Select Page ::

Brian Stelter Rebuffs MRC ‘Censorship’ Claim By Revealing Mark Levin Declined CNN Invite – Mediaite

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

Earlier this week, conservative media watchdog Media Research Center published a post about right-wing radio host Mark Levins latest book and their claim that the establishment media is ignoring Levin despite the book being a runaway best-seller.

To make their case, they pointed to the manner in which Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) was treated when his last book was released, claiming that nobody called up Levin for an interview, effectively censoring him:

They will allow a discussion of public policy as long as it matches their worldview. Think Sen. Al Franken. He is no Mark Levin intellectually, but thats irrelevant. His book came out a few weeks ago and he was the progressives toast of the town, celebrated all over the news shows, public TV and radio, and the late-night comedy shows. The Washington Post and New York Times rolled out 1,300-word rave reviews.

But once again, Levin is being shunned by the thought police. Witness that though its a runaway best-seller, now seven days consecutively, the establishment media have censored him completely, with not a single interview granted.

Aside from the fact that Levin has made several appearances on Fox News over the past two weeks, including spots on Watters World and Fox & Friends over the weekend apparently the MRC doesnt count the highest-rated cable news network as part of the establishment it appears theres one media personality who is disputing the conservative watchdogs take.

In his newsletter last night, CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter pointed out that he saw the MRCs claims of censorship as an opening to get Levin to finally appear on his show Reliable Sources. According to Stelter, however, Levin wanted nothing to do with CNN or his program. Stelter wrote:

I saw this as an opportunity to re-up our months-old requests for Levin to come on Reliable Sources. Surely, since MRC says hes been censored, hed jump at any chance at a non-Fox interview? But when I emailed him the offer on Thursday, he replied, Are you kidding me? Buddy, Ive zero respect for CNN or you. Youre a propagandist.

So, is it really censorship when one man, who already has access to a large platform, refuses to appear on certain outlets because he feels they are propaganda? Doesnt seem like it.

[image via screengrab]

Follow Justin Baragona on Twitter: @justinbaragona

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Brian Stelter Rebuffs MRC 'Censorship' Claim By Revealing Mark Levin Declined CNN Invite - Mediaite

Philippine Senator Moves to Criminalize ‘Fake News’ Could This Lead to Censorship? – Global Voices Online

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

Those who spread fake news through the social media are also liable under the proposed bill. Flickr photo by Stanley Cabigas (CC BY 2.0)

Philippine Senator Joel Villanueva filed a billin late June that would criminalize the malicious distribution of false news. Media groups are warning it could lead to censorship.

Villanuevas Senate Bill No. 1492 or An Act Penalizing the Malicious Distribution of False News and Other Related Violations defines fake news as those which either intend to cause panic, division, chaos, violence, and hate, or those which exhibit a propaganda to blacken or discredit one's reputation.

The billassigns penalties to those who publish fake news and even to those who share it, potentially criminalizing social media users who may not fully understand the implications of simply sharing an articlewith friends.

Prison sentencing under the proposed law depends on the status of the entity who publishes or spreads the so-called fake news. A private individual found guilty of publishing or spreading fake news can face a prison term of up to five years. Agovernment official's sentence would be double that of a private individual. And a media entity or social media platform spreading fake news could be detained for up to 20 years.

Villanueva explained the rationalebehind these penalties:

The effect of fake news should not be taken lightly. Fake news creates impression and beliefs based on false premises leading to division, misunderstanding and further exacerbating otherwise strenuous relations.

He added that the passage of the bill will encourage our citizens, especially public officers, to be more responsible and circumspect in creating, distributing and/or sharing news.

Journalism Professor Danilo Arao reviewed the four-page bill and summarized his objections:

Definition of false news or information under Sec. 2 is so broad that it includes practically anything perceived to cause, among others, panic and hate (obviously hard to define)

Media organizations could be subjected to censorship under Sec. 3 of the proposed law because even fair commentary or investigative reports that are perceived to tarnish the reputation of a public official could be flagged as false news.

Arao further disputed theneed for a special law mentioning public officials, reasoning that they are already assumed to be following a code of conduct.

In a TV interview, a spokesperson fromthe Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility said the proposed legislation is unnecessary because Philippine libel law already addresses the issues raised by the senator.

A member of the House of Representatives proposed that instead of criminalizing fake news, the congress should work to approve a pending Freedom of Information bill that he says would helpcounter the irresponsible sharing of false information on media and the Internet.

AlterMidya, a network of independent media groups, denounced Villanuevas bill as irresponsible, unnecessary and dangerous attempt to impose a form of censorship on free expression and press freedom.

How does one distinguish between a false report based on an honest mistake and one maliciously spread through print, broadcasting and online?

It would endow the bureaucracy with the arbitrary power to declare any media issuance contrary to government interests as fake news, while approving, loudly or otherwise, even the most fraudulent report from either private or State media so long as it favors whatever regime is in power.

Veteran journalist Luis Teodoro reminded the senator that there are better ways to fight fake news:

Accountability in the exercise of the right to communicate is best enforced, not by the State, but by the media community itself as well as by a public media-literate and responsible enough to detect and not to spread fake news.

Philippine Star newspaper columnist Jarius Bondoc warned that if the bill becomeslaw, it could be abused by authorities who want to silence critics:

The bill is prone to abuse. A bigot administration can apply it to suppress the opposition. By prosecuting critics as news fakers, the government can stifle legitimate dissent. Whistleblowers, not the grafters, would be imprisoned and fined for daring to talk. Investigative journalists would cram the jails.

This is not the first time that a Philippine legislator has filed a bill that seeks to address the negative impact of fake news. Early this year, the Speaker of the House of Representatives proposedregulatingsocial media to prevent the spread of fake accounts and fake information.

Continue reading here:

Philippine Senator Moves to Criminalize 'Fake News' Could This Lead to Censorship? - Global Voices Online

How anti-choice zealots cry censorship whenever they are challenged – Media Matters for America

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

Media Matters for America

How anti-choice zealots cry censorship whenever they are challenged
Media Matters for America
Most recently, Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, appeared on the June 26 edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight and claimed that Twitter was censoring Live Action's ads. Beyond alleging that Twitter was biased against the anti ...

Read the original here:

How anti-choice zealots cry censorship whenever they are challenged - Media Matters for America

UW Regents To Vote On Resolution Affirming Free Speech – Wisconsin Public Radio News

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

Wisconsin Public Radio News

UW Regents To Vote On Resolution Affirming Free Speech
Wisconsin Public Radio News
The University of Wisconsin System regents plan to vote on a resolution affirming their commitment to free speech as legislators consider a bill that would punish UW students who disrupt campus speakers. The Republican bill would require the regents to ...

and more »

See the original post here:

UW Regents To Vote On Resolution Affirming Free Speech - Wisconsin Public Radio News

Campus free speech bills advanced around the country — but Texas’ bills died in committee – Chron.com

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Houston Chronicle

Keep going for more images from Richard Spencer's controversial speech at Texas A&M.

Students sing the Aggie War Hymn in front of riot police outside the Memorial Student Center as they protest white nationalist Richard Spencer speaking at Texas A&M University Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016 in College Station.

Keep going for more images from Richard Spencer's controversial speech at Texas A&M.

Students sing the Aggie War Hymn in front of riot police outside the Memorial Student Center as they protest white

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face off with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

A flier speaks out against Richard Spencer at Texas A&M on Tuesday.

Protesters march at the Memorial Student Center at A&M on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

A woman is taken into custody as law enforcement officers confront protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Demonstrators march at Texas A&M in College Station as they protest white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators argue at a march protesting white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Kortland Finley, of Dallas, left, argues with a man at a protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers stand by as demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Steven Anderson signsan Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Susana Magdalena Mata signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M graduate student Harsimran Singh signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's visit to the College Station campus on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs the Aggies United board on Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in College Station.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

Rabbi Matt Rosenberg questions of white nationalist leader Richard Spencer at a news conference before Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

See more here:

Campus free speech bills advanced around the country -- but Texas' bills died in committee - Chron.com

NYT Columnist Lindy West Debuts With Clueless Rant Against Free Speech – The Federalist

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

On the Sunday before the 4th of Julya celebration of our nations independence from a regime that, among other odious acts, criminalized the criticism of its monarchcommentator Lindy West exhorted us to Save Free Speech From Trolls. This doltish ramble is Wests debut as a weekly opinion columnist in the New York Times, suggesting that Wests sense of self-respect and that of the Times somehow correlate inversely.

West, wielding an intellect shaped by long hours of fighting with people on social media, bounteous self-righteousness, and little else, begins by recalling the halcyon days when she thought it silly to be called a politically correct, anti-free-speech censor. She muses, I was not the government. I literally could not censor anyone. As if being a government was the only way to go about it.

But then Trump got elected, and it didnt seem so silly anymore. Since then, the anti-free-speech charge, applied broadly to cultural criticism and especially to feminist discourse, has proliferated, writes West. It is nurtured largely by men on the internet who used to nurse their grievances alone, in disparate, insular communities around the web mens rights forums, video game blogs. Gradually, these communities have drifted together into one great aggrieved, misogynist gyre and bonded over a common interest: pretending to care about freedom of speech so they can feel self-righteous while harassing marginalized people for having opinions.

Thus begins a veritable manual on how to preach to the social justice warrior choir.

West possesses a mysterious gift of psychic progressivism that lets her see into the hearts of men and unearth the real intentions behind their stated ones. Or so it would seem. These men are only pretending to care about freedom of speech, for example. They really want to harass marginalized people for having opinions. They want to feel self-righteous while doing so. It is just that simple they have no legitimate concerns at all, of that West is certain.

Further on in her column, she writes, Nothing is more important than the First Amendment, the internet men say, provided you interpret the First Amendment exactly the same way they do: as a magic spell that means no one you dont like is allowed to criticize you. She adds, The law does not share that interpretation, as if someone besides herself had made it.

Theyre weaponizing free speech to maintain their cultural dominance, she says, obsequiously quoting Anita Sarkeesian, another psychic progressive.

That flushing noise you hear is the sound of productive dialogue disappearing into the rhetorical toilet. Identitarians like West have never grasped that it is impossible to found a good-faith discussion on bad-faith premises such as these. There are great numbers of principled people who worry sincerely, and justifiably, about attacks on the First Amendment in the name of social justice. The veracity of that sincerity is not up for debate any more than Wests Ill be happy to prove mine right after she proves hers.

West describes herself as having made on occasion some relatively innocuous bit of cultural criticism like, say, that racism is bad and artists should try not to make racist art if they dont want to be called racists. Sarkeesian, she says mildly, started a Kickstarter campaign to fund a series of YouTube videos critiquing the representation of women in video games and issued some precise, rigorously argued opinions about the relative loincloth sizes of male and female video game avatars. For this and nothing more, they were answered with untold abuse, as she frames it.

A typical example of Wests innocuousness is this sentence inan essay she wrote for the Guardian: As we all know from the anguished howls of quivering white people that erupt any time a person of colour expresses any dissatisfaction about being murdered by police, disenfranchised by voter suppression, trapped in cycles of systemic poverty and/or treated like a criminal when theyre just trying to buy a horrible, $49 mauve bodysack, nobody in the world is ever racist, except for actual KKK members and the ghost of George Wallace. Exaggeration for effect is a time-honored literary device, but West employs it so often that one gets the sense that its not only for effect, but to fill the world of her prose with un-woke whites that justify every last bit of her disdain for those who dont share her take on these issues.

Sarkeesian, meanwhile, has been fairly criticized for subscribing to a reductionist form of feminism that relies on similar blanket damnations. What West doesnt tell you is that some of this criticism has come from other feminists such as Liana Kerzner, who were consequently subjected to online harassment from Sarkeesians defenders.

West mentions that Sarkeesian recently appeared at a public talk only to find the first two rows of seats stacked with her online harassers, leering up at her, filming her on their phones. She elides the part where Sarkeesian addressed the man who organized the filming, If you Google my name on YouTube you get shitheads like this dude who are making these dumb-assed videos. They just say the same shit over and over again. I hate to give you attention because youre a garbage human. Sarkeesian has always been more interested in declaration than persuasion.

None of this justifies threats of violence and deathnor doxxing, criminal harassment, or any other abuse that West or Sarkeesian have had to endure beyond mockery of their arguments. But the truth of the matter is a more complicated picture than the one painted by West, and it doesnt flatter the author so well.

West claims that the true goal [of defenders of free speech] has always been to ensure that if anyone is determining the ways that we collectively choose to restrict our own speech in the name of values, they are the ones setting the limits. She knows this because 8,000 people signed a petition to have Sarkeesian arrested for violating the Logan Act when she spoke at the UN. They didnt get Kathy Griffins back when she pulled that gag with Trumps severed head. They didnt decry the threats against Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor after she called Trump a racist and sexist megalomaniac.

Except that much of GamerGate thought that the Logan Act stunt was indefensible. Reason writer Robby Soave called out the social media mob that went after Griffin. Samantha Harris of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education came out in support of Professor Taylor.

Besides, we can play this sorry game with West: what are we to make of her commitment to free speech and combating sexism given her utter silence about the assault on Allison Stanger? I could speculate tendentiously about Wests real motives, but Im inclined to think that even Wests capacity for outrage is finite, and like most pundits she tends to reserve her public expression of it for calamities in the news cycle that bolster her own side.

The irony of this essay is that its main point that all this defense of free speech is really about deflecting criticism is coming out of a camp of left-identitarianism that spent much of the last decade answering criticism with charges of bigotry. Even a public figure as minuscule as myself has to put up with accusations of racism, sexism, and fascism for taking issue with the absurdities put forth as Gospel by certain progressives.

The fruit of their harvest is the alt-right. We might have gotten the alt-right anyway, but a style of argument that came to be known among people who study the SJW phenomenon as point-and-shriek left little room for rational engagement. Instead, some people took it upon themselves to find out how loud they could get the left-identitarians to shriek. Pretty loud, it turns out, and its kind of fun to make them do it. Thus we find ourselves in a situation described eloquently by Jacob Siegel: The cultural Left became enforcers of rectitude while elements on the right developed an aesthetics of transgression. Cue the cartoon frogs.

But the identity-politics crowd has never been able to deal very well with internal criticism either. It turns out that liberals and leftists enjoy getting accused of racism, sexism, and fascism even less than libertarians and conservatives, resulting in a backchannel culture described by Freddie deBoer, in which even the believers are convinced that stepping out of line with the constant search for offense will render them permanently unemployable, even though they are themselves progressive people. That ultimately harms progressive interests as surely as anything perpetrated by the right.

West should try to understand that our protectiveness of the First Amendment as a legal doctrine falls out of our concern for free speech as a societal norm, and that West is eroding the latter by conflating the two and attributing foul motives to us for wanting to defend them. My politics and Wests likely have nothing in common. But could we at least agree that a society that harbors fundamental doubts about the value of free expression is likely to turn into one that neither of us want?

The rest is here:

NYT Columnist Lindy West Debuts With Clueless Rant Against Free Speech - The Federalist

Hinman’s ABEAN Argument Part 3: More Objections – Patheos (blog)

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

ABEAN Contains Twelve Statements

Although I cannot provide a comprehensive critique of Hinmans ABEAN argument in just two blog posts (of reasonable length), I can at least briefly touch on each of the dozen statements in that argument.

[NOTE: ABEAN is an acronym that refers tothe claim that some Aspect of Being is Eternal And Necessary.]

The statements in ABEAN are numbered (1) through (11), but there is an additional statement that Hinman should have made, but that he did not make clearly and explicitly. There is a little bit of text in brackets following premise (4):

[=GOB]

There is a similar notation following premise (6):

[=SON]

The notation following premise (6) merely indicates an acronym that will be used as shorthand for the phrasea Sense Of the Numinous, a term that was already being used in premise (6). So, the notation following (6) does not assert anything or add anything to (6).

However, the notation following premise (4) asserts a substantive claim, which Hinman ought to have spelled out as a separate premise:

(A) The Ground of Being is identical with anyaspect of being that is eternal and necessary.

The notation [=GOB] does NOT merely specify an acronym for a term already present in the argument; rather, it introduces a new and additional concept into the argument, a concept that is very unclear. Since premise (A) includes at least threeunclear terms (The Ground of Being, any aspect of being that is, and eternal), I judge this premise to be VERY unclear.

The ABEAN Argument is VERY UNCLEAR

The main problem with the ABEAN argument is that it is UNCLEAR. This is the same problem that I encountered repeatedly in my analysis and evaluation of Norman Geislers case for God in his bookWhen Skeptics Ask. The problem is not so much that ABEAN uses false premises or invalid inferences. The problem is that nearly every claim in the argument is unclear, making it nearly impossible to rationally evaluate the argument.

In my view, ten out of the twelve statements that make up ABEAN are VERY UNCLEAR. Only one statement in ABEAN is clear, and there is one statement that is somewhat unclear (but less than very unclear). So, in my view, more than 80% of the statements in ABEAN are VERY UNCLEAR, and less than 10% of the statements in ABEAN are clear (only 1 statement out of 12). Given the prevalence of VERY UNCLEAR statements, it is reasonable to characterize the whole argument as being VERY UNCLEAR, and thus for all practical intents and purposes it is impossible to rationally evaluate ABEAN. As it stands, ABEANis little more than a heap of words without much intellectual or philosophical significance.

If Mr. Hinman were to provideclear definitions for the many problematic words and phrases in his ABEAN argument, then it would be possible to rationally evaluate this argument, but I suspect that if he could have provided such definitions then he would have done so already. So, Im doubtful that he will be providing clear definitions for all of the many problematic words and phrases in ABEAN.

Here is my view of the general unclarity of Hinmans ABEAN argument (click on image below for a betterview of the chart):

The unclarity that I based this chart on is the unclarity of the meaning of several problematic words and phrases:

The terms necessary and contingent are also problematic words, but Hinman provides fairly clear definitions of these two words, which in turn made it possible for me to evaluate the inference from premises (1) and (4) to premise (5) as being an INVALID inference (see Part 2 of this series). The one time that Hinman provides clear definitions, makes it clear that ABEAN is a bad argument. This is why, I suspect, that Geisler and Hinman are so unclear and fuzzy-headed when they argue for God. When they think and reason clearly, their arguments for God fall apart.

I judged premises (1), (2), (4), (A), (5), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (11) to be VERY UNCLEAR because they each contain at least two different unclear words or phrases, which Hinman failed to adequatelydefine or explain.

I judged premise (6) to be UNCLEAR, but not to be VERY UNCLEAR, because of the use of the phrase a sense of the numinous in that premise. Given the subjective nature of that concept, it would be difficult for anyone to provide a clear definition of that phrase, and Hinman did make a brief attempt to provide some clarification of this term, but his attempt was inadequate in my judgment. As it stands, this phrase is too vague to allow one to make a rational evaluation of the truth or falsehood of premises (7) or (8)with any degree of confidence.

How Many Possible Interpretations are there of ABEAN?

The easiest sort of unclarity to fix is ambiguity. There are eight different unclear words or phrases used in ABEAN. (NOTE: some of the unclear words and phrases in the list above are not used in the ABEAN argument, but are used in definitions of terms.) Most of these unclear words or phrases have MANYdifferent possible meanings, not just two. So, most of these unclear words or phrases have a more serious problem than that of being ambiguous between two alternative meanings.

But, for the sake of illustration, lets assume that all eight unclear words or phrases each have only two alternative meanings. Lets also assume that these words or phrases are consistently used with the same meaning inall premises where they occur. How many different possible interpretations of ABEAN wouldthere be, based on those assumptions? There would be 2 to the 8th power different interpretations of ABEAN:

2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 16 x 16 = 256 Different Possible Interpretations

There are well over two hundred different possible interpretations of ABEAN if the unclear words and phrases in the argument each have only two possible meanings. But most of the unclear words and phrases have a more serious problem of unclarity than this, so it would not be unreasonable to estimate that there is an average of three different possible meanings for each of the unclear words and phrases. How many possible interpretations of ABEAN would there be on that assumption? There would be 3 to the 8th power different interpretations of ABEAN:

3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 = 9 x 9 x 9 x 9 = 81 x 81 = 6,561 Different Possible Interpretations

Given these two estimates of the number of different possible interpretations of ABEAN, it is reasonable to conclude that it is very likely that there are more than 200 but less than 7,000 different possible interpretations of ABEAN. So, I would need at least 200 blog posts to adequately evaluate all of the various possible interpretations of ABEAN. Not gonna happen. Wouldnt be prudent. I have better things to do with my time.

One Premise in ABEAN is OK

Im OK with premise (3):

3. Something did not come from nothing.

The wording and clarity could be slightly improved:

3a. It is NOT the case that something came from nothing.

I accept this premise as true, although Im not entirely certain that it is true. I think it is based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and Im inclined to accept that principle (i.e. Every event has an explanation.)

A Couple of Other Problems with ABEAN

I havemany objections and concerns about ABEAN in addition to the basic problem of unclear words and phrases. But I will just mention two of those problems here. One objection concerns the statement that Hinman failed to make clearly and explicitly:

(A) The Ground of Beingis identical withanyaspect of being that is eternal and necessary.

Premise (4) asserts that Some aspect of being is eternal and necessary. The word some is ambiguous here, just like the word something as used by Aquinas and by Geisler in their arguments for God. What premise (4) actually means is this:

4a. Some aspect or aspects of being are eternal and necessary.

There is no reason or justification given for limiting the relevant aspects to just ONE aspect. So, we have, yet again, an ambiguity in quantification that leads to confusion and illogical inferences. If there are many aspects of being, and if more than one aspect of being is eternal and necessary, then that casts doubt on premise (A). If there are multiple aspects of being that are eternal and necessary, then it is doubtful that we ought to identify the Ground of Being with that collection of aspects.

This is particularly the case if an aspect of being is an individual thing or event. The concept of an aspect of being is VERY UNCLEAR, so it is not at all obvious that we can rule out the possibility that individual things or events could count as aspects of being. Clearly, Mr. Hinman would NOT accept the idea that the Ground of Being is composed of various individual things or events (that would lead us in the direction of Polytheism or Pantheism), so the identification of the Ground of Being with some aspect or aspects of being might well turn out to be an incoherent claim, a claim that contradicts the implicationsof Hinmansconcept of the Ground of Being.

This is one more example that illustrates the need for clear definitions of problematic words and phrases such as an aspect of being and the Ground of Being. Without such definitions, we may well be stumbling over various logical errors and incoherent claims.

I also have a problem with premise (9):

9. GOB = God.

First of all, this premise needs to be spelled out in a clear sentence of English:

9a. The Ground of Being is identical with God.

Although Hinman fails to provide a clear definition of the Ground of Being or ofthe word eternal, I strongly suspect that by eternal he means outside of time, and it is clear that Hinman believes the Ground of Being to be eternal. Given these assumptions, it follows that the Ground of Being cannot change.

But God is a person, or at least a being with personal characteristics like can think, can communicate, can make choices, and can perform actions. But only a being that can change can have such personal characteristics. Therefore, given the assumption that the Ground of Being is something that is outside of time it follows that the Ground of Being is NOT identical with God. Premise (9) appears to be false.

So, premise (A) might well, for all we know, be an incoherent statement, and premise (9) appears to be false.

Read the original here:

Hinman's ABEAN Argument Part 3: More Objections - Patheos (blog)

Ana Matronic: ‘Robots confuse the boundaries between life and death’ – Siliconrepublic.com

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

Robotophile and transhumanist Ana Matronic took to the Inspirefest stage predicting a future where gender doesnt matter when were all cyborgs.

If you couldnt tell, the name Ana Matronic is a sure sign that someone has not just an interest in robots, but an outright fascination and love for them.

That was made clear on stage at Inspirefest 2017 when the Scissor Sisters singer, DJ and author took us back through her life from an obsession with the cult 70s TV show The Bionic Woman and writing her first self-published zine about robots, to dressing as a robot at a burlesque show in San Francisco.

However, the real focus of her talk was the fascinating philosophical questions posed to us in a present and future where the line between human and robot is becoming increasingly blurred.

And if so, what role does gender play if any when our brains are in robots or uploaded to the cloud?

During those days of creating her fanzine in college for The Bionic Woman, Matronic went as far as to create her own robot-infused religion based on the philosophies of Joseph Campbell called Bionic Love that had Jaime Sommers as its muse and messiah.

My religion playfully painted the caring and compassionate Ms Sommers as the union of opposing forces of science and nature, she said.

Shes the embodiment of the future and herald of the coming technological age and a reminder to never lose your humanity in the face of it.

It was with the work of academic and writer Donna Haraway however that Matronics real interest in the topic of cyborgs and where the concept fits in with human constructs.

What triggered Matronics many philosophical questions was Haraways surprising revelation that, for her, we dont have to wait to be a cyborg in the future as we already are cyborgs.

She wrote [a book] confirming my deification of The Bionic Woman and transformed my love of robots into something more, Matronic said.

According to Haraways argument, a cyborg doesnt have to be a half-human, half-machine entity with bionic limbs, but anyone who has had science alter their body in some capacity such as getting a vaccination.

Quoting Haraway: In the tradition of western science and politics, the relation between organism and machine has been a border war. The cyborg manifesto is an argument for the pleasure in the confusion of boundaries and the responsibility for their construction and a world without gender and world without end.

It was with Haraways work, Matronic said, that her discovery and interest in the topic of transhumanism began.

An example of transhumanism would be the uploading of a persons consciousness online so that they can continue on, something that is already underway with early brain emulation software.

Unlike things like time travel and interdimensional travel, Matronic said, robots are here and theyre real not just through physical robots, but artificial intelligence as well.

Robots confuse the boundaries between life and death; human and machine; male and female; master and servant; thinking and feeling; ability and disability; creation and destruction, she said.

I take pleasure in the confusion of these boundaries and as an artist I have a unique platform to share and study these stories and as a transhumanist, I take responsibility of this examination and the construction of new boundaries.

So what are these boundaries being broken down and built again in a cyborg future?

For people like Martine Rothblatt working on brain emulation software and as a transgender person robots and robot bodies offer a way to detach ourselves the limitations of anatomy, or more simply, personhood is about equity, not equipment.

We have an opportunity in this moment to be prepared for the arrival of mechanical and digital people and I believe it is our responsibility to be prepared, Matronic said.

When robots do occupy space in our society, when robot rights and robosexuality is not just spoken about in an episode of Futurama but when its actually here humans will be forced to look around and ask how well we have done for the rights of our fellow humans.

She continued: If you dont do that before the robo-demonstrations, we are going to have problems, and not just with the robots.

In a sense, Matronic argued, the rise of robots offers humans the chance to reboot our operating system in every sense.

It certainly seems as if we are moving into a brave, new world.

Continued here:

Ana Matronic: 'Robots confuse the boundaries between life and death' - Siliconrepublic.com

NASA’s Hubble telescope pushed beyond limits, astronomers find new stars in distant galaxy – International Business Times, India Edition

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

Although National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Hubble Space Telescope has provided significant information of the distant universe, it also has a limit till which it can spot planets and galaxies.

However, researchers recently cleverly pushed the telescope's limit to discover a cluster of new stars!

Astronomers reportedly have obtained images10 times sharper than what Hubble could achieve on its own, by applyinga new computational analysis to a galaxy magnified by a gravitational lens.

The images obtained by the telescope show anedge-on disk galaxy, which is studded with brilliant patches of newly-formed stars.

"When we saw the reconstructed image we said, 'Wow, it looks like fireworks are going off everywhere,'" astronomer Jane Rigby of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland said.

The cluster of stars in the galaxy are so far away that we see it as it appeared 11 billion years ago, only 2.7 billion years after the big bang.

The cluster of stars is one of more than 70 strongly lensed galaxies studied by the Hubble Space Telescope.

In this Hubble photograph of a distant galaxy cluster, a spotty blue arc stands out against a background of red galaxies. That arc is actually three separate images of the same background galaxy.NASA, ESA, and T. Johnson (University of Michigan)

The gravity of a giant cluster of galaxies between the target galaxy and Earth distorts the more distant galaxy's light. It stretches the light into an arc and magnifies it almost 30 times more.

The astronomers had to develop a special computer code to remove all the distortions caused by the gravitational lens. After the code was implemented, the researchers were able to see the disk galaxy as it would normally appear without the magnifying light.

The galaxy cluster SDSS J1110 6459 is located about 6 billion light-years from Earth and contains hundreds of galaxies.NASA, ESA, and T. Johnson (University of Michigan)

The image of the galaxy, which was reconstructed, showed twodozen clumps of newborn stars, each spanning about 200 to 300 light-years.

"There are star-forming knots as far down in size as we can see," said doctoral student Traci Johnson of the University of Michigan, lead author of two of the three papers describing the research.

Read the original post:

NASA's Hubble telescope pushed beyond limits, astronomers find new stars in distant galaxy - International Business Times, India Edition

US Taps Ex-NATO Ambassador As Special Ukraine Envoy – RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

KYIV -- The United States has tapped its former U.S. ambassador to NATO as a special envoy to negotiate over the fate of war-racked Ukraine.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on July 7 announced that Kurt Volker, who served as Washingtons NATO ambassador under the previous two U.S. administrations, will take responsibility for advancing U.S. efforts to achieve the objectives of a peace deal known as the Minsk agreements, which has yet to stop hostilities.

"Kurt's wealth of experience makes him uniquely qualified to move this conflict in the direction of peace," Tillerson said in a statement. "The United States remains fully committed to the objectives of the Minsk agreements, and I have complete confidence in Kurt to continue our efforts to achieve peace in Ukraine."

A pooled media report on July 7 also quoted State Department official R.C. Hammond as saying that Volker will coordinate all State Department efforts to bring a resolution to the conflict created when Russia invaded Crimea and later eastern Ukraine.

Volkers appointment came shortly before U.S. President Donald Trump was to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin for highly anticipated bilateral talks on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Germany.

That meeting was expected to address tensions between Moscow and Washington over Russias 2014 annexation of Ukraines Crimean Peninsula and continued backing of armed militants in eastern Ukraine.

Trump has said he wants to improve ties with Russia, though his administration so far has maintained the punitive measures targeting Russia for its actions in Ukraine that began under Trumps predecessor, Barack Obama.

The U.S. Senate, meanwhile, has tried to put itself in position to block efforts to ease Russia sanctions.

As special envoy, Volker is tasked with pushing for a solution to a conflict that is now in its fourth year. More than 10,000 people have been killed and nearly 2 million have been displaced by the fighting between Ukrainian forces and Russia-backed separatists.

During the Obama administration, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland served in the envoy role that Volker is set to take over.

Volker is likely to be dealing directly with Vladislav Surkov, a longtime senior aide to Putin.

Volker is the executive director of the McCain Institute for International Leadership at Arizona State University, which says it is guided by the values that have animated the career of U.S. Senator John McCain -- a prominent foreign policy voice in Congress and a tireless critic of Putin.

The former NATO envoy has spoken critically about the government of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, whose ouster amid mass street protests in 2014 triggered a series of events that led to Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region and outbreak of war in eastern Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko welcomed Volkers appointment, saying in a July 7 tweet that it is an important and timely move in the interests of ending Russian aggression and restoration of Ukraines territorial integrity, including Crimea.

The State Department said Volker would accompany Tillerson during his visit to Kyiv on July 9, when Tillerson will meet with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and civil-society activists.

Poroshenkos administration and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv confirmed Poroshenko and Tillerson will deliver statements following their meeting.

A U.S. diplomat source told RFE/RL that Volker was expected to stay over until July 10 to meet with other Ukrainian officials.

Read the original post:

US Taps Ex-NATO Ambassador As Special Ukraine Envoy - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

What is Nato, what is defence spending by country, what is Article 5 and how does it keep Europe safe? – The Sun

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

How has the role of the world's largest military alliance changed?

NATO was conceived after World War 2 when12 countries banded together to protect themselves from the Soviet Union.

But, more than 60 years on what is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? And how does it keep us safe?

Alamy

Nato, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is an intergovernmental military alliance established in 1949.

It was formed with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 by 12 member states Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK and the US.

Since then it has expanded to 28 member states, with countries including Germany, Spain, Greece and Turkey joining, andrepresents a population of more than 900 million people.

The organisation isconsidered to be the largest and most powerful military alliance in history.

It iscommitted to individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law with all decisions taken by consensus.

Thepermanent headquarters of Nato is in Brussels where the Secretary General chairs senior decision making bodies.

The current Secretary General is former Prime Minister of Norway Jens Stoltenberg.

Heads of government and state have met at 26 Nato summits since 1949 the latest in Poland in July 2016.

Nato aims tosafeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

It was established primarily tokeep Europe safe by deterring any attack.

In 1949 this involved stopping Soviet expansion, preventing a revival of nationalistic militarism in Europe and encouraging European political integration.

But, over time the organisationhas changed and in recent years it has become increasingly focused on peacekeeping.

Getty Images

Nato is best known for Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty in which members pledge to come to the aid of any member state under attack.

Article 5 has only been invoked once, following the September 11 attacks in America.

During his election campaign, Donald Trump raised doubts over his belief in the common defence principle because he viewed that some Nato members were not paying their way.

A revealed in The Sun, Ex-Nato second in command General Sir Alexander Richard Shirreff warned Trumps comments undermined the alliance and may even prompt Russia to invade European nations.

But inhis speech in Poland on July 7 President Donald Trump committed the United States to the article five principle of common defence.

So it stands that if a member state is attacked the attacker must go to war with all members, including the US.

The organisation, which is credited with the escalation of theCold War, carries out its own military missions using the troops of member states.

In 1995 ithelped to end the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in 1999 worked to stop mass killings in Kosovo.

Nato has been in Afghanistan on counter-terrorism missions since 2003 and in 2011 moved to protect the people of Libya.

It has been providing support as Europe copes with the refugee and migrant crisis.

Defence spending was revealed to have dropped below the Governments two per cent target last year,respected think tank the International Institute for Strategic Studies said.

But Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon insisted 2.1 per cent had been spent, with the new report blaming the shortfall on not keeping up with the growing economy.

The embarrassing dip comes after it was revealed just two countries in Nato met the defence benchmark Estonia and debt-riddled Greece.

A report released by Nato using figures from each member states Ministry of Defence shows the payments by a national governmentfor its armed forces.

The data has been completed for the fiscal year 2015/2016 andIceland hasnt been included as it has no armed forces.

Visit link:

What is Nato, what is defence spending by country, what is Article 5 and how does it keep Europe safe? - The Sun

NATO and US Baltic Sea Exercises Highlight Ongoing Tensions with Russian Forces – USNI News

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

Construction Mechanic 2nd Class Steven Montgomery, assigned to Naval Mobile Construction Battalion (NMCB) 1, directs an amphibious assault vehicle during exercise BALTOPS 17 in Putlos, Germany. US Navy Photo

ABOARD AMPHIBIOUS WARSHIP USS ARLINGTON BALTOPS 2017, now in its 45thyear as an annual naval exercise, took place during the first two weeks of June in a Baltic Sea region that continues to be tense with Russias continued assertiveness, which became apparent with the violent annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

Some fifty ships and fifty aircraft, along with 4,000 personnel from, among others, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Estonia participated in the exercise that has shifted focus over the last few years towards preparing for high-end warfighting. And BALTOPS is not about a theoretical threat, but a rejuvenated Russian navy that is increasingly active and capable in the Baltic Sea, the North Atlantic, and the Black Sea, with activities ranging from stepped up submarine patrols to deployments to the Mediterranean where Russian surface ships and submarines have fired cruise missiles against targets ashore in Syria.

The growing Russian challenge at sea caused the then-commander of the US Sixth Fleet, Vice Adm. James Foggo, to pen a widely read article with the title The Fourth Battle of the Atlantic in 2016. To boot, in the Baltic Sea one is never too far from the coast, meaning that Russias land-based anti-ship missiles can target much of the regional maritime domain.

An assault amphibious vehicle drives across the beach in Ustka, Poland, during an amphibious landing demonstration during exercise BALTOPS 2017. US Navy Photo

The two-week exercise included a week of phased training and rehearsals on crucial elements of naval and amphibious warfighting, including mine hunting, air defense, anti-submarine warfare, and beach landings; all elements required for NATO to be able to fight through the anti-access/area-denial network that Russia is building in its Kaliningrad enclave in the southeast corner of the Baltic Sea and gain access across the sea to NATOs Baltic members, arguably the geographically most exposed members of the Alliance.

The second week of BALTOPS saw free play in a game scenario intended to simulate potential contingencies in the region sometime in the future.

Along with national contributions to BALTOPS the exercise also saw the participation of Standing NATO Maritime Group One (SNMG1), currently consisting of frigates and destroyers from Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada, along with the Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group One (SNMCMG1).

170614-N-PF515-003 USTKA, Poland (June 14, 2017) Polish sailors participate in an amphibious landing demonstration during exercise BALTOPS 2017. The premier annual maritime-focused exercise is conducted in the Baltic region and is one of the largest exercises in Northern Europe. (U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist America A. Henry/Released)

Both formations have led quiet existences during the post-Cold War era, and NATO has at times struggled to fully fill the maritime groups with rotational contributions from the allies. And while SNMG1 was originally intended to operate in Europes northern waters, it has been used for counter-piracy missions off the Horn of Africa and for presence in the Red Sea and around the coasts of Africa. Now, however, SNMG1 and SNMCMG1 are both back in northern waters, and with seemingly more allies willing to contribute ships and personnel to participate in the groups.

To reorient NATOs member navies back to high-end warfighting is no easy task, and will require reinvestment in capabilities, a change of mindset, and more exercises like BALTOPS that get increasingly more sophisticated during each iteration. BALTOPS 2017 specifically focused on the integration between maritime forces and air power, which included a B-52 and a B-1 along with Polish F-16s. This year, the majority of the BALTOPS exercise was also geographically focused in the southern Baltic Sea, with much of the naval action off the coast of Germany, and with amphibious landings in Poland and Latvia.

BALTOPS forms part of a broader effort to bolster NATOs ability to provide defense and deterrence at sea. Shortly after BALTOPS concluded the action moved to the North Atlantic off the coast of Iceland, where NATO member forces trained for anti-submarine warfare with ships, submarines, and maritime patrol aircraft in the exercise Dynamic Mongoose, with several of the ships that participated in BALTOPS present.

Vice Adm. Christopher Grady, commander of Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO, delivers remarks at a reception aboard the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship USS Arlington (LPD-24) during exercise BALTOPS 2017. US Navy Photo

In mid-July NATO navies will kick off the exercise Sea Breeze 2017 in the Black Sea, which also will include ships from the Ukrainian navy. And beyond stepped up exercises such as BALTOPS, NATO is also considering its future role in the maritime domain at the strategic level. After much resistance within the Alliance there now seems to be movement towards a rewrite of the Alliance Maritime Strategy, first rolled out in 2011 in a very different security environment.

There are also active discussions about bringing back NATOs Atlantic Command; a maritime command structure disbanded after the end of the Cold War, but once again relevant in order for NATO to be able to better command and control operations in the broader North Atlantic and facilitate reinforcements from the United States to Europe across the sea. BALTOPS will return to the Baltic Sea next summer, for another turn of the wheel towards preparing NATOs navies for a fight in tight quarters.

Original post:

NATO and US Baltic Sea Exercises Highlight Ongoing Tensions with Russian Forces - USNI News

What is Article 5? (And why it matters) – CNN International

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

Article 5 is the principle that an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all members. It's been a cornerstone for the 29-member alliance since it was founded in 1949 as a counterweight to the Soviet Union.

Article 5 has only been invoked once: After the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the US.

Article 5 aims to deter potential adversaries from attacking NATO members. During the Cold War, the main concern was the Soviet Union, but in recent years, Russia's aggressive actions in Eastern Europe have been the focus of attention. Ukraine and Georgia, the two countries Russia has invaded in the past decade, are not NATO members.

When Trump came into office, however, Eastern European countries like Poland were nervous about whether he would actually uphold the principle because of his campaign rhetoric.

In addition to calling NATO "obsolete," Trump has railed against NATO allies in Europe for not allocating 2% of their GDP toward defense.

"The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the US must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves," Trump said in an April 2016 foreign policy speech. "We have no choice."

During his first visit to NATO headquarters as President, Trump notably omitted any commitment to Article 5 from his speech, alarming allies and critics, and instead scolded them for not meeting their financial obligations.

"Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for their defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States," he said. The remarks were delivered shortly before Montenegro joined the alliance as its 29th member.

But Trump changed course last month during a joint news conference with the Romanian president, saying, "I am committing the United States to Article 5."

"And certainly we are there to protect," Trump added, saying this is why the US is "paying the kind of money necessary to have that force."

He reiterated that stance while in Poland, one of the Eastern European countries most concerned with Russia's aggressiveness.

"To those who would criticize our tough stance, I would point out not merely with words but with its actions that we stand firmly behind Article 5, the mutual defense commitment," Trump said. "Words are easy but actions are what matter and for its own protection, and you know this, everybody has to know this, Europe must do more."

In 2014, NATO countries agreed to try to spend 2% of their GDP on defense, although most countries fail to hit that benchmark, which is not binding.

NATO members are increasing their defense spending collectively, however, and more countries are expected to hit the 2% benchmark in the coming years.

NATO's Article 5 principle stretches beyond attacks on the homeland. The alliance has also taken collective defense measures on several occasions, including deploying Patriot missiles in 2012 on the Syrian-Turkish border and bolstering its forces in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014.

NATO allies also have joined the US to fight the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

To critics, Trump's rhetoric about countries failing to meet the 2% benchmark ignores the contributions they have made providing troops to the fights against al Qaeda and ISIS, and he risks alienating allies at a time the US could be seeking additional troops from NATO countries in Afghanistan.

View post:

What is Article 5? (And why it matters) - CNN International

Rachel Maddow Says Forged NSA Document Being Shopped … – HuffPost

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

MSNBCs Rachel Maddow said she had a strange scoop to share with audiences Thursday night after receiving what she believes is a meticulously forged document sent over her tip line with the intention to discredit her.

I feel like I need to send this up like a flare for other news organizations in particular, Maddow said. Thats part of what Im intending to do here with this story tonight.

Over the next 20 minutes, the MSNBC host discussed how her show received a document, purportedly from the National Security Agency,labeled as classified and filled with such bombshells about Russia that Maddow said if it were authentic, it would be a gun still firing proverbial bullets. But after careful examination, which she describes in great detail, her show deemed the document a forgery.

We believe now that the real story we have stumbled upon here is that somebody out there is shopping carefully forged documents to try to discredit news agencies reporting on the Russian attack on our election, and specifically on the possibility that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians in mounting that attack, she said.

The MSNBC host pointed to a recent report that led CNN to retract a story on Russia and ledthree top stafferswho worked on the story to resign, as well as Vice News retraction of two Trump-related stories just last week.

This is news because why is someone shopping a forged document of this kind to news organizations covering the Trump-Russia affair? Maddow asked.

The MSNBC host and her staff compared the document they received with the the leaked NSA document The Intercept published in early June, which led to the arrest of federal contractor Reality Leigh Winner.

Maddow and her staff believe the document they received was created by copying and pasting aspects of the document The Intercept published. There were additional elements that also raised red flags, Maddow said.

Watch the full MSNBC segment in the video above.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Rachel Maddow Says Forged NSA Document Being Shopped ... - HuffPost

A Chinese Student Disappeared. China Blames US Democracy – The Diplomat

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

Chinese media blame U.S. democratic system for its incompetence after a Chinese student is abducted.

Yingying Zhang, a Chinese female graduate student who disappeared in broad daylight in the U.S. state of Illinois on June 9, has not been found yet. Brendt Christensen, the man charged in Zhangskidnapping, hasnt revealed anything useful to the police. As time passes by, Zhangs family is getting more and more desperate and Chinese media have turned more and more critical, blaming the U.S. democratic system for its ineffectiveness and incompetence in the case.

Xinhua, the Chinese official news agency, launched a series of special reports, under the title of Where is Yingying? The abduction case tests U.S. rule of law, attacking the incompetence of the U.S. police and the ineffectiveness of U.S. rule of law.

The first most condemned point is that the police tracked down Christensen through his car on June 12, but didnt arrest him until June 29.Every minute wasted by the police, according to Xinhuas interpretation,directly increased the possibility of Zhangs death.

Even after the police obtained an audio recording of Christensen discussing abducting Zhang, the police still couldnt make the suspecttalk.

Xinhuaalso points tothe long and complicated procedure of court hearings and prosecution in the United States, which will bea secondblow to the victims family. The article also criticizedthe fact that Illinois has abolished the death penalty, which according toXinhuameans it will be impossible tobring an extreme criminal to justice.

Xinhuaalso attacked the principle of presumption of innocence, the fundamental cornerstone of the U.S. rule of law, which might help the criminal get away from punishment in practice.

The series of criticism won much approval fromChinese netizens. Some Chinese netizens even blamed U.S. racism for the ineffectiveresponse, arguing that the police havent tried their best because of Zhangs race and nationality. They compared Zhangs abductionwith another case in China: one Japanese young man reported to the Chinese police that his bicycle was stolen in Wuhan city. The whole citys policemen were mobilized and found his bicycle within three days.

Despite the hash criticism, some other Chinese media still tried to defend the U.S. rule of law, arguing that the U.S. Fifth Amendment isa fundamental protection of human rights. And some Chinese netizens who agree withthis point of view also explained the principle of presumption of innocence by quoting Blackstones formulation: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

In return, their opponents counter-argued: Better for whom?

Clearly, Zhangs case has become a fuse for Chinese people to ponder U.S. democracy and its fundamental principles.

The rest is here:

A Chinese Student Disappeared. China Blames US Democracy - The Diplomat

Orange County sheriff: There’s no jailhouse informant program, but some deputies have misbehaved – ABA Journal

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

Criminal Justice

Posted Jul 06, 2017 05:01 pm CDT

By Lorelei Laird

The elected sheriff of Orange County, California, testified under oath Wednesday that although some of her deputies have violated defendants constitutional rights, there is no organized jailhouse informant program. The Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times and Voice of OC have stories.

The testimony was the first time a court heard from Sheriff Sandra Hutchens on charges that her deputies have for years used jailhouse informants to get incriminating statements from defendants. When the defendant has a lawyer, use of a confidential informant violates the defendants right to counsel under a 1960s U.S. Supreme Court decision called Massiah v. United States.

Defense attorney Scott Sanders, who represents a high-profile murder defendant, has alleged in detailed court filings that deputies have been using informants for years, perhaps decades. He also alleges that Orange County prosecutors have frequently failed to turn over evidence showing the use of informants, which would violate the defendants rights under Brady v. Maryland.

Hutchens said Wednesday that the informant allegations have been embarrassing, but that only a few deputies broke the rules by planting informants next to targeted defendants. She pointed to a few deputies who are under criminal investigation, some of whom have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights when called to testify. (No prosecutors have been professionally disciplined or criminally charged in the matter, although one resigned and moved out of state after his testimony was contradicted by a sitting judge.)

A grand jury report issued in June echoes Hutchenss position on the subject, saying the wrongdoing was limited to a few rogue deputies. That report contradicts a decision of a California appeals courtwhich called the problems systemicand testimony of one former deputy and one current deputy, both of whom said their supervisors knew about the informant program, the OC Weekly reported.

Judge Thomas Goethals called the hearing to look into the existence and whereabouts of jailhouse informant records. As the Los Angeles Times noted, the Sheriffs Department has repeatedly said it had turned over everything, and then found more records. The most recent set of documents was turned over this yeareven though Goethals had ordered all evidence turned over in 2013.

We could have done a better job of responding to discovery requests, Hutchens said.

At the hearing, Sanders, an Orange County public defender, cited multiple internal memos showing that cultivating informants was part of jailers duties, and that sergeants and lieutenants commended these deputies for their work. Hutchens said she hadnt seen any of those documents and that deputies may have used the word informant broadly. She apologized for her departments inability to find the requested documents.

The testimony came in the case of Scott Dekraai, who murdered eight people and wounded a ninth in 2011 when he shot up the beauty salon where his ex-wife worked. Dekraai confessed the same day and has pleaded guilty to the crime, but the Sheriffs Department used an informant anyway, allegedly out of concern that he might plead insanity. The ABA Journal reported on the case in 2016.

Allegations related to the use of informants caused Goethals to take the entire Orange County District Attorneys office off the caseit is now being prosecuted by California Attorney Generals officeand has stymied the case at the penalty phase. Goethals has said he may rule out the death penalty if he finds evidence of substantial wrongdoing.

Hutchens announced last week that she will not seek re-election in 2018, a decision she said was not related to the informant matter.

Matthew T. Mangino: The Constitution and students’ rights – Wicked Local Brookline

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

As students spend the summer out of class, now is the time to reflect on a growing problem across the country.

.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

As students spend the summer out of class, now is the time to reflect on a growing problem across the country. School districts have relinquished discipline, in large measure, to law enforcement agencies.

There was a time when disruptive students were sent to see the principal. Today, in some school districts the disruptive student is handcuffed and ushered off to court. The school-to-prison pipeline is overflowing with students.

As schools continue to rely on law enforcement for discipline, it is imperative that students constitutional due process rights are protected on school grounds. Even the United States Supreme Court has said that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate."

The courts have not clearly defined when protections, that many adults take for granted on the street, are applicable within the confines of a school building. When a school allows a police officer to arrest a student or refer a student to law enforcement or juvenile court as a form of discipline the school is turning that student over to the juvenile justice system. Parents believe their children are safe and being protected from harm. Yet, with the ever expanding relationship between school and law enforcement a student is much more likely to get a criminal record in school than to get a black eye.

Schools with police resource officers tout the increased safety, but leave out the increased arrest of students. A report by the Justice Policy Institute found that, even controlling for a school district's poverty level, schools with officers had five times as many arrests for "disorderly conduct" as schools without them.

The fundamental rights provided by the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment although more limited in school are available to students suspected of criminal activity.

It is hornbook law that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant be obtained based on probable cause before a search or seizure of evidence. There are exceptions that have been carved out by the U.S. Supreme Court. Those exceptions have expanded over time but have not, to this point, relieved law enforcement from getting the courts approval to search or arrest an individual.

In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that although the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures applied to searches of students, neither a warrant nor probable cause was necessary.

The Court reasoned that although students do have rights in school those rights have to be balanced with the schools interest in maintaining discipline.

A valid search of a student requires a school show only that an administrator had reasonable suspicion less than probable cause but more than a hunch. Reasonable suspicion was first introduced by the Supreme Court in 1968.

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed how the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections against self-incrimination and the right to counsel are applicable to students in school.

In a 2011 case out of North Carolina, the Supreme Court addressed whether rights warnings were necessary due to the age of the suspect.

A seventh grade student was pulled out of class by a police officer to talk about some break-ins in the neighborhood. The officer did not inform the student of his right to remain silent or his right to legal counsel, the rights made famous by the landmark Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona.

Miranda requires that a suspect in custody, not free to leave, and subject to interrogation, questions that might elicit an incriminating response, be informed of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel.

The Court ruled that age is a factor to be considered for purposes of Miranda. The Court also noted that a students presence at school is compulsory and disobedience at school is a cause for discipline, therefore a student would likely not feel free to leave while being questioned in school.

Parents need to pay attention to this issue. As police presence expands in schools so should the rights of students.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioners Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at http://www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.

Link:

Matthew T. Mangino: The Constitution and students' rights - Wicked Local Brookline

Your vanishing location privacy: Why the Supreme Court is giving wireless networks a look – Insider Louisville

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

Douglas F. Brent

By Douglas F. Brent and Victoria Allen, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC

Editors Note: Victoria Allen is a 2017 Summer Associate with SKO.

The digital age has ushered in a multitude of location mechanisms on a communication device. Anyone who has paid roaming fees knows their phone connects to more networks than just those designated by their wireless provider.

Cellphones work by establishing a connection with cell towers. Each tower projects unique directional signals, so a cellphone picking up a signal from the north has distinct CSLI, or cell site location information, from a signal broadcast from the same towers southern sector. As they manage their networks, carriers record these connections.

With thousands of new microsites with smaller coverage areas, CSLI rivals GPS as a way to nearly pinpoint a devices location.

CSLI and law enforcement

In thousands of cases each year, law enforcement agencies obtain the CSLI associated with suspects phones under the Stored Communications Act, instead of securing a search warrant based on probable cause. This tower dump can reconstruct a suspects location and movements over time, and is effective in crime solving.

Nearly all federal courts have agreed that getting a tower dump from cellular providers does not require a warrant. As recently as 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review any of those decisions.

But on June 5, the Court granted a defendants request to review his conviction upheld last year by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in USA v. Timothy Carpenter.

The Court will consider whether the warrantless seizure and search of cellphone records revealing Carpenters location and movements over 127 days violated his Constitutional rights, specifically Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Carpenter was nabbed by the FBI in a string of armed robberies at Radio Shacks and T-Mobile stores around southeastern Michigan and northwestern Ohio. After receiving a judges order to obtain records from wireless carriers, the FBI determined that Carpenter had been less than two miles from each store when the robberies took place.

A Michigan jury convicted Carpenter and co-defendants, and a district judge sentenced him to multiple 25-year terms. The sentence was affirmed last year and Carpenter filed for Supreme Court review, even though two terms ago the Court declined to review a nearly identical decision from the Eleventh Circuit.

Why answer an unasked question?

We have written previously about why courts have generally held a warrant is not required to access cell site location information. The privacy protection provided by the Fourth Amendment guards individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. Reasonableness is grounded in whether the person asserting the protection has an actual expectation of privacy that society will recognize.

But the Supreme Court has held that parties lack an expectation of privacy in business records created by third parties, like a telephone company that records the numbers dialed to initiate a call. Courts dont treat the review of most third-party transactional records as a search at all.

The resulting third-party doctrine, though developed in a different technology era, remains in use today. Regarding cellphone network data for geo-location, the records of wireless service providers have not triggered the same level of privacy protection as more direct methods of surveillance, like a hidden tracking device.

To fill the gap between Fourth Amendment protection and no protection at all, Congress created the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which requires that the government present reasonable grounds but not probable cause to obtain records like CSLI. Whether such information is also protected by the Fourth Amendment has become a more difficult question as transactional records become more numerous and more capable of revealing seemingly private information.

Some judges have been uncomfortable applying the third-party doctrine to pervasive collections, like thousands of locations recorded over months at a time. Judges have also questioned whether the doctrine applies to data not voluntarily conveyed by cellphone users. In the earliest cases involving phone networks, the information voluntarily conveyed was the number dialed by a suspect. In contrast, cellphone users dont so directly influence which cell tower their phone connects to.

The Supreme Courts decision to review Carpenters claims related to CSLI validates concern that the Fourth Amendment is being browbeaten into retreat by the swell of information that is conveyed to third parties. The Courts decision to hear Carpenter is an indication that the Supreme Court is ready to reconsider that decades old third-party doctrine in light of todays technology.

And it may be time.

Your vanishing location privacy: Why the Supreme Court is giving wireless networks a look - Insider Louisville

Watch First Amendment Panel Discussion Live Stream (Video) – TheWrap

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

With cries of fake news and violence against journalists, the First Amendment is under attack.

On Thursday, TheWrap presents The First Amendment in the Age of Trump, an evening devoted to addressing threats to free speech and freedom of the press under the Trump administration.

Following a screening of the Netflix original documentary Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press, there will be a panel discussion of recent threats to the First Amendment.

Watch the live stream below.

Also Read: Debating the Threat to Free Speech: Join TheWrap's Panel and Screening on Thursday

The film explores the invasion of privacy case brought by wrestler Terry Bollea, aka Hulk Hogan against Gawker.com for posting a sex tape of wrestler Bollea. The trial ended with the jury awarding Bollea $140 million, sending the snarky website into bankruptcy. It was later learned that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hogans lawyers to get revenge on Gawker for a story it had done about the billionaire.

The panel will be moderated by University of Southern California media law professor and TheWraps First Amendment correspondent, Susan Seager. Panelists will includeBrian Knappenberger, director of Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press; Sharon Waxman, Editor-in-Chief of TheWrap; and others.

Subjects explored include:

Attorney Lisa Bloom, TheWrap founder Sharon Waxman, Emmy-winning actress Cynthia Nixon, actress Judith Light, and producer Paula Wagner attend the Power Women Breakfast NYC on June 29, 2017.

TheWrap founder Sharon Waxman and Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad attend Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Shelley Zalis, CEO of The Female Quotient and Founder, Girls Lounge; TheWrap Editor-In-Chief Sharon Waxman and film and theater producer Paula Wagner co-hosted the 2017 edition of Power Women Breakfast in NYC.

Shelley Zalis, CEO, The Female Quotient and Founder, Girls Lounge moderated a discussion at Power Women Breakfast.

Moj Mahdara, CEO of Beautycon Media, speaks at Power Women Breakfast NYC

Ibtihaj Muhammad, best known as the first U.S. Olympic athlete to wear a hijab during the games, speaks at the Power Women Breakfast in New York.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

"Friends From College" star Annie Parisse and "Sex and the City" alum Cynthia Nixon attend the Power Women Breakfast in New York.

Jenna Leigh Green, star of "Wicked," attends the Power Women Breakfast in NYC.

Letitia James, Public Advocate for New York City, speaks atthe Power Women Breakfast in NYC.

Actress Lois Robbinsattends the Power Women Breakfast in NYC.

Sharon Waxman, Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, attorney Lisa Bloom, and Oscar-Winning documentarian Laura Poitras pose on the red carpet of the Power Women Breakfast NYC.

"Orange Is the New Black" star Emma Myles attends the Power Women Breakfast in NYC.

Charity representatives Lisa Winjum and Sarah Haacke Byrd attend Power Women Breakfast benefitingJoyful Heart Foundation.

Rachel Bay Jones, a recent Tony winner for "Dear Evan Hansen," attends the Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Producer and Co-host of the Power Women Breakfast Paula Wagner stops for a photo on the step and repeat.

Muhammad at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

U.S. fencer and Olympian Ibtihaj Muhammad talks about being a Muslim woman in a post-Obama world.

Cynthia Nixon and others at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Moj Mahdara, CEO of Beautycon Media, talks why she doesn't need to wear make-up to run a beauty business.

Beautycon Media CEO Moj Mahdara chats about why Generation Z is so important to brands.

Shelley Zalis chats one on one with Moj Mahdara.

Beautycon Media CEO Moj Mahdara at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Cynthia Nixon, currently starring on Broadway in "The Little Foxes," compared her play with the Trump family.

Cynthia Nixon revealed she would "of course" be interested in another "Sex and the City" movie.

TheWrap founder ttSharon Waxman interviews Cynthia Nixon at the Power Women Breakfast NYC on Thursday.

Attendees at the Power Women Breakfast.

Women at the Power Women Breakfast NYC

A SAG-AFTRA board member attends Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Gail Becker reacts to Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attorney Lisa Bloom said she receives death threats for standing up for women's rights.

Oscar-winning documentarian Laura Poitras talks about being on the NSA watch list.

Activist and attorney Lisa Bloom joins the game-changers panel at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

"Citizenfour" filmmaker Laura Poitras talks fear and being on the right side of history.

New York City Public Advocate Letitia James hinted at a future mayoral run.

Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attorney Lisa Bloom and NYC Public Advocate Letitia James speak at Power Women Breakfast NYC on Thursday.

Lisa Bloom with daughter attorney Sarah Bloom at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Power Women Breakfast NYC, game-changers panelists: Sharon Waxman, Lisa Bloom, Letitia James, and Laura Poitras.

Sarah Haacke Byrd attends as representative of Joyful Heart Foundation, beneficiary of TheWrap's Power Women Breakfast.

Charity auction at Power Women Breakfast NYC with designer Rachel Simone

Charity auction at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendee at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Charity auction at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Documentarian Aviva Kempner gets a Blushington touch-up at Power Women

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

SCAD Film School Dean Andra Reeve-Rabb at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Sharon Waxman at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Judith Light at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Lisa Bloom and Cynthia Nixon at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

The scene at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Lisa Bloom and author and spiritual leader Marianne Williamson

Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Women leaders in New Yorks entertainment, media and business communities converge at annual gathering

Attorney Lisa Bloom, TheWrap founder Sharon Waxman, Emmy-winning actress Cynthia Nixon, actress Judith Light, and producer Paula Wagner attend the Power Women Breakfast NYC on June 29, 2017.

Read the original post:

Watch First Amendment Panel Discussion Live Stream (Video) - TheWrap

New ICO Promises Mainstream Adoption of Cryptocurrencies – HuffPost

Posted on July 7, 2017 by Danzig

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, while potentially transformative on the macro level, are hard for most people to adopt on the micro-level. Indeed, the opportunities created by Bitcoin and its underlying technologyblockchainare only being used by 8-10 million people (1% of the worlds population), and a significant share of that number comprises government entities, stock exchanges, banks, financial services firms, and startups.

For the large majority of people, the technology is hard to grasp, and the cryptocurrency is difficult to mine given the hard-earned cryptographical skill set needed to mine it. Bitcoin and Ethereum are relatively popular cryptocurrencies, but with new digital wallets with no instruction manuals and no single platform to centralize trading for the everyday consumer, progress towards full integration of the currency in world economies remains slow. Yet, as with many affairs in the world of financial services, there may be hopeand it comes from Switzerland.

Corion, a unified, unregulated, decentralized, mobile cryptocurrency platform operating on the Ethereum Classic blockchain, is underway in its Initial Coin Offering (ICO). The offering, which will close on July 30, will pay out between 3-25% bonus to participants, with early birds earning 0.2% daily during the offering and service providers generating between 5-10x more return on existing 0-2.5% coin supply growth in the medium term.

The ICO gives both service providers and consumers the opportunity to invest in a new cryptocurrency that allows them to help build the Corion ecosystem, a multifunctional platform allowing businesses and individuals to transact between each other on the Corion platform, which provides and hosts secure, convenient, and real-time financial transactions between members using Corion coin.

The main pain point within the overall blockchain environment Corion seeks to alleviate is that the current collection of cryptocurrencies operate in centralized and debt-based contexts. The value of these cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin with its various and controversial hard forks over the last few years, are volatile, with Ethereum being held up as Bitcoins potential yet uncertain successor. Driving such volatility is the scarcity-based value of cryptocurrencywith only so many cryptographers and developers able to mine and distribute it, demand simply isnt part of the equation here. And, with only 1% of the worlds population actively using any such currency right now, theres just not the level of adoption present to transition it from short-term, speculative income for a majority of people.

Corions main goal is to create a blockchain-based, decentralized cryptocurrency ecosystem driving demand based on coin rewards and benchmarking against current fiat currencies. The ecosystem, accessible through the Corion platform, would focus cryptocurrency into mainstream usage, taking it from short-term speculative income to continuous passive income through community management. More, Corion consists of separate smart contracts, implemented in Solidity language for maximum transparency and trust.

Corion has created an ecosystem and suite of services that rival emerging blockchain services offered by bulge-bracket banks like Citi and BNY Mellon, integrating payment, finance, and trading functionalities on its singular mobile platform, accessible by any user. At the same time, Corions developers are working B2B to increase the total user base of all cryptocurrencies, something no company has done until now. This innovative business model encourages cross-currency exchange, and inter-wallet and inter-platform cooperation and synergy.

To facilitate the transition of cryptocurrencies to mainstream use that Corion looks to achieve, the Corion platform features seven unique features to humanize the cryptocurrency experience for the average user. These features include a marketplace that promotes commerce, a stable cryptocurrency to promote mainstream use, a reward system for users based on Schelling points which allows users to grow their coins, a multifunctional wallet that operates as the main interface of the platform, and more.

Currently, the battle for cryptocurrency supremacy is ongoing. Corion enters with high aspirations, and well have to keep watch to see if this innovative platform can change the crypto world.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Excerpt from:

New ICO Promises Mainstream Adoption of Cryptocurrencies - HuffPost

Select Page ::