be on a very cheerful wave. Noah: We're here to see Frankie boy! Although I'm more worried about him not turning up than I've ever been about anything else in my life.

What stresses you beyond the confines of Victoria Park? Dan: Probably family. I've got a little girl who is two years old. I have general fears about what's going on in the world, especially with recent events in London. Noah: The government. They're scary fuckers. Especially Tony Blair!

How do you blank out those thoughts? Dan: We get spangled! Noah: I just try to ignore them. It works terribly, nothing changes.

Your worries don't seem too close today Noah: Tony is a million miles away from my mind right now. Dan: I've got some thoughts niggling away, but nothing on a national scale. Hopefully if I can get spangled, they'll go altogether. But they'll be back tomorrow.

Which artist is the best cure for your worries? Dan: Frankie! Noah: The sweet aroma of Frank has been wafting over London for days, like mother's cooking. I don't even know where we are, I just followed my nose.

Noisey: Hello, you two look exceedingly happy. Is this your normal mode? Martin: I'm more chilled than Jean is. I do worry though, about politics, the environment, the chances for young people. We're separating when we should be coming together.

It's a lot to deal with. How do you manage your stress? Jean: Yoga and exercise mostly. Martin: Running, swimming and music. We're here to see Solange and Frank Ocean. If Frank doesn't do it for me later, nobody will. I played both his albums again this morning and can't choose a favourite.

Is Lovebox living up to its joyful reputation? Jean: Absolutely. All my worries are gone. This is the first festival I've ever been to so I'm just soaking up the atmosphere.

Thanks, you happy-looking people.

You can find Moya on Twitter and photographer Zo on Instagram.

More here:

We Asked the Happiest People at Lovebox About Their Worries - Noisey

What’s the Best Song, According to Science? – Gizmodo

Some songs stick to your soul like ectoplasm. Whether youre at the club or Chuck E. Cheese, sometimes you hear a certain song that brings you back to a moment in your life youd forgotten. Good music is fun but ephemeralthe best music stays with you forever, sometimes a little too long. Seriously, stop buying Phish t-shirts.

Obviously, all artand tasteis subjective. But is there one songor one kind of songthats generally more enjoyable? Recently, author Tom Cox tweeted some musings on the philosophy behind what makes the best song ever. A significant portion of the internet, however, argued that he was full of shit because the best song of all time is Totos classic 1982 hit, Africa.

This week on Giz Asks, we talked to neuroscientists and music enthusiasts about why our brains just cant get enough of certain songs.

Neuroscientist and Director of the Science Gallery at Kings College London

The best way to test a song is still a human. We can measure how people respond to songs in a bunch of ways including brain scans, measures of chemicals in the the brain, including dopamine (which is associated with the internal reward system reward, perhaps you give yourself a pat on the back for selecting a great playlist). Actually measuring foot tapping or the smile muscles is probably just as good as most more scientific methods.

We still dont have good models to enable us to describe what makes a good song yet alone artificially create one. Deep learning networks may be able to develop an artificial classifier that would learn what an individual likes and predict whether a new song would be a hit or miss for that individual. But Im not sure if that would be scientific because in the end even the people who build the network dont know what lies beneath its decision.

On genres, the interesting thing is that how you hear music is determined by your early life experience up to two years or for some musical elements six months. Beyond that age your brain is kind of fixed for things like quarter tones or off-beats so if you want your kid to dig a particular style make sure they get exposed to it early.

Postdoctoral Associate in the Department of Psychology at New York University, researching the relationship between music and the brain

Theres some interesting research that shows that people fall on a spectrum in terms of their musical hedonism. A small group have what youd call musical antidilia, so these are people that dont like music at all. Its not that they get a viscerally negative reaction, its just that they dont really listen to it, they dont really get music, they dont really respond in a viscerally positive way to it.

Most people in the world do respond positively to music. There are people on the other end of the spectrum who are hyper hedonic and really, really, really love music and get really jazzed about it. Part of it is an individual difference or a personality trait of how much you respond to music. So thats a big part of it: people who respond to music more overall, and then people who respond less to music no matter what it is.

The challenge in psychology, but especially when were looking at music, is the fact that theres individual differences. Taste is so varied in terms of music. In several studies about musical chills or really positive responses to music, they have the participants in the study bring in their own music to listen to. So you would have to have a comparison of highly pleasing music versus non-pleasing music. So the highly pleasing music is totally different from one person to another.

Science tends to focus more on the response to music rather than the particular qualities of it, since its so hard to pick a song that everyone across the board likes, unless you pick a group of participants that have very homogenous taste which is also kind of challenging. If we knew what made the perfect song, someone would be making millions of dollars off it.

Professor of Psychology and Neural Science at New York University

There are numbers about whats on average how fast music is, whether or not you like it. Lets say you take a whole bunch of musicclassical, rock, single instruments and ensemblesyou can calculate the mean rate. On average, the rate music is played at because is about two hertztwo cycles per secondwhich translates into 120 beats per minute. Across musical styles and eras, theres a typical mean rate of music, which is kind of surprising. Its faster than the heartbeat and slower than speech.

One of the hard things from a scientific point of view is trying to figure out how taste works is to account for the huge range of taste across people and across, even, your own age. Songs from puberty are particularly well-remembered for some reasonlike the first time you fell in love, or something. But then, maybe in retrospect you think, Wow, what the fuck, I liked Blondie? It shows that even your own aesthetic experience changes pretty drastically over the course of your lifetime.

So from an individual point of view, what makes you happy, stimulated or excited changes even within you over time.

Actually, Toto turns out to be remarkably good and sophisticated according to musicians. Toto was a group of hardcore, highly respected studio musicians. They crafted those songs pretty carefully and were incredibly successful with those four albums. And musicians actually really love Toto.

Science says Africa is the best song ever made. Says a scientist.

More here:

What's the Best Song, According to Science? - Gizmodo

Famed Ad Contrarian Bob Hoffman To Deliver ReThinkTV Keynote – B&T

ThinkTV hasannounced that Bob Hoffman, the best-selling US author, speaker, blogger and advisor, will deliver the keynote speech at ReThinkTV 2017 when the advertising and marketing forum returns on September 14 at Luna Park in Sydney.

Hoffman is one of the most sought-after international speakers on advertising and marketing: Time, Inc calls him fabulously irreverent, The Wall Street Journal calls him caustic yet truthful, The Financial Times says he is responsible for savage critiques of digital hype and Fuel Lines calls him The most provocative man in advertising.

Renowned for his acid wit and entertaining style, Hoffman has titled his presentation Marketers Are From Mars, Consumers Are From New Jersey.

Marketers are living in a dream world of their own invention, he said. I will be speaking about three delusions that demonstrate how marketers have lost touch with consumers and to some degree, with reality.

Hoffman has been chief executive of two independent agencies and the US operation of an international agency. He has created advertising for McDonalds, Toyota, Pepsico, Bank of America, AT&T, and more companies than he cares to think about. Through his company, Type A Group, Bob advises advertisers, agencies, and media.

Kim Portrate, chief executive of ThinkTV, said: ThinkTV is delighted to have Bob deliver the keynote at ReThinkTV 2017. His wise-headed rationalism and entertaining delivery will be a draw card in a what is rapidly shaping up to be one of the key advertising and marketing events of 2017.

We have an exciting schedule which is designed to provide advertisers and their agencies with invaluable insights into advertising effectiveness and to help them to get the very best of todays multi-platform TV. Stay tuned for more announcements.

Read the original:

Famed Ad Contrarian Bob Hoffman To Deliver ReThinkTV Keynote - B&T

Moral authority, realpolitik and state craft – Pakistan Today

Whats the rush?

We should not rush and make errors for the sake of satisfying raised emotions.

Pakistan as a nation is driven more by emotions rather than rationalism, rule of law, or political tradition. This emotionalism is ingrained in us from an early age and critical inquiry is discouraged to build rational thought and logic. Every now and then there are cries of lack of moral authority and demands that an elected Prime Minister should resign because of that. As soon as Panama JIT report was made public then once again calls were made by opposition politician that the elected Prime Minister should resign. I have never understood what this moral authority is that is so frequently invoked in our politics and whether it is really very critical to use moral authority as a legitimate demand to seek resignation.

Since early days of Islam, the question of moral authority using concerns about legitimacy have been raised and became a cause for political division. Till this day, the question is hotly debated and even gave rise to a separate sect pursuing those arguments. The reality is that these questions of moral authority did not matter much as allegiance was given to the Caliph that ascended to the position as per tradition of the day. It is also a reality that Islamic political entity grew many folds during the tenure of first four Caliph and we dont know what would have happened if the allegiance was not given to them by the community. I dont think our present day politicians are in any ways equal to those great men of our history but Quran proposes that we should learn from history so I had to remind all of you about it.

Now lets suppose, since the majority of our nation is emotional rather than rational, that moral authority has to be applied then it should apply to everyone and should be codified in a legislation. If the moral authority has to be invoked then ISI and MI should have refused to become part of a JIT because there is a long history of a military takeover of governments. The military should have first apologised for the past transgression of the constitution as an institution and then sent their representative to sit on JIT. They should have also asked its former Chief General Musharraf to come back and face courts before they become the part of a legal process against an elected PM. If the moral authority has to be invoked then Imran Khan should not be the Chairman of his party because he violated the constitution of his party every day and even now holds an illegitimate title of party Chairman. He should also not ask for an elected PM to resign until he first clears his name in all cases against him because that has deprived him of moral authority. If the moral authority has to be invoked then Judges should have first tried their own brother judge named in Panama papers before they took up the case of a civilian politician. So moral authority should only be invoked by those that are themselves not encumbered by engaging in violating moral conduct. Bottom line is that moral authority has no place in politics.

The question of political authority does have to deal with the question of legitimacy. Anyrulerwhether a King/Queen, elected Prime Minister/President or a military dictator has to deal with the question of legitimacy. Legitimacy is provided by rules, procedures, laws, and constitution. A ruler that does not have legitimacy will always have to deal with uprisings and dissent. So moral important barometer for a government is legitimacy in realpolitik rather than any adherence to some invisible and intangible moral authority. First four Caliphs of Islam as soon as they took the oath of the office sought allegiance of the citizens. Since majority pledged their allegiance the rule became legitimate and enabled them to take actions against those that challenged their authority.

In our current political crisis many intellectuals, amateur politician, newspaper editorials, and power hungry opposition is invoking moral authority to push an elected Prime Minister out of office. My position has been consistent that the elected Prime Minister should go home through a due process which is the only way he will lose legitimacy to rule. PML-N decision to seek a vote of no confidence, as reported by some media, for their Prime Minister is a good political move. If the opposition has any support then they should defeat him on the floor of the assembly and throw him out of the office. While the other legal process of ascertaining disqualification of individual MNA Nawaz Sharif should proceed in the court of law as per the provisions of the constitution for a fair trial.

We have to become a nation of citizens that respect rule of law and strive for its application uniformly. Islams main message is also justice. The main purpose of Jihad is also to seek social justice. Selective justice does not help anyone but rather creates instability. We are a nascent democracy that is still trying to find its feet on the ground and deepen its roots. We cant be using intangible ideas like moral authority that has no precedence in law or history to seek removal of an elected Prime Minister.

I have faith in the nation that it has the ability to make a good collective decision. There is no evidence yet that PML-N or its government has lost support of majority of the nation which can only be established through a free and fair election. I also have faith that our judicial system has the ability to reform itself and ensure justice for all without favour or bias. I believe our democracy is slowly but surely taking root and a tradition building to guide future parliaments and governments. The process ofehtisabhas to continue and take its natural course as per constitution of the country. We should not rush into it and make errors for the sake of satisfying raised emotions.

Continued here:

Moral authority, realpolitik and state craft - Pakistan Today

Why China censors banned Winnie the Pooh – BBC News


BBC News
Why China censors banned Winnie the Pooh
BBC News
The blocking of Winnie the Pooh might seem like a bizarre move by the Chinese authorities but it is part of a struggle to restrict clever bloggers from getting around their country's censorship. When is a set of wrist watches not just a set of wrist ...
Winnie the Pooh is the latest victim of censorship in ChinaVox
China censors Winnie the Pooh on social mediaFOX 61
Winnie the Pooh blacklisted by China's online censorsFinancial Times
NBCNews.com -Hindustan Times -Global Risk Insights -The Guardian
all 83 news articles »

See the original post here:

Why China censors banned Winnie the Pooh - BBC News

The Coming Censorship From the Left – Church Militant

After President Trump won the 2016 election, Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, was hit with a wave of complaints from liberals claiming "fake news" on his social media platform had contributed to the Republican's victory. Zuckerberg responded by setting up a board to vet false reports and stacked it with left-leaning media outfits: Snopes, Politifact, FactCheck.org, ABC News and Associated Press (which just issued writing guidelines discouraging use of the phrase "pro-life" in favor of "anti-abortion").

And in May, Zuckerberg placedNew York TimesveteranAlex Hardiman at the helm of Facebook's News products, in charge of overseeing monetization and collaboration with other news organizations.

It's this same department that manipulated news content to artificially bump left-leaning causes while suppressing conservative stories. A 2016 report reveals that former Facebook staff admit they "routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readersfrom the social network's influential 'trending' news section."

Facebook news curators also claimed they were ordered to artificially inject topics into the trending section (e.g., Black Lives Matter), even when they weren't popular, while deleting articles related to the GOP. According to reporter Michael Nunez,

Facebook's news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing but it is in stark contrast to thecompany's claimsthat the trending module simply lists "topics that have recentlybecome popular on Facebook."

The Wall Street Journalreported in 2016 that Facebook had been caughtcensoring conservative, pro-Israel postswhile allowing liberal, pro-Palestinian content.

Even more concerning, in 2015 Zuckerberg wascaught agreeing to German Chancellor Angela Merkel's requesttohelp get rid of anti-immigration posts on social media.

The conversation, caught on a hot mic, involved messages about the refugee crisis, with Zuckerberg admitting "we need to do some work" on the issue.

"Are you working on this?" Merkel asked him.

"Yeah," Zuckerberg answered.

Shortly after, Facebook implemented its "Initiative for Civil Courage Online" to delete what it deemed "racist" or "xenophobic" comments. But Douglas Murray at the Gatestone Institute warned it was a tool for further censorship of legitimate conservative voices.

"The sinister thing about what Facebook is doing is that it is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might consider racist,"said Murray, "along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is 'racist.'"

Last year, WikiLeaks exposed anattempted meet-up between Zuckerberg and the Clinton campaignin order to give the entrepreneur advice on how to "move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about."

Although Zuckerberg hasnever publicly identified as Republican or Democrat, and has contributed to candidates of both parties in the past, according to Federal Election Committee records, his political action committee made its biggest one-time donation to the Democratic Party in San Francisco in 2015 when it wrote a check for $10,000. He's also been open about his criticism of Trump and his immigration policies.

And it's not just Facebook. Other internet giants are also in on the conservative targeting: Google, Vimeo, YouTube, Twitter.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in June 2016 that Google was "directly engaged in Hillary Clinton's campaign."

"The chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, set up a company to run the digital component of Hillary Clinton's campaign," Assange declared at a journalism forum in May 2016. A number of Google employees appear in theWikiLeaks Clinton email archives, noting a cozy relationship with the Democrat leader. Evidence shows the search engineskewed resultsfor hits pertaining to Clinton's health back when it was a hot topic.

Google also had a close association with Obama: It was the single most frequent visitor to his White House, averaging one visit per week.

"Google controls 80 percent of the smartphone market through its control of Android," Assange noted, "and if you control the device itself that people use to read then anything that they connect to through that device you have control over as well."

The video hosting platform Vimeo is also targeting voices that don't fit the leftist narrative. Over the course of two years, it's deleted content and shut down accounts of ministries that help homosexuals leave the gay lifestyle.

In March, Vimeo deleted without warning 850 videos from Christian ex-homosexualDavid Kyle Foster's website. When Foster wrote to ask why,Vimeo responded, "To put it plainly, we don't believe that homosexuality requires a cure and we don't allow videos on our platform that espouse this point of view. ... We also consider this basic viewpoint to display a demeaning attitude toward a specific group, which is something that we do not allow."

And last year, Vimeo took down the account of Restored Hope, a group of ministries that help rid individuals of unwanted same-sex desires. It also closed down the account of theNational Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, headed by the late Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, a pioneer in reparative therapy.

Foster has called Vimeo's actions "pure religious bigotry and censorship."

Social media giant Twitter has displayedbias against the pro-life message, censoring ads critical of Planned Parenthood while giving the abortion giant free rein to spread its misinformation online.

"Planned Parenthoodis allowed to promote their pro-abortion and misleading messages, whileLive Actionis barred from promoting any content exposing abortion andPlanned Parenthood," said Live Action CEO Lila Rose in June, after Twitter removed the pro-life group's ability to advertise.

Contents of banned ads were benign, including a tweet that declared thatPlanned Parenthoodis "about abortion, not women's health care," accompanied by a brief, all-text video casting doubt on the abortion conglomerate's "healthcare services."

More than ever, conservatives are at the mercy of those controlling the organs of social communication, and must find a way to preserve their voice on the internet in the face of increasing encroachments. Church Militant relies heavily on various online platforms to publish and promote our content, and we recognize the growing threat of censorship from the powers that be, most who hate the message of the Catholic faith.

Just this past week, Church Militant was the target of hackers, who were able to take down the site for a full day. Although no internal information was compromised, our message the message of Christ in His Church was kept from being disseminated to the millions who regularly view our programming as well as to new viewers who need to hear the truth.

Church Militant has taken beginning steps to protect the apostolate and its content by purchasing our own internal server but it comes at a cost $50,000, to be precise. If you believe in the mission of Church Militant and want us to continue spreading the light of the Faith, reporting on issues that matter to Catholics, and being the voice for authentic reform in the Church, consider donating to ourPreserving Catholics campaignto cover the cost of our server. We're grateful for any amount, large or small. We are especially grateful for your prayers in support of our work.

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

Like our work? Support us with a donation.

Read this article:

The Coming Censorship From the Left - Church Militant

Editorial: A century after Espionage Act, censorship temptation remains – STLtoday.com

A century ago last month, America came close to formally empowering government censorship of the modern news media. That might seem like ancient history, but the censorship monster rises anew whenever a president finds himself under intense scrutiny and seeks to stifle coverage he doesnt like.

Donald Trump is waging a particularly angry campaign to harness press freedoms, including implied advocacy of violence against the fake news media, threats to yank reporters credentials and increasing bans on live TV coverage of White House press briefings.

The 1917 Espionage Act was an effort by Congress, supported by President Woodrow Wilson, to block any accidental or deliberate revelation of national security secrets as the United States fought the First World War. The original version explicitly outlined executive powers to censor newspapers prior to publication. Luckily, more reasonable minds prevailed and press censorship provision was withdrawn before the bill passed.

Even so, Wilson insisted, Authority to exercise censorship over the press is absolutely necessary to the public safety. This newspaper had solidly backed Wilson on other national issues, but our editorials then match our position today: The president was as wrong as he could be.

The Supreme Court has consistently viewed prior restraint of the press as unconstitutional, a position most notably affirmed when President Richard Nixons administration sought to prevent The New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers in 1971, citing the 1917 Espionage Act.

The concern in 1917 was that reporters covering the war might come across secret information about troop movements, intelligence and strategies that could make it into print. Those were all valid concerns.

But several months into World War I, this newspaper noted, there had not been a single case of secret information being divulged, either accidentally or deliberately. Reporters and editors were capable of performing their jobs and being patriots at the same time, a June 1917 Post-Dispatch editorial said. Autocracies thrive when the press is muzzled, it added.

These issues have arisen anew in recent years as government leakers like Edward Snowden and Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning stole top secret electronic files and dumped them on reporters. News organizations awkwardly had to self-censor, deciding which items were too sensitive for publication.

Trump seems less concerned about publication of classified information than about being embarrassed by reports of his own actions and words. Prior restraint is banned because such extraordinary powers cannot be entrusted to presidents under news media scrutiny.

The public might not always like what the news media reports, but the freedoms we enjoy in this country would be a shell of what they are today if the original Espionage Act, as embraced by Wilson, had become law.

Read the original here:

Editorial: A century after Espionage Act, censorship temptation remains - STLtoday.com

Nude feminist art exhibition in Israel stirs up censorship – i24NEWS

In a public space, the human body has the potential to shock and offend. For hundreds of years, artists have used nudity to express ideas, feelings, and even to make political statements.

Last summer, the art collective INDECLINE covertly installed naked statues of US President Donald Trump in several cities across the United States. The project, titled The Emperor Has No Balls, gained worldwide attention and drew crowds of onlookers (many of whom posed for selfies with the statues).

Another example is the photography of Spencer Tunick. The world-renowned artist gained fame for his pictures featuring tens of thousands of naked people posing simultaneously in striking locations around the globe. Through decades of work, he has had several run-ins with authorities during his photoshoots over public nudity.

These days the issue of the bare body in art is stirring up controversy in Israel as well.

A new exhibition at the Mane Katz Museum in Haifa - Chana Orloff: Feminist Sculpture in Israel - recently opened its doors to the public. A trailblazer, Orloff was one of Israels first female sculptors.

Today we dont really think about the obstacles a female sculptor had to face back in the day, curator Svetlana Reingold told i24NEWS. This is what makes Chana Orloff a great artist and is also why her contribution to womens art is so important.

Many of the artworks on display show the female body in an unconventional light, highlighting a feminist perspective.

Like sculptor Ronit Baranga, whose work Tree of Life depicts a woman with breast cancer emerging from a bowl-like structure.

My work here looks at the female body and how it combats illness specifically breast cancer, Baranga explained. My sculpture was inspired by a woman who is very close to me and whom I care deeply about.

Though Barangas sculpture shies away from showing nudity, she believes artists should be able to use the human body in their work with no issue.

Nudity is not pornographic or sexual, it is something that serves an artistic purpose.

But others in Israel disagree, with some in the government arguing that nakedness is inappropriate at state-sponsored cultural events.

Israels controversial Culture Minister Miri Regev recently threatened to defund the countrys top culture festival over performances featuring full frontal nudity.

I oppose funding creative works that are harmful to the public in the state of Israel and to its foundational values, Regev said at the opening of the Israel Festival last month. Its destructive and harmful.

I will not support nude shows, she said over jeers from the crowd.

Many in the Israeli art scene are reluctant to discuss Regevs statements or her possible impact on cultural programming.

When i24NEWS asked the curator of the Chana Orloff exhibit what she thought about Regevs recent declarations, she shut down the discussion.

This whole topic is very annoying, Reingold argued. I dont think we need to get into this.

While Regev did not intervene directly in the case of the Haifa exhibition, it seems her influence is being felt anyway.

Vered Sivan is one of the artists featured at the Mane Katz Museum. Her performance piece titled Plasma has been featured in New York art galleries several times in the past.

In the work, Sivan slowly covers a live model with synthetic thread. The performance culminates with the model standing up and emerging naked from the pile of yarn.

But in Haifa, the performer was forced to remain clothed after the Mane Katz Musem refused to allow full nudity.

In a telephone interview with i24NEWS, Sivan said she was surprised when the museum made the request for the model to be covered, noting it was the first time in years her live model had to wear clothes.

The order to censor an art performance did not come directly from Regev, but some in the art world may already be following the culture ministers lead.

Maya Margit is a culture correspondent at i24NEWS. You can follow her on Twitter @mayamargit for the latest updates on the art scene in Israel.

Go here to read the rest:

Nude feminist art exhibition in Israel stirs up censorship - i24NEWS

To tackle online crime, Israel approves web censorship law – The Times of Israel

The Knesset on Monday approved a law allowing the court-ordered blocking or removal of internet sites promoting criminal or terror activity, marking the first introduction of laws restricting the internet in Israel.

We are closing an enforcement gap of many years during which the existing law was disconnected from the migration of crime to the internet, said Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan, whose office oversees the Israel Police. The new law will give the police the necessary tools to fight criminals, felons, and inciters who have moved their activities online.

The law targets illegal gambling websites, prostitution and child pornography advertisements, online dealing of hard drugs and synthetic cannabinoids and the websites of terror groups.

Clearing the Knesset plenum in its second and third reading with 63 lawmakers in favor and 10 opposed, the law stipulates that a district court judge who has received special permission by the court president may issue an order to internet providers to block websites linked to criminal activity.

Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan attends a meeting at the Knesset, Jerusalem, May 17, 2017. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

An internet provider that does not comply with the court order will be imprisoned for two years, the law says.

The court order may only be issued if it is essential to halting the criminal activity taking place online; or essential to prevent the exposure of the Israeli user to an activity that, would it be done in Israel, would be a crime, and the websites activity has some connection to Israel; or if the website belongs to a terror organization.

In certain cases, if the owner of the website is Israel-based, the court may order the provider to seek the websites removal, rather than merely restricting access, it said.

The courts may also order search engines to remove the websites from their search results and may rely on classified government testimony to make their decision. All affected parties must be present in court, the law said, unless they were summoned and failed to appear.

Due to warnings from rights groups that the law poses a slippery slope toward additional censorship, the final version of the legislation dictates that rights groups may appeal the decisions. It said the Justice Ministry must report to the Knessets Justice, Law and Constitution Committee once a year the number of requests for court orders to restrict internet content and for what crimes.

In addition to the law, lawmakers over the past year have been seeking so far unsuccessfully to advance legislation for court-mandated removal of Facebook content calling for violence against Israelis, as well as a law that would restrict access to online pornography.

The Knesset plenum on Monday also approved a bill in its first reading that would allow police to block cellphone users from their service providers for 30-day periods if there is a reasonable basis to assume the device is being used for criminal activity such as drug-dealing or prostitution. The bill was approved with 27 MKs in favor, with none opposed, and requires two more readings to become law.

Link:

To tackle online crime, Israel approves web censorship law - The Times of Israel

Free Speech Bill Sponsor Caught Stealing Anti-GOP Sign – Patch.com


Patch.com
Free Speech Bill Sponsor Caught Stealing Anti-GOP Sign
Patch.com
Free Speech Bill Sponsor Caught Stealing Anti-GOP Sign. BROOKFIELD, WI A Republican lawmaker admitted on Friday that he stole an 80-year-old man's anti-GOP sign from the State Capitol Building under the guise of upholding the "decorum" of the ...

Read more here:

Free Speech Bill Sponsor Caught Stealing Anti-GOP Sign - Patch.com

Column: The manufactured free speech crisis – The Detroit News

John Patrick Leary Published 11:04 p.m. ET July 16, 2017 | Updated 11:04 p.m. ET July 16, 2017

The recent flurry of activity on the crisis of campus free speech is manufactured, Leary writes.(Photo: David Guralnick / The Detroit News)Buy Photo

The Michigan Legislature, like the U.S. Senate, is a safe space for right-wing groupthink. Thats the conclusion Ive drawn from a recent flurry of activity on the manufactured crisis of campus free speech in Lansing and Washington, D.C. A pair of bills recently introduced by Sen. Patrick Colbeck would direct state universities to ensure the fullest degree of intellectual freedom and free expression, and would then require them to suspend or expel student protesters who infringe upon another persons free speech rights. Colbecks bill is similar to proposed legislation in Wisconsin, Colorado, and North Carolina. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., Sen. Chuck Grassley recently concluded a Judiciary Committee hearing entitled Free Speech 101: The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses.

What is driving this concern with college activism? Conservatives have been in an uproar since a series of raucous protests against conservative speakers at campuses like the University of California, Berkeley, and Middlebury College in Vermont last year. In February, Milo Yiannopoulos, the disgraced former Breitbart.com editor, canceled a talk at Berkeley in the face of raucous demonstrations. The following month at Middlebury, student protesters interrupted a lecture by Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute Fellow and co-author of The Bell Curve, the book that argued that racial inequality is shaped by nonwhite peoples genetic makeup.

Grassley and Colbeck choose to read disruptive demonstrations like these as evidence of a pervasive crisis of free speech on campus. Grassley claimed that American colleges are becoming places of anti-Constitution indoctrination and censorship. His primary example of this dreadful development? Seventy percent of students today believe it is desirable to restrict the use of slurs and other language intentionally offensive to certain groups, he said. The First Amendment, to Grassley, protects Americans God-given right to be cruel in public. Colbeck echoes this assessment.

The Bill of Rights should be next on Colbecks summer reading list. One can argue about tactics, but Berkeley and Middlebury students had every right to loudly, disruptively, even rudely protest Yiannopoulos and Murray. The First Amendment makes no demands on politeness. And Yiannopoulos and Murray, in turn, had every right to give their lectures without state repression. But contrary to popular belief in the GOP, the First Amendment does not guarantee anyone, right or left, a platform or a polite audience.

Whats more, Colbeck seems not to recognize that the First Amendment applies to speakers he doesnt like leftist protesters, in this case as well as those he does. Senate Bill 349 stipulates that protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity are not permitted. Violations of this vaguely-worded rule what does infringe mean? would result in either suspensions or expulsions for student demonstrators speaking out on the issues that matter to them. Under the law, student activists would have recourse to a disciplinary hearing and a lawyer if they have enough pizza money laying around to hire one, that is. Colbeck may have read 1984, but he has learned all the wrong lessons it. It is Orwellian in the extreme to propose a free-speech tribunal, presided over by college authorities, as a remedy for the suppression of free speech.

The stated reasons for the GOPs interest in regulating college campus activism dont stand up to scrutiny. What, then, are their unstated reasons?

Politics. Student activists, the clear targets of the bill, are on the left. Senate Bill 350 stipulates that universities must not shield students from protected speech, if they find the ideas and opinions expressed unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. I agree as does every faculty member I know. (Unlike Sen. Grassley, however, I dont consider racial slurs to be ideas.) But if Colbeck were serious about nurturing unpopular or controversial opinions in college, then he would be alarmed at the rise of neo-McCarthyist groups like Turning Point USA, which operates a Professor Watchlist that claims to expose and document leftist professors across the country. He would be disappointed that George Cicciarello-Maher, a Drexel University political scientist on this list, faces possible dismissal over a series of tweets that earned the ire of an right-wing outrage machine on social media.

But you will not hear a word about them, or many others like them, from Colbeck or Grassley. Conservatives, no longer content to undermine public colleges by starving them of funding, now seem to prefer that the government regulate their intellectual lives more directly all in the name of free speech, of course. And in the name of freedom of speech and thought, we shouldnt let them.

John Patrick Leary is an assistant professor of English at Wayne State University.

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

See original here:

Column: The manufactured free speech crisis - The Detroit News

Why This Filmmaker Will Testify Before Congress on Free Speech – LifeZette

When Congress invites a comedian and filmmaker to testify about free speech on college campuses you know theres a problem.

On July 27, Adam Carolla will address the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits and Administrative Rules, and the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs about the declining acceptance of free speech on college campuses in America.

Also invited to speak to members of Congress are conservative author and commentator Ben Shapiro and former ACLU President Nadine Strossen. The official title of the hearing is "Challenges to Freedom of Speech on College Campuses."

Carolla is actually a fitting person to speak to the groups, as he's currently working on a film called "No Safe Spaces," along with conservative commentator Dennis Prager. The two men go to college campuses that promote such notions assafe spacesto debate and dig into the truth of what's happening on today's college campuses.

Free speech is a serious problem on today's colleges. At University of California, Berkeley, riots broke out when commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak as well as when Ann Coulter's appearance was announced earlier this year.

College is meant to be a place at which young people learn more about themselves and the world, through the representation and discussion of free ideas and points of view. There should be endless amounts of talk and free forms of debate about a variety of issues.

Related: Four TV Shows You Should Be Watching

Unfortunately, the stories coming from today's college campuses tell the world these institutions of higher education are not truly preparing young people to exist in the real world.

There are no "safe spaces" in the real world and young people need to get used to hearing and engaging in speech with which they disagree.

Read the original here:

Why This Filmmaker Will Testify Before Congress on Free Speech - LifeZette

The latest idiotic attack on free speech: Opinions as violence – Washington Examiner

Writing in the New York Times Sunday Review, Professor Lisa Barrett of Northeastern University posed a question this weekend:

"When is speech violence?"

Barrett, who specializes in psychology, tries to answer the question with two key points.

First, "Offensiveness is not bad for your body and brain. ... When you're forced to engage a position you strongly disagree with, you learn something about the other perspective as well as your own. The process feels unpleasant, but it's a good kind of stress temporary and not harmful to your body and you reap the longer-term benefits of learning."

No problem there. Stress is something we can internalize and compensate for.

But then Barrett warns against "long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that's the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain." What kind of stress is Barrett talking about?

Milo Yiannopoulos.

The professor explains that "it's reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering."

Conversely, Barrett says, Charles Murray is worthy of our ears because he offers meaningful debate.

In this juxtaposition of Milo and Murray, Barrett wants us to regard her argument as nuanced and intellectual.

We should not do so.

After all, there's a moral and intellectual rot at play here. While Barrett might deride Yiannopoulos as a "hatemonger" who has no interest in the exchange of ideas, his supporters clearly believe the opposite. Whether defending Donald Trump or challenging college campuses to allow controversial speakers, to them, Yiannopoulos does serve social debate.

And that speaks to the broader issue here.

At its most basic level, Barrett's argument is neither intelligent nor constructive. It is simply hyper-arrogant. The professor believes her viewpoint of stress and speakers should be a guide for all society.

The opposite is true. Indeed, Barrett is exactly why the Constitution grants such latitude to the conduct of free speech. If not, a speaker's appeal or discomfort will be viewed subjectively by each individual. The Constitution represents the truth that the more individual viewpoints exchanged, the more opportunity for worthwhile social discourse.

Barrett concludes with a call to action "we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence."

Well, from the prospective of my brain cells, Barrett's argument is a form of violence. Not because it threatens me, but because its arrogant idiocy causes me painful stress.

Yet unlike Barrett, I believe freedom of speech is too important to be subjugated to my misplaced emotions.

Read this article:

The latest idiotic attack on free speech: Opinions as violence - Washington Examiner

Thuringia leader slams neo-Nazi concert free speech protection – Deutsche Welle

"Sad" and "helpless" - that was how Thuringia State Premier Bodo Ramelow of the Left Party described his emotions after right-wing radicals chanted "Sieg heil" at the "Rock against Being Swamped by Foreigners" event on Saturday. In an interview with the eastern German regional state television broadcaster MDR, Ramelow said that measures needed to be taken to prevent such concerts from enjoying the same protections and advantages as political protests.

"I find it intolerable that they staged a giant right-wing extremist rock festival under the guise of a demonstration and earned money for their political network while all the costs were passed on to taxpayers," Ramelow said.

The German constitution guarantees the right of people to assemble, and the state bears the costs of police presences to maintain order at political demonstrations. Ramelow suggests rewriting those rules to exclude concerts like the one in Themar, which he cast as a commercial event that had attracted 6,000 violent right-wing extremists from all over Europe.

Ramelow says he doesn't want taxpayers footing the bill for such concerts

"I think we have to define the right to assembly precisely enough that in future local authorities, licensing offices and courts don't see things like this in terms of freedom of speech and treat a gigantic concert as a nice neighborhood demonstration," Ramelow said. "We calculate that it took in between 300,000 and 400,000 euros ($344,000-$458,000)."

Thuringia has the option of modifying Germany's federal Law of Assembly as states such as Berlin and Bavaria have done. And while it is unclear whether Ramelow's statements were an off-the-cuff response or a serious call to action, it is certain that Thuringia is the center of the right-wing extremist music scene in Germany.

Right-wing hot spot

It is no coincidence that Saturday's concert was staged in this part of the country. People in the formerly communist eastern part of Germany are generally more receptive to right-wing extremism than elsewhere. Henning Flad, project directorof the Federal Working Group for the Church and Right-Wing Radicalism, says Thuringia has been a perennial "hot spot" for right-wing extremist music.

"It always had particularly active, ambitious structures of people who organized concerts like this," Flad told DW. "It has always been an infrastructural point of connection."

"Guerilla marketing" is how marketing strategists have labeled stickers that can be distributed quickly, anonymously and just about everywhere. They are also used for branding, publicity slogans and concert announcements - and as a means for spreading rather dubious political messages.

The exhibition documents to what extent stickers have been used as a means of political agitation - well before the Nazis exploited them for spreading their racist propaganda. It aims to illustrate just what the omnipresent stickers can do. The anti-Semitic slogans in the picture managed to get stuck in people's heads during the Nazi era.

The Nazis purposefully used their anti-Semitic stickers in order to spread their hate messages among the people and on the streets. Immediately after Nazis' rise to power in 1933, SA and SS paratroopers pasted stickers meant to intimidate the Jewish population on Jewish-run shops all over Berlin.

Jewish organizations and associations resorted to the same means in order to defend themselves against the agitation of the Nazis. Throughout the early 1930s, they continued to fight back with their own anti-propaganda, printing stickers like this one of the "Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith." It reads: "The Nazis are our disaster."

During the era from 1933 to 1945, anti-Semitic stickers even came to be used for personal messages and love letters. Like political stamps, they often decorated the backs of envelopes so that the addressee would immediately grasp what political attitude the addressor intended to espouse.

Political stickers were also used excessively in Germany during the 1970s and 1980s. Long before social media came to be invented, these little messages embodied the political statements of an entire generation. A large part of the exhibition originates from the private collection of Wolfgang Haney, who collected stickers dating from the late 19th century through the present.

Although focusing on the historical context, the exhibition also takes a critical look at current affairs. The debate on refugee policy has triggered the production of stickers, some of which have frightening historical parallels. The exhibition runs through July 20, 2016, and has been put together in cooperation with the Research Center for Anti-Semitism at Berlin's Technical University.

Author: Heike Mund / ad

The organizer of Saturday's concert, Tommy Frenck, who owns an online clothing shop featuring neo-Nazi items and has the word "Aryan" tattooed around his neck, comes from Thuringia. The owner of the property where the festival was held, Bodo Dressel, the mayor of a neighboring town, was until recently a member of the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD), who was criticized from within his own party for being too extreme.

Flad says that there has been a small comeback in right-wing extremist music in the past two years, "which thanks to this well-attended concert has become more visible." Jan Raabe, perhaps Germany's leading expert on the radical right and music, says there are some 200 extreme right-wing bands and singer-songwriters active in the country. He puts the number of people in the scene, narrowly defined, at around 15,000.

"What we, of course, don't know is how many young people have this sort of music on MP3 players and otherdevices," Raabe told DW.

Thuringia is the center of Germany's right-wing radical music scene

A 'peaceful counteroffensive'

Local authorities initially refused to grant permits for Saturday's event in Themar, but that refusal was overturned by a higher Thuringia authority. Organizers are planning another far-right event for July 29 with the title "Rock for Identity."

The mayor of Themar, Hubert Bse, organized a protest action with other local leaders against last Saturday's concert and says he'll do the same if the upcoming festival is allowed to go ahead.

"It would be terrible if we didn't come together in a peaceful counteroffensive," Bse told DW. "We don't want this sort of thing and are of the opinion that, in terms of content, it has nothing to do with Themar."

Bse said he couldn't say whether he supported Ramelow's ideas without knowing the details. But he added that his town, which has just over 3,000 residents, was too small to cope easily with large-scale right-wing extremist music festivals.

"In general, we should ask whether events of this size, which significantly exceed the number of inhabitants, should be considered examples of people assembling," Bse said. "We had 1,000 police officers here. In the end it all costs a lot of money."

To change the law - or better enforce it?

Video footage from the festival, which was shared on social media, shows a crowd shouting "Sieg Heil."

Critics have questioned why police officers didn't intervene and shut down the concert since expressions of support for National Socialism are forbidden in Germany.

The Central Council of Jews in Germany praised the community of Themar for "bravely" opposing the concert and said it agreed with Ramelow that a "radical right-wing music concert should not be classed as a political demonstration covered by the freedom to assemble."

But Ramelow's suggestion also attracted considerable criticism from detractors who argued that it would do nothing to combat the problem. Raabe, for instance, said he didn't see any "direct advantages" of changing laws on assembly for combating right-wing extremism and the associated music scene. Existing laws, he proposed, should be better enforced.

"What does it mean to say that political events enjoy special protection?" Raabe asked. "I would like to assume that the law is also enforced at political events. Moreover, football matches aren't political events, and yet football clubs are required to pay for police security. That isn't the real problem."

The residents of Themar now must wait to found out whether another event will be held in their town in two weeks time.

Read more here:

Thuringia leader slams neo-Nazi concert free speech protection - Deutsche Welle