Auditor General’s review of Penn State says progress has been made, but there’s still work to do – FOX43.com

Auditor General Eugene DePasquale

Auditor General Eugene DePasquale

HARRISBURG Penn State University has shown some progress since the Jerry Sandusky scandal, but the state-related institution needs to make improvements on campus security, prioritize Pennsylvania students, and be subject to open records laws, Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale said in announcing the results of his recent audit of the school.

Penn State has made a modicum of progress in restoring the reputation of the commonwealths flagship state university, DePasquale said, noting the 2011 arrest and subsequent conviction of former coach Jerry Sandusky. Penn State must first and foremost do more to improve campus security, particularly for children who participate in programs and events on its campuses.

Penn State also must do whatever is necessary to control tuition, which increased 535 percent in 30 years making the school increasingly unaffordable for middle-income Pennsylvanians and improve the universitys transparency and accountability to taxpayers.

DePasquale emphasized the audit did not include a review of grants to the former Second Mile charity, nor did it include the Freeh Report, an investigative document commissioned by Penn State after the Sandusky scandal.

I want to be clear: This was an audit of Penn State, not of the Second Mile, the Freeh Report or the Sandusky scandal, DePasquale said. I will review the Second Mile grants in a future capital budget audit. As for the Freeh Report, I believe that the review should have been conducted by the U.S. Department of Education or another independent body, not by someone who was hired by the Penn State board of trustees.

The 115-page audit report, which covers January 2013 through March 2017, has nine findings and 23 recommendations.

The Penn State University audit report is available online at: http://www.PaAuditor.gov.

Missing background checks

One of the more distressing findings in this audit is that years after Jerry Sanduskys conviction for sexually assaulting young boys, Penn State fails to ensure the university conducts 100 percent of mandated background checks, DePasquale said. In the post-Sandusky era, it would be expected that Penn State would be hyper-vigilant about completing all required background checks. Apparently that is not the case.

DePasquale said for academic and sports-related camps held on Penn State campuses that were specifically for children, his auditors found a nearly 8 percent error rate. With this error rate, potentially 57 of the 732 camps held during 2016 had at least one person missing one or more of the legally required clearances.

For other employment background checks, campuswide, auditors found a slightly better error rate of nearly 4 percent. Still, this error rate could mean that potentially 962 of the 24,382 employees hired in 2016 did not have their required pre-employment background check completed.

It is shocking and intolerable for any university to miss this many background checks, but it is appalling that, so soon after the Sandusky scandal, Penn State has an error rate this high, DePasquale said.

As we so tragically learned from Sandusky, it takes only one child predator to cause what could be lifetime trauma to a child. Penn State officials must end their long-running string of excuses and immediately correct this serious deficiency.

Skyrocketing tuition

Over the past 30 years, Penn States in-state tuition at $19,347 for the 2016-17 academic year has increased by a whopping 535 percent, DePasquale said. With the exception of 2015-16, resident tuition increased every year on average about 6.4 percent.

By comparison, over the past three decades, the price of a gallon of milk increased 48 percent and a new car increased in cost 163 percent. In fact, not even the rising cost of health care could keep pace with Penn States tuition growth.

In a March 2016 U.S News and World Report article, Penn State ranked third on the list of the most-expensive public colleges for in-state students.

My team found that Penn State is the most expensive public research university compared to its Big Ten Conference peers, and tuition increases continue to exceed the Consumer Price Index, DePasquale said, noting the University of Nebraskas in-state tuition is $8,618 a year.

Unless Penn State does something now to rein in attendance costs, even fewer middle-income students will be able to attend Pennsylvanias acclaimed land grant university, he said.

Worse yet, Penn State appears to be part of a growing national trend among public research institutions that give preference to no-resident students as a means of increasing tuition revenue, DePasquale continued. At Penn State, and at many other public research institutions, nonresidents pay nearly twice as much as residents in tuition yet it costs nothing more to educate these students.

In essence then, a university can get a better bang for the buck by increasing the number of its nonresident students, he said. Rather than increasing nonresident enrollments, another alternative is to better control tuition cost drivers. If these expenses are adequately controlled, it should then slow the growth of tuition.

Over the past four years, Penn States operating expenses have increased by nearly 10 percent but revenues have grown by just 6.7 percent. Instruction costs increased by 17 percent. Academic support including libraries, museums, galleries, information technology, academic administration and audio-visual services increased by 19 percent.

Simply put, expenses are out of control, DePasquale said. Penn State must create a tuition task force that includes board members with a focus on identifying and lowering costs that are driving tuition into the stratosphere.

Decreasing in-state enrollment

High tuition costs are not the only accessibility challenges for potential in-state students. From 1990 through 2016, at Penn States University Park campus, the number of in-state students decreased by 12 percent, while nonresident and international students increased by 95 percent and 310 percent, respectively.

In 1990-91, at the University Park campus Pennsylvania residents comprised 76.5 percent of the campus population. By 2015-16, just 56.2 percent of the campus population was from Pennsylvania. Similarly, when looking at acceptance rates, in 11 of the past 16 years, including the last seven consecutive years, nonresident acceptance rates were higher than that of Pennsylvania residents.

Penn States expansion of nonresident enrollment threatens accessibility for Pennsylvania residents, DePasquale said. Clearly, because Penn State has not adequately planned for expenses that are outpacing revenues, there is a financial appeal to accepting nonresident students who will pay nearly $15,000 more and be more likely to live on campus.

DePasquale said while Penn State officials remain adamant that the university never intentionally favored nonresident students, and his team found no evidence to suggest otherwise, he cautioned that such practices are in place at other universities similar to Penn State.

After the California state auditor raised concerns earlier this year about the growing number of non-resident students in the University of California system, the board of regents approved its first-ever enrollment cap on nonresident undergraduates, DePasquale said.

A nonresident undergraduate student enrollment cap may well be necessary to help ensure Pennsylvania residents can get into Penn State, or any other state-related university for that matter, he said. These institutions are called state-related for a reason: Pennsylvania taxpayers help fund their operations. Therefore, Pennsylvania students should always be at the top of the acceptance list.

Improving Clery Act compliance

The Clery Act requires all post-secondary institutions that receive funding from federal financial aid programs to prepare an annual report on campus crime, including sexual violence, assaults, hate crimes, weapons offenses, and alcohol and drug abuse.

In November 2016, Penn State was hit with a $2.4 million fine, the largest-ever, after the U.S. Department of Education issued a scathing report identifying 11 Clery Act violations.

Subsequent to the Sandusky scandal and the U.S Department of Educations investigation, Penn State:

While Penn State is continuing to improve its Clery Act-related practices and policies, more improvement is needed, DePasquale said. Penn State must dedicate the appropriate resources to ensure a uniform incident data system is deployed university-wide, and it must establish an improved training program that meets the needs of all employees responsible for Clery Act compliance.

Lacking transparency, accountability

Auditors reviewed the extent to which Penn State implemented recommendations from a November 2012 Department of the Auditor Generals special report on governance reform after the child sexual abuse scandal.

While Penn State has undertaken significant reforms since the Sandusky scandal, it is disappointing that some of the recommendations for improvement have been ignored or contrary action was taken, DePasquale said.

Specifically, the General Assembly should cut the size of the board of trustees not only for Penn State, but for all state-related institutions of higher education, he said, noting that since that recommendation was made in the special report, the board grew from 32 to 36 members, plus two nonvoting members.

Higher-education experts recommend no more than 12 to 15 members on a college board.

Additionally, as a recipient of a significant amount of taxpayer dollars, it is high time for the General Assembly to make Penn State subject to all the provisions of both the commonwealths Right-to-Know Law and the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, DePasquale said.

40.273191 -76.886701

View post:

Auditor General's review of Penn State says progress has been made, but there's still work to do - FOX43.com

Cheer the Exeter boys in skirts, but we’ll have real progress when it’s no longer news – New Statesman

When I first learned that the boys of Exeters ISCA Academy were arriving to school wearing skirts, I couldnt help wanting to cheer. Good for them! Its about time someone tackled the blatant sexism of gendered dress codes head on.

Theres no reason at all why boys shouldnt wear skirts, or dresses, or anything else arbitrarily coded as feminine. Make the most of it, lads! You have nothing to lose but your pockets!

And why stop there?If were serious about increasing equality between the sexes, its about time we challenged anything that needlessly exaggerates difference. Clothing might seem a trivial matter, but gendered dress codes reinforce much broader beliefs about how boys and girls should look, think, feel and behave.

The rule that states a boy should not wear a skirt sits alongside the one that states a boy must not be vulnerable, passive or weak.A boy must not, in other words, be like a girl, because girls are inferior (hence its not so controversial for a girl to wear trousers. For girls, wanting to be like a boy is seen as aspirational).

My delight at the Exeter schoolboys protest was of course tempered by the fact that theirs is not a protest in favour of gender neutrality per se. The boys arent actually fighting for the right to wear skirts, but wearing skirts in protest at not being permitted to wear shorts.

I have to admit to finding this a little disappointing. While I applaud their bravery in taking the teacher who told them to wear a skirt at her word, I do start to wonder whether this is a protest that still depends on the idea that girls less important and more trivial than boys. After all, the boys dont really want to dress like girls on a daily basis;on the contrary, theyre using the sheer ridiculous of such an idea as a means to an end. Its all a bit of a joke, but its one that risks coming at the expense of their female counterparts. Its like arriving at school in clown shoes or a Donald Trump mask; it makes the point precisely because thats not really the person youd want to be.

I had similar concerns on reading of the French bus drivers who launched a skirt-wearingr protest in Nantes. Cheering them on feels like the liberal thing to do, yet theres a problem with the idea that men who use skirt-wearing as a form of protest are courageously challenging gender norms on behalf of us all.

If we genuinely accept that there is nothing shameful, unnatural or undesirable about male people wanting to dress in a feminine manner, then surely we should encourage those who do so. But wearing a skirt to draw attention to yourself because you want something else in this case, to wear a different type of mens clothing reinforces the idea that there is something not quite right about the skirt-wearing man. Just let him wear shorts and normal service can resume.

One of my own sons has worn a dress to school on more than one occasion, not as a form of protest, but simply because he wanted to. Admittedly these have always been on non-uniform days; on an average day his main nod to femininity is wearing his long blonde hair in a French braid.

I used to have parents asking me why I allowed him to look the way he does or what I thought was really behind it; these days Im more likely to get people telling me how cool or brave he is (when theyre not telling me how good he is at football for a girl). I find this change in attitude reassuring, although I worry whether things will change again when his body starts to look more obviously male. Will people still find it courageous if its neither a protest nor a childish phase, but just a male person who doesnt consider girl stuff off-limits?

I wish the Exeter boys well in their protest. The head teacher at their school has said she would be happy to consider a change in the schools uniform policy. My guess is this may be to allow boys to wear shorts, but lets hope she goes a little further than that.

Theres nothing demeaning or ridiculous about being a boy who wears girls clothes; well know weve made real progress the day it doesnt make the news.

The rest is here:

Cheer the Exeter boys in skirts, but we'll have real progress when it's no longer news - New Statesman

Kankakee High School making progress with field turf installation – Kankakee Daily Journal

KANKAKEE - Kankakee High School's football program is back on the grind after putting together one of its best seasons in recent history.

The Kays finished last fall with a 6-4 overall record, including a first state playoff appearance since 2010. Kankakee's season ended with a 14-6 loss to Metamora in the first round and now, the Kays are looking to build on their success.

But while coaches and student-athletes are putting in work in the weight room and on the practice field, a construction crew is working just as hard to give the team a state of the art facility.

The school's district field turf project has reached a critical stage as Cosgrove Construction prepares the ground to be ready to absorb the installation.

"I can say we're on track with our deadline and we're hoping the weather continues to cooperate with us," Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Rob Grossi said. "What's happening now is Cosgrove is preparing the field. They're going to completely finish all of the drainage and leveling, before field turf is installed."

After Cosgrove finishes their duties, FieldTurf will begin the installation of artificial turf.

"The turf is going to be green and the two end zones are going to be maroon," Grossi said. "One is going to say 'Kankakee' and the other is going to say 'Kays.' Our target completion date is August 1. We want it to be ready before football practice can start."

The field turf project will also include a new resurfaced track, costing around $100,000.

"We're going to resurface the track and we're still working on what color it's going to be," Grossi said. "We're working with the details but we know we want to do it. The bids for our field turf came in under budget, and we included a resurfaced track as an alternative. We'll still be able to add a track surface and stay under budget."

The school district was given a budget of $1.5 million. Altogether, the football field's turf surface will cost around $1.3 million.

"This is a benefit for the community," Kankakee Superintendent Genevra Walters said. "We've had some community teams that have wanted to use our facilities. But we've had to be careful because you can't have too many activities on a grass field. This will solve that problem and it opens up the opportunity of more activities for our students and our community."

Walters also made mention of the band being able to practice on the field while noting the district's discussion of adding additional athletic programs such as lacrosse.

But she made sure not to leave out the district's students who may not be involved in athletics.

"I believe that we have several groups of students here," she said. "We have academic minded students, fine art students and athletically gifted students. We're focusing on the support of all three groups. The turf is more for our athletes and we're hoping we can start looking at other options for our softball and baseball fields as well."

Walters also spoke about how excited the district's athletes and coaches were when they learned of the field turf installation.

"They were extremely excited," she said. "Community members, board members and athletes, both past and present, have been talking about this for about 10 years now."

Walter said that the school district is planning on a ribbon cutting ceremony but the details have not yet been finalized.

Continue reading here:

Kankakee High School making progress with field turf installation - Kankakee Daily Journal

Christians and Jews Combat Witches’ Summer Solstice Satanic … – CBN News

Witches around the world castspells against President Trump once again last night, attempting to #BindTrump on the summer solstice.

The witches have been waging spiritual warfare against the president since Trump took office, but now even Jewish leaders in Israel are expressing concerns about it.

"Witchcraft, or its real name, Satanism, is explicitly a power struggle, which is why it is so readily dragged into politics. Satanism, in its essence, pits the adversary against God," Rabbi DanielAsore explained to Breaking Israel News.

Asoreinvestigates the dangers of modern Satanism as part of his role as a Jewish leader. He says the witches' spells are just part of a broader growth in Satanism.

"The politicians who believe that man can control all aspects of the world are coming from a belief system based in Satanism, whether knowingly or not."

The witches communicate with each other through a Facebook page called Bind Trump.

One user says June 21st, the summer solstice will be the "most powerful" binding yet.

They plan to cast more spells against President Trump on July 21, August 19, and so on, until he leaves office.

Their spell calls for demonic help to bind Trump and cause him to fail. It later calls for spirits to bind "all those who enable his wickedness" as well.

Evangelical Trump supporters are encouraging prayers for the president to counteract the spell.

"We ask you to join us in praying for the strength of our nation, our elected representatives and for the souls of the lost who would take up Satanic arms against us," reads a post on the Christian Nationalist Alliance website. Other Christians are countering the forces of the enemy with non-stop prayer and worship at places like David's Tent in Washington D.C.

"Our desire is to make a statement to our generation that Jesus is Lord and should be enthroned above every area of our lives and nation," the group says in a statement on their website.

Original post:

Christians and Jews Combat Witches' Summer Solstice Satanic ... - CBN News

Trump’s bluff on White House tapes wasn’t just dishonest it was also a failure – Washington Post

President Trump tweeted on June 22 that he doesn't possess and didn't record tapes of his private conversations with former FBI director James B. Comey. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

This post has been updated with Trump's tweets.

President Trump acknowledged Thursday that he doesn't have any tapes of conversations with former FBI director James B. Comey, finally coming clean after playing a nearly six-week-long game.

And in the end, it wasn't just another bluff from Trump; it was another bluff that was called and that continued to chip away at Trump's honesty and credibility, for no discernible benefit.

The presidentlast month wielded those potential tapes as a very thinly veiled threat against Comey. And ever since then, Trump and the White House have decided to withhold the truth from the American people, refusing to answer a simple yes-or-no question about whether they had tapes.

But Newt Gingrich just gave away the game earlier Thursday, for all intents and purposes. In an interview with the Associated Press, the Trump-backing former House speaker basically admitted that Trump was bluffing to try to get inside Comey's head.

I think he was, in his way, instinctively trying to rattle Comey, Gingrich said. He's not a professional politician. He doesn't come back and think about Nixon and Watergate. His instinct is: 'I'll outbluff you.'

Apparently not being a professional politician is a license for dishonesty because that's what this was.

This isjust the latest in a long line of Trump bluffs. There was the time he was going to force the House to vote on its health-care bill, pass or fail,until he urged that it be delayedin the face of defeat. There was the time during the spending debate when the White House signaledthat Trump would allow a shutdown ifthe bill didn'tfund his border wall, only to back downa couple of days later. More examples abound.

But this has been a particularly brazen brand of bluffing from the president of the United States. Trump threatened a former top government official using a falsehood to try to get him to soften his testimony. It's not difficult to attach this to the lengthening list of things suggesting that Trump has tampered in the Russia investigation or even obstructed justice in doing so.

And for a president who has huge trouble with facts, it displays a striking disregard for the truth. No, Trump never said clearly that he had the tapes, but he has left that possibility out there for weeks, refusing to go on the record. Politics tends to be a rough-and-tumble business, but this is pretty unapologetic political nihilism, plain and simple.

It also has shelf life. I argued after one of Trump's previous bluffs that this kind of strategy may pay dividends in the business world and in the near term as president, but that as a politician it can and will catch up to you:

This kind of bluffing and having it called is undoubtedly something Trump is used to in the business and real estate worlds. But in the political world, you are negotiating with the same people over and over again. And the lesson of the first two big congressional debates is that when Trump says a bill must contain XYZ, he doesn't really mean it; it's just posturing. And that doesn't bode well for future Trump demands.

During the last government shutdown in 2013, when Republicans demanded defundingObamacare, they were at least willing to follow through on that demand. The government was closed for more than two weeks before the GOP relented. That served notice to Democrats that Republicans were at the very least willing to go all-in on their strategy and follow through that they weren't bluffing when they made such demands in order for a bill to pass. And that made their threats on other things seem more legitimate.

Trump has shown no such inclination to make it so people take his demands at face value. And given what's happened in the first two legislative debates, the next time he draws a line in the sand, you can bet lawmakers know how easily it can be raked over.

And the final point here is that Comey essentially called Trump's bluff. In blistering testimony that pointed to Trump's potential obstruction of justice two weeks ago, Comey didn't hold back at all. And at one point, he addressed the threat of tapes directly and suggested they would vindicate him if they did exist.

Former FBI director James B. Comey said he has seen President Trump's May 12 tweet that suggested there could be "tapes" of their private conversations, saying "Lordy, I hope there are tapes." (Reuters)

Ive seen the tweet about tapes, Comey said. Lordy, I hope there are tapes.

So Trump appears to have not only done something dishonest that undermines his credibility going forward, but it didn't even work.At least the charade is over.

Excerpt from:

Trump's bluff on White House tapes wasn't just dishonest it was also a failure - Washington Post

Samantha Bee Mourns the Death of Language – New York Times

Photo Samantha Bee accused the Trump administration of playing fast and loose with the meanings of words. Credit TBS

Welcome to Best of Late Night, a rundown that lets you sleep and lets us get paid to watch comedy. What do you think of it? What else are you interested in? Let us know: thearts@nytimes.com.

Samantha Bee thinks the Trump administration may have changed our relationship with words.

On Wednesdays Full Frontal, Ms. Bee adopted the format of a futuristic sci-fi Dr. Strangelove. Then she played footage of President Trump, his daughter Ivanka, his lawyer Jay Sekulow and others contradicting themselves or generally disregarding the meanings of certain words.

Gah! Resistance is futile, government is the deep state, expertise is dangerous elitism. Language is dead! SAMANTHA BEE

Then Ms. Bee played a clip of Kate Bolduan of CNN wondering what does matter in a world where the presidents words do not.

And with their sanity shattered, CNNs top talent turned to nihilism. Wolf Blitzers brain was so scrambled, he could only find joy in a turtle. Hello, turtle. SAMANTHA BEE

James Corden seized on a cringe-worthy meme: Marco Rubio was caught on camera on Tuesday in an awkward not-quite-embrace with Ivanka Trump.

Is that Marco Rubio or a guy going up to greet his very disappointed Tinder date? JAMES CORDEN

Look at Ivanka: That is not how you react when someone hugs you. Thats how you react when youre waiting for a bumblebee to fly away. JAMES CORDEN

Rubio, he looks like hes trying to move a rolled-up carpet. JAMES CORDEN

In a moment of outrage, Trevor Noah told his Daily Show audience that seeing dashboard camera footage of the police shooting of Philando Castile, a black motorist in Minnesota, broke me. The video shows Mr. Castile being shot after telling the police officer that he had a gun in his possession but that he was not reaching for it.

When a jury of your peers, your community, sees this evidence and decides that even this is self-defense, that is truly depressing. Because what theyre basically saying is, in America it is officially reasonable to be afraid of a person just because they are black. TREVOR NOAH

In an off-air chat with the audience, recorded between the shows televised segments, Mr. Noah went on to say that he considers police violence a form of institutional and historical racism. And he revealed that in just a few years in America, he had been stopped by an officer close to 10 times.

Following two special-election losses for the Democratic Party yesterday, one Democratic congressman said, Our brand is worse than Trump. Hey, thats our slogan, said United Airlines. SETH MEYERS

Theyve given themselves a July 4 deadline for their bill to gut Obamacare. So, if youre going to blow your fingers off with fireworks, do it on the 3rd. STEPHEN COLBERT, discussing Senate Republicans strategy for passing health care legislation

That nasty counts as it should.

When the cast of the new film Girls Trip did a Carpool Karaoke, they had it all covered without Mr. Cordens help. (Hes usually one-half of the karaoke group.)

Kumail Nanjiani stars in the new, largely autobiographical romantic comedy The Big Sick, which he wrote with his wife, Emily V. Gordon. Hell talk about making it on Thursday with Seth Meyers.

Wesley Morris, critic at large, and Jenna Wortham, a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, grappled with the complex, often wrenching process of dealing with the mistrial this week in the Bill Cosby case. They related it to other prominent trials those in which black men have been both the victim and the defendant. The feeling of annihilation without repercussions looms larger and larger with each passing season, Ms. Wortham writes.

More:

Samantha Bee Mourns the Death of Language - New York Times

Media Censorship in China | Council on Foreign Relations

Introduction

The Chinese government has long kept tight reins on both traditional and new media to avoid potential subversion of its authority. Its tactics often entail strict media controls using monitoring systems and firewalls, shuttering publications or websites, and jailing dissident journalists, bloggers, and activists.Googles battlewith the Chinese government over internet censorship and the Norwegian Nobel Committees awarding of the 2010 Peace Prize to jailed Chinese activist Liu Xiaobo have also increased international attention to censorship issues. At the same time, the countrys burgeoning economy relies on the web for growth, and experts say the growing need for internet freedom is testing the regimes control.

Chinasconstitutionaffords its citizens freedom of speech and press, but the opacity of Chinese media regulations allows authorities to crack down on news stories by claiming that they expose state secrets and endanger the country. The definition of state secrets in China remains vague, facilitating censorship of any information that authoritiesdeem harmful[PDF] to their political or economic interests. CFR Senior FellowElizabeth C. Economysays the Chinese government is in a state of schizophrenia about media policy as it goes back and forth, testing the line, knowing they need press freedom and the information it provides, but worried about opening the door to the type of freedoms that could lead to the regimes downfall.

The government issued in May 2010 its firstwhite paperon the internet that focused on the concept of internet sovereignty, requiring all internet users in China, including foreign organizations and individuals, to abide by Chinese laws and regulations. Chinese internet companies are now required to sign the Public Pledgeon Self-Regulation and Professional Ethics for China Internet Industry, which entails even stricter rules than those in the white paper, according toJason Q. Ng, a specialist on Chinese media censorship and author ofBlocked on Weibo. Since Chinese President Xi Jinping came to power, censorship of all forms of media has tightened. In February 2016, Xi announced new media policy for party and state news outlines: All the work by the partys media must reflect the partys will, safeguard the partys authority, and safeguard the partys unity, emphasizing that state media must align themselves with the thought, politics, and actions of the party leadership. A China Daily essay emphasized Xis policy, noting that the nations media outlets are essential to political stability.

In 2016, Freedom House ranked China last for the second consecutive year out of sixty-five countries that represent 88 percent of the worlds internet users. The France-based watchdog group Reporters Without Borders ranked China 176 out of 180 countries in its 2016 worldwideindex of press freedom. Experts say Chinese media outlets usually employ their own monitors to ensure political acceptability of their content. Censorship guidelines are circulated weekly from the Communist Partys propaganda department and the governments Bureau of Internet Affairs to prominent editors and media providers.

Certain websites that the government deems potentially dangerouslike Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and some Google servicesare fully blocked or temporarily blacked out during periods of controversy, such as the June 4 anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre or Hong Kongs Umbrella Movement protests in the fall of 2014.Specific materialconsidered a threat to political stability is also banned, including controversial photos and video, as well as search terms. The government is particularly keen on blocking reports of issues that could incite social unrest, like official corruption, the economy, health and environmental scandals, certain religious groups, and ethnic strife. The websites of Bloomberg news service, theNew York Times, and other major international publicationshave periodically been blacked out, their journalists harassed and threatened, and visa applications denied. In 2012, Bloomberg and the New York Times both ran reportson the private wealth of then Party Secretary Xi Jinping and Premier Wen Jiabao. Restrictions have been also placed on micro-blogging services, often in response to sensitive subjects like corruption, including 2012 rumors of an attempted coup in Beijing involving the disgraced former Chongqing party chief Bo Xilai. Censors are alsoswift to blockany mention of violent incidents related to Tibet or Chinas Xinjiang Autonomous Region, home to the mostly Muslim Uighur minority group, and the Falun Gong spiritual movement.

More than adozen government bodiesreview and enforce laws related to information flow within, into, and out of China. The most powerful monitoring body is the Communist Partys Central Propaganda Department (CPD), which coordinates with General Administration of Press and Publication and State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television to ensure content promotes party doctrine. Ng says that the various ministries once functioned as smaller fiefdoms of control, but have recently been more consolidated under the State Council Information Office, which has taken the lead on internet monitoring.

The Chinese government employs large numbers of people to monitor and censor Chinas media. Experts refer to an October 2013 report in a state-run paper, the Beijing News, which said more than two million workers are responsible for reviewing internet posts using keyword searches and compiling reports for decision makers. These so-called public opinion analysts are hired both by the state andprivate companies to constantly monitor Chinas internet. Additionally, the CPD gives media outlets editorial guidelines as well as directives restricting coverage of politically sensitive topics. In onehigh-profile incidentinvolving the liberal Guangdong magazineSouthern Weekly, government censors rewrote the papers New Years message from a call for reform to a tribute to the Communist Party. The move triggeredmass demonstrationsby the staff and general public, who demanded the resignation of the local propaganda bureau chief. While staff and censors reached a compromise that theoretically intended to relax some controls, much of the censorship remained in place.

The Chinese government deploys myriad ways of censoring the internet. The Golden Shield Project, colloquially known as theGreat Firewall, is the center of the governments online censorship and surveillance effort. Its methods include bandwidth throttling, keyword filtering, andblocking accessto certain websites. According to Reporters Without Borders, the firewall makes large-scale use ofDeep Packet Inspection technologyto block access based on keyword detection. As Ng points out, the government also employs adiverse range of methodsto induce journalists to censor themselves, including dismissals and demotions, libel lawsuits, fines, arrests, and forced televised confessions.

As of February 2017, thirty-eight journalists wereimprisoned in China, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, a U.S.-based watchdog on press freedom issues. In 2009, Chinese rights activist Liu Xiaobowas sentencedto eleven years in prison for advocating democratic reforms and freedom of speech inCharter 08, a 2008 statement signed by more than two thousand prominent Chinese citizens that called for political and human rights reforms and an end to one-party rule. When Liu won the Nobel Peace Prize, censors blocked the news in China. A year later, journalist Tan Zuorenwas sentencedto five years in prison for drawing attention to government corruption and poor construction of school buildings that collapsed and killed thousands of children during the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan province. Early 2014 saw the governmentdetain Gao Yu, a columnist who was jailed on accusations of leaking aParty communiqu titled Document 9.

The State Internet Information Office tightened content restrictions in 2013 and appointed anew director of a powerful internet committeeled by President Xi Jinping, who assumed power in late 2012. AJuly 2014 directiveon journalist press passes bars reporters from releasing information from interviews or press conferences on social media without permission of their employer media organizations. And in early 2015, the governmentcracked down on virtual private networks(VPNs), making it more difficult to access U.S. sites like Google and Facebook. By blocking these tools, the authorities are leaving people with fewer options and are forcing most to give up on circumvention and switch to domestic services,writes Charlie Smith[pseudonym], a cofounder of FreeWeibo.com and activist website GreatFire.org. If they can convince more internet users to use Chinese serviceswhich they can readily censor and easily snoop onthen they have taken one further step towards cyber sovereignty. The restrictions mount on a regular basis, adds theNew YorkersEvan Osnos. To the degree that Chinas connection to the outside world matters, the digital links are deteriorating, he wrotein an April 2015 article. How many countries in 2015 have an internet connection to the world that is worse than it was a year ago?

China requires foreign correspondents to obtain permission before reporting in the country and has used this as an administrative roadblock to prevent journalists from reporting on potentially sensitive topics like corruption and, increasingly, economic and financial developments. Under Xi, the ability of foreign journalists and international news outlets to travel and access to sources have shrunk. The hostile environment against foreign journalists is being fueled by efforts to publicly mark Western media outlets as not only biased, but part of a coordinated international effort to damage Chinas reputation [PDF], according to PEN Americas 2016 report on the constraints of foreign journalists reporting from China. Eighty percent of respondents in a 2014 survey conducted by theForeign Correspondents Club of Chinasaid their work conditions had worsened or stayed the same compared to 2013. International journalists regularly face government intimidation, surveillance, and restrictions on their reporting, writes freelance China correspondentPaul Mooney, who was denied a visa in 2013.

Austin Ramzy, a China reporter for theNew York Times, relocated to Taiwan in early 2014 afterfailing to receivehis accreditation and visa.New York Timesreporter Chris Buckley was reported to have been expelled in early January 2013an incidentChinas foreign ministry said was a visa application suspension due to improper credentials. China observers were also notably shaken bythe 2013 suspensionof Bloombergs former China correspondent, Michael Forsythe, after Bloomberg journalists accused the news agency of withholding investigative articles for fear of reprisal from Chinese authorities.

The treatment of foreign reporters has become a diplomatic issue. In response to theArab Springprotests in early 2011, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged to continue U.S. efforts toweaken censorship[PDF]in countries with repressive governments like China and Iran. In response, Beijing warned Washington tonot meddlein the internal affairs of other countries. On a December 2013 trip to Beijing, then Vice President Joe Biden pressed China publicly and privately about press freedom,directly raising the issuein talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping and meetings with U.S. journalists working in China.

In more recent years, China has made it exceedingly difficult for foreign technology firms to compete within the country. The websites of U.S. social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are blocked. Google, after a protracted battle with Chinese authorities over the banning of search terms, quietlygave upits fight in early 2013 by turning off a notification that alerted Chinese users of potential censorship. In late 2014,China banned Googles email service Gmail, a move that triggered a concerned responsefrom the U.S. State Department.

In January 2015, China issuednew cybersecurity regulationsthat would force technology firms to submit source code, undergo rigorous inspections, and adopt Chinese encryption algorithms. The move triggered an outcry from European and U.S. companies, wholobbied governmental authoritiesfor urgent aid in reversing the implementation of new regulations. CFR Senior FellowAdam Segal writesthat the fact that the regulations come from the central leading group, and that they seem to reflect an ideologically driven effort to control cyberspace at all levels, make it less likely that Beijing will back down.

Despite the systematic control of news, the Chinese public has found numerous ways to circumvent censors.Ultrasurf, Psiphon, andFreegateare popular software programs that allow Chinese users to set up proxy servers to avoid controls. While VPNs are also popular, the government crackdown on the systems have led users todevise other methods, including the insertion of new IP addresses into host files,Tora free software program for anonymityor SSH tunnels, which route all internet traffic through a remote server. According to Congress, between1 and 8 percent[PDF]of Chinese internet users use proxy servers and VPNs to get around firewalls.

Microblogging sites like Weibo have also become primary spaces for Chinese netizens to voice opinion or discuss taboo subjects. Over the years, in a series of cat-and-mouse games, Chinese internet users have developed an extensive series of punsboth visual and homophonousslang, acronyms, memes, and images to skirt restrictions and censors, writes Ng.

Googles chairman, Eric Schmidt, said in early 2014 thatencryption could helpthe company penetrate China. But such steps experienced a setback in March 2014 when authorities cracked down on socialnetworking app WeChat(known as Weixin in China), deleting prominent, politically liberal accounts. Soon thereafter, the governmentannounced new regulationson instant messaging tools aimed at mobile chat applications such as WeChat, which has more than 750 million users and was increasingly seen as replacing Weibo as a platform for popular dissent that could skirt censors. CFRs Economy says that the internet has increasingly become a means for Chinese citizens to ensure official accountability and rule of law, noting thegrowing importanceof social network sites as a political force inside China despite government restrictions.

China had roughly 731 million internet users in 2017. Although there have beenvocal callsfor total press freedom in China, some experts point to a more nuanced discussion of the ways in which the internet is revolutionizing the Chinese media landscape and a society that is demanding more information. Some people in China dont look at freedom of speechas an abstract ideal, but more as a means to an end, writes authorEmily Parker. Rather, the fight for free expression fits into a larger context of burgeoning citizen attention to other, more pertinent social campaigns like environmental degradation, social inequality, and corruptionissues for which they use the internet and media as a means of disseminating information, says Ng.

View original post here:

Media Censorship in China | Council on Foreign Relations

Censorship by Ownership? – Project Censored

WHAT IS MODERN CENSORSHIP?

At Project Censored, we examine the coverage of news and information important to the maintenance of a healthy and functioning democracy. We define Modern Censorship as the subtle yet constant and sophisticated manipulation of reality in our mass media outlets. On a daily basis, censorship refers to the intentional non-inclusion of a news story or piece of a news story based on anything other than a desire to tell the truth. Such manipulation can take the form of political pressure (from government officials and powerful individuals), economic pressure (from advertisers and funders), and legal pressure (the threat of lawsuits from deep-pocket individuals, corporations, and institutions).

In our view, the only valid justification for declining a news story is that in a medium limited by time and space, another news story was simply more important to the people of the community, whether local, national or international. While admittedly a subjective process, it is nonetheless, a process to be undertaken by the news people themselves (the investigative journalists and editors), NOT by the managers and CEOs of their parent company. No professional journalist or researcher should ever have to face the destruction of his or her career (or life) simply because they wanted to tell the truth. While no two people will always agree on what story is more important than another, a system where the working reporters and editors run the newsroom would at least provide a fertile environment for debate, dissent and critical thinking.

The growth of independent media and journalism in recent years shows that people throughout the world yearn to hold not only their leaders accountable, but their media sources as well. For that reason, the Project Censored research program continues, in its small way, to support and highlight those who tell the truth about the powerful (no matter the consequences) and are relentless in their quest to hold Big Media accountable for their decisions.

Continue reading here:

Censorship by Ownership? - Project Censored

Disrupting ‘Caesar’ play mostly about censorship – The Register-Guard

The show must not go on.

So sayeth some of President Trumps most ardent fans, who spent the past week and a half attempting to shut down a production of Julius Caesar with a Trump-like character in the title role.

These Trumpkins part of a bloc known for mocking political correctness, safe spaces and undue efforts to avoid offending the pwecious feewings of others deemed the show politically incorrect, unsafe and offensive.

Peaceful protest would be well within their rights. But these illiberal cultural illiterates instead wanted curtains for the offending Elizabethan play.

They stormed the stage at multiple shows, including Sunday evenings closing performance. They yelled and screamed inside and outside the open-air production part of the Public Theaters annual Shakespeare in the Park series to drown out dialogue they disliked. They threatened violence, sometimes quite graphically.

Some even sent death threats to other productions of Shakespeare and other plays in other parks.

In this, they are more like Caesars plebeian partisans than they may realize: It is no matter, his names Cinna, a member of a murderous mob cries in Act III, Scene 3 of the play, before tearing apart an innocent poet with the bad fortune to bear the same name as a perceived enemy of the state.

The justification for these present-day disruptions and threats is that, at least according to (wrong) right-wing media reports, the production advocates assassination of a Trump-like Roman tyrant. But the only people lately threatening political violence in the name of Julius Caesar are those who wanted to shut this play down.

If these reactionaries had actually thought about the play, theyd realize its portrayal of the aftermath of assassination offers the opposite lesson: that those who attempt to defend democracy by undemocratic means pay a terrible price and destroy the very thing they are fighting to save, as the Public Theater put it in a statement to theatergoers.

Theres a part of me that wants to rejoice that, 168 years after New Yorks Astor Place riots (also inspired by a contentious interpretation of the Bard), the theater can still be a source of so much controversy. In recent months not just Julius Caesar but also Hamilton has brought a raucous and artistically challenging rialto to the center of national social discourse.

Still, needless to say, death threats are not the type of intellectual engagement and social validation that most theater nerds were looking for.

The violent rhetoric of recent days is certainly no fault of the Public, even if, in choosing to portray Caesar with blondish hair, an ultra-long tie and a Slovenian-accented paramour, it clearly intended to provoke. But then, last years Taming of the Shrew production also had a Trumpian character portrayed by a woman, no less and earned no incendiary Fox News coverage.

Nor is this debacle the fault of a few misguided protesters alone.

After all, they were just firing the latest salvo in the ongoing war against the free exchange of ideas, that most precious and endangered of liberal democratic values.

Plenty of conservatives like to believe that illiberalism is confined to liberal college students. Certainly there is evidence that millennials are at the vanguard of hostility to free speech. But as I have written time and again, attempts to stamp out speech are not confined to young or old, or left or right.

Instead, End of History be damned, there is a growing sense on both sides of the aisle, and among all generations, that the free marketplace of ideas is broken. Everyone seems to believe that the inferior and dangerous ideas of their enemies are unfairly gaining ground; therefore, the words and beliefs of those enemies must be fair game for suppression.

And yes, attempts to shut down Julius Caesar like attempts to shut down conservative campus speakers are about objections to words and beliefs. They are not about protecting politicians or vulnerable minority groups from physical harm, despite the claims of would-be censors.

If this were really about blocking public entertainment that put lives at risk, youd find more Trump fans and college students alike disrupting football games.

In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare hinted that he expected his play to offer lessons for generations to come, though perhaps not the ones his characters believe they are offering.

How many ages hence/Shall this our lofty scene be acted over/In states unborn and accents yet unknown! declaims Cassius, after proudly smearing himself with the slain Caesars blood.

Censors willing, lets hope Cassius prediction continues to hold true.

Catherine Rampell (crampell@washpost.com) was a reporter for The New York Times and The Chronicle of Higher Education before joining The Washington Post as a columnist.

More Catherine Rampell articles

See the article here:

Disrupting 'Caesar' play mostly about censorship - The Register-Guard

National Coalition Against Censorship Chooses New Leader – Blogging Censorship

Chris Finan

CONTACT: Jas Chana, NCAC Communications Director jas@ncac.org, 212-807-6222 ext.107

New York, NY, June 21, 2017- The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), an alliance of 56 national non-profit organizations, announced today that it has hired Christopher M. Finan as its next executive director. Joan Bertin, the current executive director, is stepping down after leading the organization for 20 years. NCAC promotes freedom of thought, inquiry and expression and opposes censorship in all its forms.

We are indeed lucky that a free expression advocate the caliber of Chris Finan has agreed to lead the NCAC to its next chapter, said Jon Anderson, chair of the NCAC Board of Directors and president and publisher of Simon & Schuster Childrens Publishing. In this most challenging of times for First Amendment rights, we need someone with the experience and reputation that Chris brings to the table in protecting the rights of all Americans to express themselves as they choose.

Finan has a long career as a free speech activist. He is currently director of American Booksellers for Free Expression, part of the American Booksellers Association (ABA). In 1982, he joined Media Coalition, a trade association that defends the First Amendment rights of booksellers, publishers, librarians and others who produce and distribute First Amendment-protected material. In 1998, he became president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. The foundation merged with ABA in 2015.

Finan has worked closely with NCAC as a member of the board of directors and as a board chair. In 2007, he and Bertin created NCACs Kids Right to Read Project, which supports parents, students, teachers and librarians who are fighting efforts to ban books in schools and libraries.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to lead an organization that plays such an important role in protecting free expression. I am also very fortunate to be succeeding Joan Bertin, who has led NCACs vigorous defense of free speech during a time of growing censorship pressure, Finan said.

As examples of NCACs recent advocacy, Finan pointed to statements defending publishers who are pressured to censor books that some critics consider offensive, condemning the Trump administrations attacks on the press and criticizing the Walker Art Centers decision to dismantle a sculpture after accusations that it was cultural appropriation.

See the rest here:

National Coalition Against Censorship Chooses New Leader - Blogging Censorship

Why Germany wages war on free speech – Washington Examiner

This week, Germany launched a major crackdown on free expression. In 36 simultaneous raids across multiple states, German authorities sought evidence for speech-related criminal offenses based on things people posted on the Internet.

Most of these offenses come under incitement to racial hatred laws. That might sound good to some, but it isn't.

There's a major difference between U.S. and German incitement laws. U.S. law at federal and state levels criminalizes only incitement that is designed to foster imminent unlawful violence. The incitement must also be likely to lead to unlawful violence. This three-prong test means that saying "I [expletive] hate [racial/religious/social group] and think they should all burn," for example, is not illegal in America.

And Americans take that for granted. But such postings would be illegal in Germany and in much of Europe.

In the U.K., the Public Order Act mandates that, "A person is guilty of an offense if he uses threatening [or abusive] words or behavior ... within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." Importantly, proven intention and actual harm are not necessary for conviction. It is enough that the speech possibly alarmed someone nearby.

Consider what impact that law might have on the willingness of individuals to discuss sensitive issues like immigration, or abortion, or terrorism? It is a recipe for chilled speech.

Amazingly, however, Germany takes things further, proactively punishing speech that might feasibly upset someone on the Internet. Which, if you've ever been on the Internet, could be said of almost everything on it.

The head of Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office, Holger Mnch, explained the government's position. "Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence and violence either on the street or on the Internet." Again, think carefully on those words. Germany seeks not simply to punish offending speech, but to "not allow a climate" of offense.

To accomplish this objective, Germany isn't simply arresting speakers, it is punishing the platforms of speech. As Germany's Justice Minister, Heiko Mass, put it, "We need to increase the pressure on social media companies." Mass is referring to a draft law that would impose $56 million fines on Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies, if they fail to remove offending speech within a short period. As I've noted, similar legislation is also being considered in Britain.

There's an immensely pathetic quality to this authoritarianism. Such coordinated efficiency and absent restraint raises troubling parallels with another era in German history.

Regardless, Americans should be grateful that the founding fathers chose a different approach. First, our deference to the freedom of individuals is the best moral, social, and political approach to offensive speech. By allowing those with grievances to articulate their beliefs, however unpleasant those views might be, we trust in the debate of different ideas. We know that ultimately, the best ideas will triumph. Moreover, by refusing to ban viewpoints that are perceivably upsetting or intolerant, we ensure that our policy debate is checked by an insidious chilling of speech.

What are Twitter and Facebook to do? I would suggest they threaten to withdraw from Germany. When German voters see that, they might be more offended by their government's policy than by what's said on social media.

Read the original here:

Why Germany wages war on free speech - Washington Examiner

Wisconsin Assembly passes college free speech bill that would punish hecklers – Chicago Tribune

University of Wisconsin students who repeatedly disrupt campus speakers or presentations could be suspended or expelled under a Republican-backed bill the state Assembly passed Wednesday.

The measure, approved on a 61-36 vote Wednesday night with no Democrats in support, is the latest salvo in the national push among some conservatives to crack down on disruptions they say is quelling free speech on liberal college campuses. Conservatives are worried that right-wing speakers aren't given equal treatment as liberal campus presenters, while other students have complained about free expression fanning hate speech.

Democrats, who didn't have the votes to stop the bill in the Assembly, blasted it as an unconstitutional attack on freedom of speech.

"It basically gags and bags the First Amendment," said Democratic Rep. Chris Taylor of Madison.

Republican backers told reporters that the bill would protect speech from those who repeatedly try to quash it.

"We have to lay down some groundwork here and we have to create a behavioral shift so everyone can be heard and has the right to express their views," said the measure's sponsor Republican Rep. Jesse Kremer.

The proposal must still pass the GOP-controlled Senate and be signed by Gov. Scott Walker before becoming law.

Walker has voiced support for it.

"To me, a university should be precisely the spot where you have an open and free dialogue about all different positions," he said in an April interview with WISN-TV. "But the minute you shut down a speaker, no matter whether they are liberal or conservative or somewhere in between, I just think that's wrong."

The proposal comes in the wake of incidents on college campuses across the country in which protests or threats marred conservative presentations.

Fights broke out at New York University in February after protesters disrupted a speech by Gavin McInnes, founder of a group called "Proud Boys" and a self-described chauvinist. That same month there were protests at the University of California-Berkley ahead of an appearance by former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos. That school canceled an April speech by conservative firebrand Ann Coulter due to security concerns. And in November, UW-Madison students shouted down former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro.

Under the Wisconsin bill, two complaints about a UW System student's conduct during a speech or presentation would trigger a hearing. Students found to have twice engaged in violence or disorderly conduct that disrupts another's freedom of expression would be suspended for a semester. A third offense would mean expulsion. UW institutions would have to remain neutral on public controversies and the Board of Regents would have to report annually to legislators about incidents.

"You're hoping to neuter the university from having any stance on things," said Democratic Rep. Cory Mason.

The bill is based on a model proposal the conservative Arizona-based Goldwater Institute put together to address campus free-speech issues. Legislation based on the model has been enacted in Colorado, with others being considered in five states, including Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia, according to the institute.

Democrats argue that the measure could open the door to partisan operatives attending speeches and filing complaints against students to get them thrown out of school.

"We are returning, when we do this, to the witch hunt era of Joe McCarthy," said Democratic Rep. Fred Kessler, referring to the former U.S. senator from Wisconsin who made it his mission in the 1950s to identify Communists.

The only group registered in support of the measure is Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy organization. Opponents include a group representing faculty on the flagship UW-Madison campus, the labor union representing UW employees and the League of Women Voters.

Read the original here:

Wisconsin Assembly passes college free speech bill that would punish hecklers - Chicago Tribune

Sen. Feinstein: Protecting College Free Speech from Violent Protests Is Too Much of a Burden – Reason (blog)

Michael Reynolds/EPA/NewscomGosh, protecting controversial free speech from violent protests is expensive. Wouldn't it be easier for colleges to just not let any of that stuff happen? Who wants another Kent State?

That is, with no exaggeration, the attitude expressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) at a Senate hearing this week on free speech on college campuses.

The hearing came just a day after the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment is so important to American culture that the federal government cannot simply reject trademarks on the basis of offensiveness. Feinstein, by contrast, expressed bafflement at the argument that universities shouldn't succumb to the heckler's veto and to the idea that publicly funded colleges should have to host invited speakers "no matter how radical, offensive, biased, prejudiced, fascist the program is."

There's a reason Feinstein appears on Reason's list of "enemies of freedom."

Ultimately, Feinstein's objection to protecting controversial speech is that of the bureaucrat disguised as the concerned nanny. When people intent on violence show up at protests, other people can get hurt. But colleges have limited resources, she arguesso why should campus police be expected to be able handle protests if they get seriously out of hand?

"You don't think we learned a lesson from Kent State way back when?" she asked at one point, a fascinating reply that illustrates so much about her mind-set. Feinstein's argument seems to be that the killing of four college students by members of the National Guard would have been prevented if the government hadn't allowed the protests in the first place.

Fortunately, lovers of liberty were well-represented on the panel by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who patiently explained that, yes, publicly funded colleges are expected to make sure the civil liberties of the students on their campus are protected appropriately by law enforcement. "One important job of the government is to prevent violence, and to prevent violence without suppressing free speech," he said in response.

There is an odd mind-set out thereone not confined to any particular ideologythat thinks it's some sort of distraction for law enforcement officials to spend their time protecting protesters from violence or standing along parade routes to make sure people come to no harm. These people have their priorities backwards. Protecting people who are expressing their First Amendment rights is what the police are for. The distractions are arresting people for drugs and citing people for not wearing seatbelts.

Similarly, people like Feinstein complain about the costs of protecting liberty as though colleges haven't been undergoing a dramatic increase in administrative bloat. The answer isn't more money from the government. The answer is better spending priorities.

Over at Hot Air, John Sexton says he's surprised to see Feinstein support submission to the heckler's veto. He shouldn't be. Feinstein is actively pro-censorship toward anything she perceives as potentially contributing to violence, including imaginary guns in video games.

Ken "Popehat" White, who recently wrote an excellent explainer for the Los Angeles Times detailing how and why "hate speech" is protected speech, took note of the Supreme Court decisions this week and the overall trend of judicial decisions that bolster the First Amendment. But he also worries what it means for the future if we culturally abandon free speech values:

The Supreme Court is upholding the black letter of liberty, but are Americans upholding its spirit? When college students, encouraged by professors and administrators, believe that they have a right to be free of offense, no. When Americans hunger to "open up" libel laws or jail flag burners, no. When our attitude towards the hecker's veto becomes "let's do it to them because they did it to us," no. Not only is speech practically impaired, but in the long term the cultural norms necessary to sustain good Supreme Court precedent are eroded.

After giving White space to explain why hate speech is legally protected, the Los Angeles Times gave the sociologist and legal scholar Laura Beth Nielsen an opportunity to argue that hate speech should be restricted. The crux of her argument is that hateful speech disproportionately affects the disenfranchised and causes actual measurable harms.

Here is what is especially wrongheaded about Nielsen's op-ed: She repeatedly notes how government's speech restrictions have historically protected the powerful and influential. Yet she somehow does not realize that this is an argument against granting the government the authority to define and restrain hate speech.

So she complains that Congress passed a law to prevent the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting military funerals but never did anything to stop the church from protesting the funerals of people who died of AIDS. She denounces anti-panhandling laws, saying they were enacted to protect the interests of businesses that don't want them around. (She doesn't mention that the courts do in fact frequently strike these laws down as unconstitutional.) It's true: The government is more likely to restrict speech on your behalf if you have more political influence. If the government adds "hate speech" to its rationales for cracking down, do you really think the outcome will be any different?

Neilsen simply doesn't seem aware of how her rationales for restricting speech could be deployed in ways she wouldn't like. As if to underline the point, she pulls out the old "fire in a crowded theater" trope as an example that free speech is not absolute without mentioning that the quote comes from a case where a man was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act for distributing a pamphlet opposing the draft.

So, to sum up: Feinstein sees government forces shooting student protesters and concludes that colleges should restrict free speech in order to prevent violence. And Nielsen thinks censorship laws that unfairly harm or exclude the disenfranchised are arguments in favor of giving the government more power to censor speech.

Go here to read the rest:

Sen. Feinstein: Protecting College Free Speech from Violent Protests Is Too Much of a Burden - Reason (blog)

Pepe the Frog Drawing Forces Free Speech Event Cancellation at Linfield College – Heat Street

Linfield College administrators have forced a Young Americans for Liberty group to cancel a free speech event over a cartoon frog.

Staff at the university labeled participants white supremacists after one of them drew a picture of Pepe the Frog, the popular meme thats been unfairly maligned as a hate symbol by Hillary Clinton and her supporters in the mainstream media.

The libertarian group set up a table on campus to promote their organization, and planned to sponsor a series of free speech events planned at college, which is in Oregon.

According to Reason, Kiefer Smith, vice president of the chapter, brought an inflatable free speech ball for participants to write and draw pictures on.

The majority of the things written on there were uplifting things, not political, not inflammatory at all, he said.

Typical examples were said to include youre awesome and have a nice day.

When one participant drew Pepe, the group came under attack by other students on campus, and involved the administration in their complaints.

Immediately we were deemed alt-right, said Smith, who says that YAL were even accused of being white supremacists over the drawing.

Reason states that the Linfield Advisory Committee on Diversity responded to the drawing by inviting the group to a free speech forum, where they were supposed to hold an hour-long discussion on the freedom of expression, but the event turned into a four-hour condemnation of the group.

Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt, a professor of English and gender studies coordinator accused the group of being funded by alt-right dark money.

Following the forum, the school administration canceled the planned free speech events that YAL was sponsoring, including a talk hosted by University of Toronto psychologist Jordan Peterson on ethics and free speech.

Peterson has come under fire from the progressive left for speaking out against the enforcement of gender-neutral preferred pronouns like ze/hir and xe/xir.

The campus faculty, including Dean of Faculty Dawn Nowacki, took aim at YAL in the campus newspaper, where they falsely described the libertarians as alt-right.

These efforts are a lot more subtle, wrote Nowacki. Just as becoming a terrorist is a gradual, step-by-step process, people do not become part of the alt-right overnight. These events represent a kind of soft recruitment into more extremist ideas.

The Young Americans for Liberty went ahead with their free speech event at an off-campus site, where they received a turn-out of over 400 attendeesdouble the number they were expecting.

The banned lecture also received around 90,000 views on YouTube.

This colleges efforts to suppress free speech backfired spectacularly.

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at@stillgray on Twitterand onFacebook.

Go here to see the original:

Pepe the Frog Drawing Forces Free Speech Event Cancellation at Linfield College - Heat Street

If you want to restrict free speech, you can Ossoff – Washington Examiner

Jon Ossoff, a novice Democratic candidate who ran for election in Georgia's 6th District on Tuesday, earned the dubious distinction of presiding over the most expensive failure in congressional election history.

His campaign burned through $22.5 million, most of it from outside Georgia, which is more than the combined amount spent by both major-party candidates in any previous House race. Ossoff's victorious opponent, Republican Karen Handel, spent a modest $3.2 million.

This greater than 6-to-1 advantage for Ossoff was narrowed considerably by spending by outside groups. In all, spending for Ossoff amounted to $30.5 million, as compared with $21.4 million for Handel.

Perhaps this narrower gap was on Ossoff's mind when, as he sank to a humiliating defeat, he denounced the proliferation of money in politics.

Either way, it takes gall for the biggest congressional spender ever to try to take the high ground on this issue. Ossoff said, "The role of money in politics is a major problem and particularly the role of unchecked anonymous money." In an election day interview on NPR, he added, "There have been super PACs in Washington who have been putting up tens of millions of dollars of attack ads in air for months now."

The money in question wasn't anonymous, for parties PACs and super PACs must report their donors, but set that aside. Let's also set aside the fact that Ossoff led outside spending during the runoff, between the April 18 jungle primary and the June 20 finale. Let us charitably also set aside the fact that the Democrat's opinion is self-serving hypocrisy.

Instead, let's focus on the more important fact that Americans have a constitutional right to express themselves on political issues and that in the modern world this expression takes the form of mass media campaigns. Democrats seem unanimously to disagree with this right.

Ever since they were toppled from power in Washington in the early 1990s after nearly two generations of near hegemony, Democrats have been trying to limit free political speech by regulating the tools of its delivery.

In response to the Supreme Court's repeatedly vindicating this treasured First Amendment right, not just with Citizens United but also by striking down key parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in earlier decisions, Senate Democrats voted in 2014 to weaken the First Amendment guarantee of free political speech. The constitutional amendment that every single Democrat present on the floor voted to pass would have explicitly empowered both Congress and state legislatures to pass laws abridging the freedom of political speech for the first time in this nation's history.

Last year, Democratic Federal Election Commissioners went even further in their war on the First Amendment by attacking the freedom of the press, again in the name of campaign finance regulation. They tried unsuccessfully to prevent newspapers with more than 5 percent foreign ownership (this would include The New York Times) to endorse candidates.

They also tried to punish Fox News for its editorial decision about how to stage a summer 2015 GOP primary debate. At issue was the network's last-minute choice to hold a separate "undercard" debate for minor candidates, in order to avoid an unwatchable forum that included 16 or 17 candidates on the same stage. FEC Democrats tried to construe this editorial decision as an illegal in-kind corporate campaign contribution to the candidates who participated.

These efforts show that the party of the Left represents a clear and present danger to the First Amendment. It is the equivalent in government, but an even greater threat than the hecklers' veto over conservative speakers now being exercised by radical leftists at college campuses around the country.

The increasing hostility of leftists and their party toward the First Amendment may not have played a large role in the Democrats' several recent losses. But it is misplaced in any event. As various and ideologically diverse large-dollar donors have learned the hard way everyone from Sheldon Adelson to Tom Steyer one cannot just buy elections, hard as one tries.

More importantly, the loss of an election is no excuse for limiting others' constitutional rights, no matter how worthy of office the deluded young Ossoff believes himself to be.

Continue reading here:

If you want to restrict free speech, you can Ossoff - Washington Examiner

Opinion: After shooting, calls for free speech limits but not for guns – Austin American-Statesman

Last week there was another horrific shooting that took place at a baseball field filled with Republican members of Congress and their staff. They were practicing for the annual Democrat v Republican charity baseball game.

Five people were injured, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

Mass shootings are far too commonplace in this country. In fact, this was not the only one that took place that day.

Fortunately, President Donald Trump rose to the occasion by reminding us that we are strongest when we are unified and when we work together for the common good.

Unfortunately, unity fell apart and the finger pointing began when airways from the right began shouting that the left had blood on their hands. Connections were made between the baseball field shooting and recent anti-Trump statements.

One such violent statement was made by Madonna at the Womens March in D.C. She said she thought about blowing up the White House. That triggered former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to call for her arrest.

Another act caused widespread condemnation of comedian Kathy Griffins grotesque idea of a joke. She apologized for holding up a bloody, severed head that resembled the president, and admitted she went too far. I agree she went too far, but the apology didnt stop her from losing her job. It also didnt prevent social media from lighting up with calls for her arrest.

We may never know if these inflammatory incidents influenced the shooter but the right was loudly calling for limits on free speech. No matter how disgusting we may find these statements, they dont rise to the level of being unlawful. Even though Madonna and Griffin both received a visit from the Secret Service, it seems public outcry is the main the consequence for such actions.

There are exceptions to that norm however. It seems rocker Ted Nugent may have benefited from a mountain of repugnant, hate filled statements such as, Obama suck on my machine gun. Those types of hideous comments seem to have garnered Nugent not only a place in Governor Greg Abbotts campaign, but also a dinner at the White House at Trumps invitation.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized very few exceptions to free speech. They include: obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence.

While I agree with the exceptions to our precious right to free speech, I also long for common sense limits to our Second Amendment rights. Limitations that would keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldnt have them like domestic abusers, felons or people who are dangerously ill or even suspected terrorists.

There have been numerous calls made for sensible restrictions, but those were always blocked by Republicans. In fact, there were unsuccessful efforts to restrict the type rifle used in this recent assault.

Even though 90 percent of Americans wanted to see expanded background checks after the Sandy Hook massacre, the GOP killed that effort.

Shortly after taking office, this administration began rolling back the Obama-era regulation that would keep guns out of the hands of people with severe mental disorders.

Since the shooting, there has been talk among Republicans of not tightening gun laws but loosening them.

As much as I want to see the hateful rhetoric end, I doubt it will. Both sides are guilty of it. Our Constitution protects speech and gun rights, yet even though Republicans scream for limits on the one, they refuse to allow any common-sense limits on the other. Sadly, thats the one that can actually kill you.

Continue reading here:

Opinion: After shooting, calls for free speech limits but not for guns - Austin American-Statesman

Symposium: Most important free speech case in many years – SCOTUSblog (blog)

Hugh C. Hansen is a professor of law at Fordham University School of Law.He is the founder and director of the Fordham Conference on IP Law and Policy and the Fordham IP Institute. He submitted amicus curiae briefs in support of Simon Tam in both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court.

Matal v. Tam is one of the most important First Amendment free speech cases to come along in many years. The result is not much of a surprise. For the record, on October 24, 2016, I tweeted: TAM prediction: from doctrinal, policy, realist analysis + cert before 4 cir op = 2A disparage violates 1st Amend; scandalous reserved. What was a surprise was how strongly all eight justices viewed the applicable free speech protection.

Justice Samuel Alitos opinion meticulously addressed all arguments, making sure there were no loose ends to clutter future cases. His style was critical and even mocking. He left no doubts on the merits of the free speech issues. Justice Anthony Kennedys opinion took more of a Gordian knot approach. No need to worry about untying various threads and arguments; viewpoint discrimination allows us to just cut right through them. The purpose of both opinions appeared to be to make sure that there was no way around the Supreme Courts conclusions in the future. The court also seemed to take offense at the governments and amicis arguments as to why there was no viewpoint discrimination. The opinions together amounted to a serious defeat for the government and its amici supporters.

The government and amici put up a strong effort defending Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. This in part derived from their admirable concern for the feelings of minority groups and the value of Section 2(a). This is the reason the Patent and Trademark Office in effect rewrote the Section 2(a) disparagement provision, years after passage of the act in 1946, to how it is applied today. There is no problem with any of this until someones free speech rights become involved. One reason the government and amici are so emphatic in their defense of Section 2(a) is perhaps that free speech took no serious part in their consideration of the issues.

If so, they are not alone. Free speech has never had many true friends. It receives plenty of lip service. We are generally in favor of free speech when we like the speech for which protection is sought but lose interest in it when we do not.

In his 1919 dissent in Abrams v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes extolled the idea that freedom of speech in the First Amendment is based upon a marketplace of ideas. No ideas are sacrosanct and all have to withstand scrutiny and debate. Truth will win out in this process and democracy will benefit.

Although that is a very worthy ideal, it is difficult to find any such marketplace today. Newspapers are in decline. Television news shows are divided ideologically, with viewers driven by confirmation bias. The Internet is primarily a gathering place for digital mobs ready to tar and feather those who hold opposing views.

The rest of us have gathered not in the public square but in private groups to which admission is dependent upon adherence to politically correct orthodoxy. It is safe inside these groups, where shared views are sacrosanct and never have to withstand scrutiny. Opposing views are there too, but only to be mocked from a distance.

In this environment, free speech is permitted for somebody with the same views but is disdained when it comes to opposing ones. Political correctness is the new tribalism.

It was upon this highly fraught platform that the government argued that it should be able to enforce politically correct views through Section 2(a). It tells those that are distressed, and are in the right private group, that it will challenge offensive marks on their behalf or allow the distressed to do it themselves. It will not debate these marks in the public square but rather seek to exclude them from it.

Simon Tams mark, which encapsulates the groups controversial ideas, is barred because of those ideas. Yet it is such use of expressive marks that today ironically, considering this case are the best hope to keep alive a marketplace of ideas. No private group can exclude these ideas in an effort to insulate themselves from exposure. Moreover, people receive access to the mark without warning and in neutral territory. They are in a setting where they might actually consider the ideas on their merits before they can jump-start their ideological protective screening.

In sum, I think that court saw that the use of marks for expressive content provides an important nascent marketplace for the reception and debate of ideas. The governments construction of Section 2(a) effectively stifles this marketplace.

I think it that might be the reason the courts opinion is so bold and unyielding. The court realizes that there is a serious fight for free speech and this is the beginning of an effort to free it from current cultural confines. (In any case, that is my personal view, and you cant criticize it because it might seriously hurt my feelings.)

Well, enough of that. What does this opinion then mean for related issues? The most obvious issue concerns the constitutionality of the Section 2(a) bar on scandalous and immoral marks. The government took the position after the en banc decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that these were covered as controlled by that decision. Yet it reserved the right for the solicitor general to distinguish this case and argue that the PTO can still bar such marks from registration. That issue is currently being litigated in In re Brunetti in the Federal Circuit.

Analytically, this is an easy issue. Matal v. Tam controls. But first lets look a little at the history of case law on the issue. The major case was In re McGinley (C.C.P.A. 1981). There the precursor to the Federal Circuit held that the Section 2(a) ban was constitutional. It reasoned that PTOs refusal to register the appellants mark did not affect the right to use it and that no tangible form of expression was suppressed.Since then three panels of the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 3rd and 5th Circuits have all followed that reasoning.

McGinley was a mainstream (and Main Street) approach to the First Amendment. It was not an outlier. It was decided the way most if not all courts would have decided it. This is especially true for the Federal Circuit, the overseer/guardian of the PTOs trademark registration system.

Disparagement and scandalous and immoral provisions are similar but different. The latter does not ring First Amendment free-speech bells with most people. This is because (1) the marks at issue are smutty, vulgar or worse and not intended to send any larger expressive message; (2) registration is not perceived as economically necessary for these mark owners; (3) when there are serious free speech issues they can be ameliorated on a case-by-case basis by careful or limiting application of the statutory tests; (4) this provision provides a desirable civilizing effect on what could be registered as marks; and (5) courts had already made Section 2(a) more First Amendment-friendly through a construction that effectively eliminated immoral.

On the other hand, the result of declaring a First Amendment violation would include: (1) disruption of the status quo a removal of provisions in the law since 1905; (2) outrage in Congress and the public; and (3) a potential smut-bath of new applications.

For most who would balance these policies and effects, the choice is not difficult. And balancing is what courts do. The fact that neither the en banc Federal Circuit nor the Supreme Court addressed this question indicates the lack of appetite for deciding it. I think some courts might still try to find ways to uphold the scandalous and immoral provision. But this time the whole world will be watching and, ultimately, I think they will conclude it is covered by Matal v. Tam. And they can pass on the blame by saying the Supreme Court made me do it.

What is more interesting are the suggestions by some very smart people that this case threatens the viability of the tarnishment provision in dilution law and even the whole law of dilution. I dont think that is the case for several reasons. First, the Supreme Court did not actually reach its result Matal v. Tam by applying or construing language from prior cases. It reached it by looking at public policies, possible conflicts in those policies, and other real-world issues. So the court will not seek to derive an answer on dilution and the First Amendment from language in Tam. Even if it did, I am doubtful it would reach the same conclusions as those that have been suggested.

Furthermore, the decision in Tam was based in part on the fact that the disparagement provision had nothing to do with the goals of trademark law. The court in fact was supportive of trademark law, noting that the Lanham Act provides national protection of trademarks in order to secure to the owner of the mark the goodwill of his business and to protect the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers. Dilutions law whole purpose from the beginning was to protect the goodwill of the mark owner. It protects against the whittling away of a marks goodwill by unauthorized users. It also protects against increased consumer search costs. Tarnishment protects the goodwill of a products mark by preventing it from being associated when there is no likelihood of confusion with inferior or undesirable products. And finally, it is highly unlikely that a court will feel comfortable eliminating state dilution laws that are over 65 years old or federal laws, whatever the reason.

Free speech up until now has been a hothouse flower. It was beautiful to look at in its protected state, but out in the elements it rarely survived, let alone thrived. Matal v. Tam creates the possibility of breaking down those glass walls. The question is whether that is premature or whether free speech can survive outside on its own. I guess that will depend to some extent on what you and I do.

Posted in Matal v. Tam, Symposium on the court's ruling in Matal v. Tam, Featured

Recommended Citation: Hugh Hansen, Symposium: Most important free speech case in many years, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 22, 2017, 11:52 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/symposium-important-free-speech-case-many-years/

The rest is here:

Symposium: Most important free speech case in many years - SCOTUSblog (blog)

Chad’s Morning Brief: Free Speech In America – News/Talk 790 KFYO

Subscribe to News/Talk 95.1 & 790 KFYO on

In an Op-Ed for the L.A. Times, a writer argues that we would all be better off if the United States banned hate speech. What is hate speech and who decides what is hate speech the author never fully addresses, but instead describes how its hard to justify the non-ban on hate speech to her undergrad students. In other words, college kids dont understand how freedom of speech works and their feelings are being hurt so we need to restrict speech.

No thanks.

The Chad Hasty Show airs 8:30-11am on NewsTalk 95.1 FM and 790 AM KFYO.

Tune into The Chad Hasty Show weekday mornings 8:30-11am on News/Talk 95.1 FM and 790AM KFYO or click on the Listen Live link above.

The opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the authorand are not representative of the opinions of Townsquare Media Lubbock, its advertisers or affiliates.

See more here:

Chad's Morning Brief: Free Speech In America - News/Talk 790 KFYO

Christians: Why You Need an Atheist Speaker at Your Next Conference – Patheos (blog)

I read or listen to lots of Christian apologists. Frank Turek. Norm Geisler. Dinesh DSouza. William Lane Craig. Gary Habermas. Mike Licona. Jim Wallace. Greg Koukl. Peter Kreeft.

I went to John Warrick Montgomerys two-week Apologetics Academy in Strasbourg, France in 2011. I want to hear the best that Christian apologetics has to offer.

The reverse is rarely true.

Christian conferences

I see the ads for Christian apologetics conferences that promise to equip dedicated Christians who want to win souls for Christ. Sometimes they cover arguments for a historical Jesus. Or review scientific arguments that can be used to argue for a deity behind nature. Or even role-play interaction with mock atheists.

Its not enough. They need to hear from an actual atheist. A faux atheist is no foe.

To me, their refusal to invite one means that conference organizers dont trust their material to carry the day. Theyre afraid that theyll get embarrassed or upstaged or that the attendees would get freaked out or overwhelmed with material thats just too real.

But then how well do they prepare attendees? If the conference must tiptoe through the material to avoid the difficult topics, how will newly minted apologists do when they get out and talk to real, live, well-informed atheists? If you hope that God will give you the right words as he did with Moses, you are setting yourself up for embarrassment.

If someone wants apologetics lite, they can read a book, but a conference should ramp it up. Attendees shouldnt be spoon-fed straw man arguments but given the real thing.

In this blog, Ive responded to many Christian argumentsfrom books, interviews, articles, blog posts, podcasts, lectures, and debates. Its one of my favorite kinds of posts because they pretty much write themselves. Christians arguments are easy to refute. Ive seen enough to know that the good stuff isnt kept secret, like magic tricks, and whispered only to worthy initiates. If youre counting on an apologetics conference to show you the landscape, you will be disappointed. Ive heard the good stuff, and its not very good.

My proposal

The next time you see a notice for an apologetics conference, tell the organizing team to invite me to speak, either in a debate or with a lecture.

I can educate the audience about atheism. (Yes, atheists have purpose and morality. No, atheists dont see their worldview as empty or hopeless.) I can argue for same-sex marriage and abortion rights. I can attack intellectual arguments for Christianity, and I can provide positive arguments for atheism. And then you get the last word.

The Christian arguments will be tested in the field. Shouldnt they be tested in the conference?

My fee: $0

Give me an audience of 50 or more, and Ill do it for free. Just cover my expenses. Im meeting you more than halfwayyou donate expenses, and Ill donate a day or a weekend of my time plus preparation.

Read my books and blog to see how I think. Ill even provide my books to attendees at cost. If you want someone with a higher profile, thats great. Ill be happy to make suggestions.

You think that after an atheist presents the best that that worldview has to offer, you can give your audience an adequate response? Greatthen an atheist would be an asset to the conference.

You know how to reach me.

Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD Isaiah 1:18

See the original post:

Christians: Why You Need an Atheist Speaker at Your Next Conference - Patheos (blog)