Our View: Progress on bridge repairs is too slow – The Daily Nonpareil

A report issued last week rates Iowa as having the most structurally deficient bridges in the country and the second-highest percentage of such bridges.

The numbers 4,968 bridges, which make up 20.5 percent of Iowas total figure, according to The American Road & Transportation Builders Association are astounding. More than one in five bridges has been deemed as unsatisfactory.

Given the shortfall and other critical needs going unmet, Iowa must be prudent in going forth. The state needs to invest in its infrastructure.

To be clear, bridges labeled structurally deficient arent necessarily in immediate danger of collapse. The term is applied when spans need rehabilitation or replacement because at least one major component has advanced deterioration or other problems.

Those unable to support heavier loads are clearly marked by city or county engineers. But, because of a lack of resources, many of these bridges are at least 50 years old and have never undergone any major repairs.

Many of the most heavily traveled bridges support busy interstates or other highways, including the intersection of North Sixth Street and West Kanesville Boulevard in Council Bluffs, are easily noticed. But many of the bridges bearing even more potential danger can be found in rural portions of the state.

Iowa, the state noted for having two borders completely drawn by rivers, has plenty of creeks and streams away from the state lines. Bridges over these smaller bodies of water often carry larger trucks and trailers from farm to market in more sparsely populated areas.

The work is being done in southwest Iowa. Council Bluffs interstate reconstruction is a clear step in the right direction, as are smaller projects, such as recent bridge repair along Iowa Highway 92 near Treynor.

The need to repair roads and bridges in Iowa or this country is nothing new.

Thats why the Iowa Legislature voted a couple years ago to increase the fuel tax. President Donald Trump has pledged a massive project to improve the nations infrastructure, with roads and bridges playing a central role in the campaign proposal that has yet to be formally unveiled.

And its clear that some progress is being made. The study noted that 57 Iowa bridges have been repaired since the previous years survey, which is progress in a positive direction.

However, the safety and security of Iowans and others traversing our state must remain at the forefront. Anything, within reason, the state can do to help accelerate the repair of aging bridges would be a positive step.

Go here to see the original:

Our View: Progress on bridge repairs is too slow - The Daily Nonpareil

Progress continues in Middletown Jan. 1 drive-by fatal shooting – Hamilton Journal News

MIDDLETOWN

Middletown detectives are continuing to make progress to find the killer of a woman gunned down while a passenger in a car early Jan. 1.

Teresa Shields, 26, of Middletown, was one of two people killed during the early morning hours of New Years Day after incidents outside the 513 Lounge and a shooting at Roosevelt Boulevard and Wicoff Street. Two weeks ago, detectives traveled to Chicago where they seized a vehicle and evidence believed to be involved in Shields homicide.

Steven Waldon, 34, of Middletown was the driver of the 2010 Audi that was sprayed with gun shots at Roosevelt and Wicoff. Both Waldon and Shields, his girlfriend, suffered gunshot wounds and Waldon drove them and two other passengers to Atrium Medical Center emergency room. Shields died at the hospital.

Lt. Jim Cunningham said Waldon has identified the Jeep seized in Chicago as the vehicle that shots came from, but says he does not know the identity of the shooter.

The owner of the vehicle is a person of interest, Cunningham said, noting that person lives in Chicago, but has ties to Middletown.

Middletown Police Chief Rodney Muterspaw said he and detectives met with Shields parents last week to talk about leads in the case.

We have a number of leads and have seized evidence while in Chicago (and) working with the Chicago Police Department. But we still need more information. We are working 24/7 on this case and it is paying dividends, Muterspaw said in a Facebook post. Dont forget this girl or this family. They need you to remember and stand for her. Say something if you know something.

The Ohio Highway Patrol is continuing to investigate the fatal car crash early on Jan. 1 that killed Mariama-Maria Richlen, 24, West Chester Twp.

Richlen was a passenger in a car driven by Deshawn Rippey, 22, of Hamilton, that flel from the parking lot of the 513 Lounge on North Verity Parkway when shots were fired in the parking lot area behind the bar. Before officers could stop Rippeys Buick, it had crashed into a wall at the rear of St. Johns Church.

Waldon and Shields also attended the New Years party at the 513 Lounge, but it is not known if the shooting incidents are connected.

Anyone with information regarding the Shields homicide can:

Call the anonymous hotline at 513-425-7749

Send police a private message via Facebook

Call Detective Steve Winters or Detective Sam Allen at 513-425-7737

See the article here:

Progress continues in Middletown Jan. 1 drive-by fatal shooting - Hamilton Journal News

Skai Moore’s progress leads South Carolina football spring storylines – SECcountry.com

The South Carolina football team opens spring practice in 5days. With Saturday looming, here are 5storylines to watch.

Moore is arguably the most important player for South Carolina this spring as he continues rehabfrom neck fusion surgery that cost himthe 2016 season. South Carolina enters the spring with 3relevant linebackers on its roster and Moores progress is key for the position group.

RELATED: 5 players to watch in spring football

Bentley entershis first spring at South Carolina, just as he would be had he not enrolled a full year in advance. But instead of getting his first reps, hewill be the established starting quarterback. Bentleycomes off a strong freshman seasonin which he threw for 1,420 yards and 9touchdowns in 7starts. Bentley can launch himself toward an even better 2017 with a strong spring.

South Carolina willhave an ongoing battle this spring between Rico Dowdle and A.J. Turner as it is. Williams a transfer from North Carolina, will get in the mix and make it more colorful. Gamecocks coacheswill have the 3running backs compete to start spring ball, inat what could be a heated competition all the way into the fall.

South Carolina returns 4starters on the offensive line, but things can always change with a new position coach. Wolford inherits a decent chunk of experience in his return to coach South Carolina football.Left tackle is a question mark, while better play is needed at center and right guard. Spring ball gives Wolford his first opportunity to get hands on with his new players.

South Carolina played a large portion of its 2016 recruiting class immediately, but there are redshirt freshmenthat could play key roles in 2017. Offensive tackle Sadarius Hutcherson draws plenty of buzz and merits watching atthe open left tackle position. Defensive tackle Stephon Taylor was highly recruited and could be a remedy to run-stopping issues. They will getopportunities to make their statement for playing time.

View original post here:

Skai Moore's progress leads South Carolina football spring storylines - SECcountry.com

MeWatt Uses Progress to Accelerate Mobile Application Development for Internet of Things – Yahoo Finance

BEDFORD, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Progress (PRGS) today announced that MeWatt Corporation, creators of a revolutionary IoT device for near real-time energy monitoring and analysis of appliance energy usage, is leveraging the NativeScript open source platform to enable customers to become more knowledgeable abouttheir energy consumption.

Developed and supported by Progress, NativeScript enables the cross-platform creation of native applications for iOS and Android devices. It is unlike traditional hybrid or web apps, as it leverages platform-native UI to deliver maximum performanceeven on older Android devices and makes it easy to share code between platforms. Developers using NativeScript can use their existing skills in JavaScript, without the need to learn new coding environments, expediting time to market.

Serving both commercial businesses and personal consumers alike, MeWatt created a device that could IoT-enable any appliance, with actionable recommendations and alerts to empower users to reduce energy costs and control their carbon footprint. MeWatt needed to build a mobile app capable of quickly pulling and analyzing data from potentially hundreds of thousands of appliances without negatively impacting performance. NativeScript, the open source framework from Progress, provided MeWatt with the tools needed to not only create the app, but do so in a matter of weeks, compared to traditional native approaches that could take months and requires specific development skillsets and technologies.

"We needed a mobile app that would run on any device and we didnt have the time to create individual native apps. If you know JavaScript and you want the best performance possible in native, the NativeScript framework is an excellent product to use, said Lino Tadros, CEO and President, MeWatt. We didnt have to write everything from scratch using a different language to support each device. We did it once, which helped us bring the app to market fasterin weeks instead of months.

After developing mobile apps using the NativeScript framework, the MeWatt team plans to use NativeScript for future energy saving ideas. Our development team likes how easy it is to re-use components and code from existing projects, which is pivotal in a world where time to market can make or break the success of an app. If the project calls for JavaScript, then NativeScript will be the go-to framework for building the app, Tadros said.

The NativeScript framework is paving the way for mobile application development, said Faris Sweis, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Developer Tooling, Progress. Developers want native, high quality, high performing apps, and they want to reuse as much of their code as possible to build native mobile apps faster. NativeScript empowers developers to deliver maximally performing and elegant applications with a minimal amount of effort.

For more information about NativeScript, please visit http://www.nativescript.org. For more details about the MeWatt story, click here or view additional customer successes at https://www.progress.com/customers.

About MeWatt MeWatt is a revolutionary appliance to mobile device that provides near real-time energy monitoring and energy usage analysis for consumer appliances and enterprise green initiatives. MeWatt continuously collects and analyzes the energy usage of appliances to provide actionable recommendations and alerts to conserve energy, reduce carbon emissions and save money for both consumers and enterprises. Learn about MeWatt at http://mewatt.com.

About Progress Progress(PRGS) is a global leaderin application development, empowering enterprises to build mission-critical business applications to succeed in an evolving business environment.With offerings spanning web, mobile and data for on-premise and cloud environments, Progress powers businesses worldwide, promoting success one application at a time. Learn aboutProgress atwww.progress.com or 1-781-280-4000.

Progress and NativeScript are trademarks or registered trademarks of Progress Software Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates in the US and other countries. Any other trademarks contained herein are the property of their respective owners.

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170221005018/en/

Read the original:

MeWatt Uses Progress to Accelerate Mobile Application Development for Internet of Things - Yahoo Finance

Book review: ‘The True Story of Guns N’ Roses’ will rock your world – Times LIVE

When I was at primary school out in the boondocks the "bad kids" fell into one of three camps when it came to the bands they claimed to love. They were either fans of old- school rockers AC/DC or notorious hedonists Guns N' Roses or the new raw-power kids on the block, Nirvana.

Casual day would see them donning their band shirts and having heated arguments about whether the ''best guitarist in the world" moniker should be awarded to Angus Young or Slash - anyone who advocated for Eric Clapton would be laughed out of the playground.

As the school nerd I never participated in these debates and when I went to high school I ended up being a Nirvana acolyte - complete with T-shirt, hole-pocked jersey, torn sweat pants and long hair.

As a grunge fan, Guns N' Roses formed no part in my thinking - some band with a shaggy-haired guitarist and an erratically behaved lead singer who'd been big once but by the mid-1990s were a joke outfit to be lumped together in the same 1980s crowd as hair bands like Poison and Mtley Cre, the only vestiges of their existence occasional news stories about the bad behaviour of their increasingly pudgy lead singer Axl Rose.

But as Mick Wall's definitive biography Last of the Giants: The True Story of Guns N' Roses shows, there was a time when GN'R were the biggest band in the world, the last of the great hedonistic, sex drugs and rock 'n' roll groups who grabbed the baton from The Rolling Stones, The Who and Led Zeppelin and took it kicking and screaming into the 1980s before strangling it to death and claiming their place as the murderers of a lifestyle and attitude that no longer exists in the music world.

They did this not just by virtue of their drug-fuelled hedonism, but through their commitment to the music in a career trajectory that saw them push themselves from hustling street kids in LA in the early 1980s to headlining the biggest venues in the world in the early 1990s, before drugs and personal rivalries tore them apart.

Wall, who was singled out as a traitor by Axl Rose in the song Get in the Ring, was once a close confidant of the band and here, through his years of interviews with Slash, Izzy Stradlin, Duff McKagan, Steven Adler and - up to the point at which they were no longer talking - Axl, paints an intimate, multi-faceted and easy to enjoy portrait of what it was that elevated the band above their LA contemporaries, drove them to the top of the world stage and then plunged them down to the bottom.

The arguments on playgrounds in faraway South Africa were the result of a lot of hard work, a lot of egotistical vision on the part of Rose and a lot of other things that few of the band members can remember thanks to the copious amounts of substances they consumed.

With all the thrills, spills, horrors and unfortunate tragedies that used to be the staple of the golden age of rock it's a book that makes an excellent argument for Wall's case that there never was a band quite like GN'R and there may well never be again - hungry young men with axes to grind and chips on their shoulders who never gave a damn whether you liked them or not but still can't believe that so many did.

Read it and shake your head in disbelief or replay the albums in a wave of nostalgia or just to regret that your kids are wearing nothing more offensive than Justin Bieber T-shirts to school on casual day.

'Last of the Giants: The True Story of Guns N' Roses' by Mick Wall published by Trapeze, available at Exclusive Books for R323.

This article was originally published in The Times

Read the original here:

Book review: 'The True Story of Guns N' Roses' will rock your world - Times LIVE

Refugee resettlement study bill passes North Dakota House, Democrat calls it mean-spirited – Bismarck Tribune

The North Dakota House easily passed legislation calling for a study of refugee resettlement in the state Monday, but not before a testy exchange on the floor.

Rep. Pamela Anderson, D-Fargo, said she didnt want to see state resources spent on a mean-spirited study. Rep. Mary Schneider, D-Fargo, read an email asking her to vote against the legislation because it tries to hide racism and religious discrimination behind a guise of rationalism and data.

Rep. Christopher Olson, R-West Fargo, the bills primary sponsor, said the Democrats comments impugned his motives and he hoped for an apology.

Bills like this always seem to get emotional, said House Majority Leader Al Carlson, R-Fargo. But I think its always important on the floor of this House that we remember to keep our comments to not be impugning someone elses integrity.

Schneider said after the floor session that she would never attack the personal motivations of a member of the House, but she argued the bills language is inappropriate.

I didnt say he was mean-spirited; I said the study was mean-spirited, Anderson said after the floor vote.

As introduced, House Bill 1427 would have allowed for a suspension of refugee resettlement if a community lacked sufficient absorptive capacity, which included the ability of various community and government services to meet residents needs. Proponents, which included a Fargo city commissioner and the chairman of the Cass County Commission, said they were merely seeking more input on the program.

The House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee heard lengthy opposition testimony earlier this month from new Americans who told stories of finding opportunity in United States.

The study was amended into a study of various aspects of refugee resettlement, which Schneider worries would only seek negative features of the program and scrutinize one group of people.

But Olson said the refugee resettlement program has largely become an unfunded mandate from the federal government on state and local services.

If this was anything else, wed ask what the cost was, Carlson said. It could show a very positive effect instead of a negative effect.

The study bill passed the House 86-5.

Visit link:

Refugee resettlement study bill passes North Dakota House, Democrat calls it mean-spirited - Bismarck Tribune

The Red94 Podcast: On the Boogie Cousins trade – Red94

by Rahat Huq | February 20, 2017 at 02:50 PM

As I said in the episode, we probably will never know how much Daryl Morey was willing to give up for Boogie Cousins. All we know is from reports that the other offers on the table were embarrassingly low. Did Morey even make an offer? If he didnt, was it out of a fear from the lessons learned from the Dwight Howard experience? Would he have been willing to include Clint Capela and Sam Dekker in a potential deal? It might not have mattered as reports have surfaced regarding Kings ownerships infatuation over Buddy Hield. I still maintain that objectively speaking, what the Rockets could have given was a better offer than what the Kings got for Cousins. But the normal rules of objectivity and rationalism do not apply.

About the author: Rahat Huq is a lawyer in real life and the founder and editor-in-chief of Red94.net.

See the article here:

The Red94 Podcast: On the Boogie Cousins trade - Red94

What Is Censorship – Censorship | Laws.com

What is Censorship? Censorship is the act of altering, adjusting, editing, or banning of media resulting from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the presiding governmental body of a specific country or nation or a private institution. The ideology and methodology of Censorship varies greatly on both domestic and international levels, as well as public and private institutions. Governmental Censorship

Governmental Censorship takes place in the event that the content, subject matter, or intent latent within an individual form of media is considered to exist in contrast with preexisting statutory regulations and legislation. In many cases, the censorship of media will be analogous with corollary laws in existence. For example, in countries or nations in which specific actions or activities are prohibited, media containing that nature of presumed illegal subject matter may be subject to Censorship. However, the mere mention of such subject matter will not always result in censorship; the following methods of classification are typically enacted with regard to a governmentally-instituted statutory Censorship: Censorship within the Public Sector The public sector is defined as any setting in which individuals of all ages inhabit that comply with legal statutes of accepted morality and proper behavior; this differs by locale the nature of the public sector is defined with regard to the nature of the respective form of media and its adherence to legislation: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sanctioned by the federal government of the United States in order to regulate the activity taking place in the public setting-based media Censorship and Intent With regard to Censorship, intent is legally defined as the intended result for which one hopes as a result of their participation in the release or authorship of media; typically, proponents for individual censorship will be required to prove that the intent latent within the media in question was enacted knowingly and deliberately in any lack of adherence to legislation Censorship and Privacy

With Regard to censorship, privacy is a state in which an individual is free to act according to their respective discretion with regard to legal or lawful behavior; however, regardless of the private sector, the adherence to legislation and legality is required Private and Institutional Censorship

Private institutions retain the right to censor media which they may find objectionable; this is due to the fact that the participants in private or independent institutions are defined as willing participants. As a result, upon joining or participating in a private institution, the individuals concede to adhere to applicable regulations:

comments

More here:

What Is Censorship - Censorship | Laws.com

On Censorship – The New Yorker

No writer ever really wants to talk about censorship. Writers want to talk about creation, and censorship is anti-creation, negative energy, uncreation, the bringing into being of non-being, or, to use Tom Stoppards description of death, the absence of presence. Censorship is the thing that stops you doing what you want to do, and what writers want to talk about is what they do, not what stops them doing it. And writers want to talk about how much they get paid, and they want to gossip about other writers and how much they get paid, and they want to complain about critics and publishers, and gripe about politicians, and they want to talk about what they love, the writers they love, the stories and even sentences that have meant something to them, and, finally, they want to talk about their own ideas and their own stories. Their things. The British humorist Paul Jennings, in his brilliant essay on Resistentialism, a spoof of Existentialism, proposed that the world was divided into two categories, Thing and No-Thing, and suggested that between these two is waged a never-ending war. If writing is Thing, then censorship is No-Thing, and, as King Lear told Cordelia, Nothing will came of nothing, or, as Mr. Jennings would have revised Shakespeare, No-Thing will come of No-Thing. Think again.

Consider, if you will, the air. Here it is, all around us, plentiful, freely available, and broadly breathable. And yes, I know, its not perfectly clean or perfectly pure, but here it nevertheless is, plenty of it, enough for all of us and lots to spare. When breathable air is available so freely and in such quantity, it would be redundant to demand that breathable air be freely provided to all, in sufficient quantity for the needs of all. What you have, you can easily take for granted, and ignore. Theres just no need to make a fuss about it. You breathe the freely available, broadly breathable air, and you get on with your day. The air is not a subject. It is not something that most of us want to discuss.

Imagine, now, that somewhere up there you might find a giant set of faucets, and that the air we breathe flows from those faucets, hot air and cold air and tepid air from some celestial mixer-unit. And imagine that an entity up there, not known to us, or perhaps even known to us, begins on a certain day to turn off the faucets one by one, so that slowly we begin to notice that the available air, still breathable, still free, is thinning. The time comes when we find that we are breathing more heavily, perhaps even gasping for air. By this time, many of us would have begun to protest, to condemn the reduction in the air supply, and to argue loudly for the right to freely available, broadly breathable air. Scarcity, you could say, creates demand.

Liberty is the air we breathe, and we live in a part of the world where, imperfect as the supply is, it is, nevertheless, freely available, at least to those of us who arent black youngsters wearing hoodies in Miami, and broadly breathable, unless, of course, were women in red states trying to make free choices about our own bodies. Imperfectly free, imperfectly breathable, but when it is breathable and free we dont need to make a song and dance about it. We take it for granted and get on with our day. And at night, as we fall asleep, we assume we will be free tomorrow, because we were free today.

The creative act requires not only freedom but also this assumption of freedom. If the creative artist worries if he will still be free tomorrow, then he will not be free today. If he is afraid of the consequences of his choice of subject or of his manner of treatment of it, then his choices will not be determined by his talent, but by fear. If we are not confident of our freedom, then we are not free.

And, even worse than that, when censorship intrudes on art, it becomes the subject; the art becomes censored art, and that is how the world sees and understands it. The censor labels the work immoral, or blasphemous, or pornographic, or controversial, and those words are forever hung like albatrosses around the necks of those cursed mariners, the censored works. The attack on the work does more than define the work; in a sense, for the general public, it becomes the work. For every reader of Lady Chatterleys Lover or Tropic of Capricorn, every viewer of Last Tango in Paris or A Clockwork Orange, there will be ten, a hundred, a thousand people who know those works as excessively filthy, or excessively violent, or both.

The assumption of guilt replaces the assumption of innocence. Why did that Indian Muslim artist have to paint that Hindu goddess in the nude? Couldnt he have respected her modesty? Why did that Russian writer have his hero fall in love with a nymphet? Couldnt he have chosen a legally acceptable age? Why did that British playwright depict a sexual assault in a Sikh temple, a gurdwara? Couldnt the same assault have been removed from holy ground? Why are artists so troublesome? Cant they just offer us beauty, morality, and a damn good story? Why do artists think, if they behave in this way, that we should be on their side? And the people all said sit down, sit down youre rocking the boat / And the devil will drag you under, with a soul so heavy youll never float / Sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down / Youre rocking the boat.

At its most effective, the censors lie actually succeeds in replacing the artists truth. That which is censored is thought to have deserved censorship. Boat-rocking is deplored.

Nor is this only so in the world of art. The Ministry of Truth in present-day China has successfully persuaded a very large part of the Chinese public that the heroes of Tiananmen Square were actually villains bent on the destruction of the nation. This is the final victory of the censor: When people, even people who know they are routinely lied to, cease to be able to imagine what is really the case.

Sometimes great, banned works defy the censors description and impose themselves on the worldUlysses, Lolita, the Arabian Nights. Sometimes great and brave artists defy the censors to create marvellous literature underground, as in the case of the samizdat literature of the Soviet Union, or to make subtle films that dodge the edge of the censors knife, as in the case of much contemporary Iranian and some Chinese cinema. You will even find people who will give you the argument that censorship is good for artists because it challenges their imagination. This is like arguing that if you cut a mans arms off you can praise him for learning to write with a pen held between his teeth. Censorship is not good for art, and it is even worse for artists themselves. The work of Ai Weiwei survives; the artist himself has an increasingly difficult life. The poet Ovid was banished to the Black Sea by a displeased Augustus Caesar, and spent the rest of his life in a little hellhole called Tomis, but the poetry of Ovid has outlived the Roman Empire. The poet Mandelstam died in one of Stalins labor camps, but the poetry of Mandelstam has outlived the Soviet Union. The poet Lorca was murdered in Spain, by Generalissimo Francos goons, but the poetry of Lorca has outlived the fascistic Falange. So perhaps we can argue that art is stronger than the censor, and perhaps it often is. Artists, however, are vulnerable.

In England last week, English PEN protested that the London Book Fair had invited only a bunch of official, State-approved writers from China while the voices of at least thirty-five writers jailed by the regime, including Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo and the political dissident and poet Zhu Yufu, remained silent and ignored. In the United States, every year, religious zealots try to ban writers as disparate as Kurt Vonnegut and J. K. Rowling, an obvious advocate of sorcery and the black arts; to say nothing of poor, God-bothered Charles Darwin, against whom the advocates of intelligent design continue to march. I once wrote, and it still feels true, that the attacks on the theory of evolution in parts of the United States themselves go some way to disproving the theory, demonstrating that natural selection doesnt always work, or at least not in the Kansas area, and that human beings are capable of evolving backward, too, towards the Missing Link.

Even more serious is the growing acceptance of the dont-rock-the-boat response to those artists who do rock it, the growing agreement that censorship can be justified when certain interest groups, or genders, or faiths declare themselves affronted by a piece of work. Great art, or, lets just say, more modestly, original art is never created in the safe middle ground, but always at the edge. Originality is dangerous. It challenges, questions, overturns assumptions, unsettles moral codes, disrespects sacred cows or other such entities. It can be shocking, or ugly, or, to use the catch-all term so beloved of the tabloid press, controversial. And if we believe in liberty, if we want the air we breathe to remain plentiful and breathable, this is the art whose right to exist we must not only defend, but celebrate. Art is not entertainment. At its very best, its a revolution.

This piece is drawn from the Arthur Miller Freedom to Write Lecture given by Rushdie, on May 6th, as part of the PEN World Voices Festival.

Illustration by Matthew Hollister.

Continued here:

On Censorship - The New Yorker

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker goes from censorship to killing state nature magazine – City Pages

The magazine feared no subject under Sperling. Its coverage included an array of contentious topics like shoreline development and climate change.

Natasha Kassulke succeeded Sperling. Lost in the transition was the magazine's license to cover all things water and earth.

DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp often meddled. Under Walker's handpicked cabinet member an article about state's endangered pine martens was killed. In 2015, a story on climate change and its impact on Wisconsin animals was kiboshed.

A search of the magazine's archives shows there hasn't been a story regarding climate change or global warming in the past three years.

Walker now wants to kill the publication once and for all.

His recently submitted budget has it ceasing publication in 2018. Cost savings of $300,000 annually and allowing the DNR to better focus on managing natural resources have been Walker's justifications for the move.

Since the magazine pays for operations and staff through subscriptions, some Badger State residents say Walker's logic is bunk. Anti-environmental politics is the culprit behind scotching the journal, they counter.

Kassulke worked at the magazine for about 15 years. She stepped down as editor last summer.

"When Walker's administration came in," she says, "I was required to show all stories, all text, all photos to the entire department leadership team for review. And through that process, I have several stories that were either edited [down], changed, or at times even killed."

In February, Kassulke's story about feedlots and drinking water was supposed to be included in a magazine insert. It still hasn't been published.

"My gut tells me [halting the magazine] is part of a continuing agenda to create a vacuum and black out information on very important environmental issues and an anti-science agenda," she says.

DNR spokesperson Jim Dick had repeatedly denied editorial content played a role in the decision.

Read the original here:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker goes from censorship to killing state nature magazine - City Pages

Free Speech Has a Milo Problem – National Review

To understand the core of the free-speech challenge in this country, consider the case of a hypothetical young woman named Sarah. In college, Sarah is a conservative activist. Shes pro-life, supports traditional marriage, and belongs to a Christian student club. Her free speech infuriates professors and other students, so the administration cracks down. It defunds her student club, forces her political activism into narrow, so-called free-speech zones, and reminds her to comply with the universitys tolerance policies.

What does Sarah do? She sues the school, she wins, and the school pays her attorneys fees. The judge expands the free-speech zone to cover the whole campus and strikes down the tolerance policy. The First Amendment wins.

Sarah graduates. A brilliant student, she gets a job at a Silicon Valley start-up and moves to California to start her new life. Just as they did in college, politics dominate her conversations, and within a week she gets into an argument with a colleague over whether Bruce Jenner is really a woman. The next morning, Sarahs called into the HR department, given a stern warning for violating company policy, and told that if she cant comply shell need to find another place to work.

What does Sarah do? She shuts her mouth or she loses her job. Her employer isnt the government; its a private company with its own free-speech rights, and it expects its employees to respect its corporate values.

In a nutshell, this is Americas free-speech problem. The law is largely solid. Government entities that censor or silence citizens on the basis of their political, cultural, or religious viewpoint almost always lose in court. With some exceptions, the First Amendment remains robust. Yet the culture of free speech is eroding away, rapidly.

The politicization of everything has combined with increasing levels of polarization and cocooning to create an atmosphere in which private citizens are increasingly weaponizing their expression using their social and economic power not to engage in debate but to silence dissent. Corporate bullying, social-media shaming, and relentless peer pressure combine to place a high cost on any departure from the mandated norms. Even here in Middle Tennessee, I have friends who are afraid to post about their religious views online or express disagreements during mandatory corporate-diversity seminars, lest they lose their jobs. One side speaks freely. The other side speaks not at all.

EDITORIAL: CPACsMilo Disgrace

There is no government solution to this problem. The First Amendment prohibits the state from mandating openness to debate and dissent, and corporations arent designed to be debating societies. Nor can the government prevent (or even try to prevent) the kinds of social-media shaming campaigns and peer pressures that cause men and women to stay silent for fear of social exclusion. The solution is to persuade the powerful that free speech has value, that ideological monocultures are harmful, and that the great questions of life cant and shouldnt be settled through shaming, hectoring, or silencing.

It is thus singularly unfortunate that the conservative poster boy for free speech is Milo Yiannopoulos.

Milo, for those who dont know, is a flamboyantly gay senior editor at Breitbart News, a provocateur who relishes leftist outrage and deliberately courts as much fury as he can. How? Please allow my friend Ben Shapiro to explain:

Jews run the media; earlier this month he characterized a Jewish BuzzFeed writer as a a typical example of a sort of thick-as-pig shit media Jew; he justifies anti-Semitic memes as playful trollery and pats racist sites like American Renaissance on the head; he describes himself as a chronicler of, and occasional fellow traveler with the alt-right while simultaneously recognizing that their dangerously bright intellectuals believe that culture is inseparable from race; back in his days going under the name Milo Wagner, he reportedly posed with his hand atop a Hitler biography, posted a Hitler meme about killing 6 million Jews, and wore an Iron Cross; last week he berated a Muslim woman in the audience of one of his speeches for wearing a hijab in the United States; his alt-right followers routinely spammed my Twitter account with anti-Semitic propaganda he tut-tutted before his banning (the amount of anti-Semitism in my feed dropped by at least 70 percent after his ban, which I opposed); he personally Tweeted a picture of a black baby at me on the day of my sons birth, because according to the alt-right Im a cuck who wants to see the races mixed; he sees the Constitution as a hackneyed remnant of the past, to be replaced by a new right he leads.

Oh, and this week recordings rocketed across Twitter that showed Milo apparently excusing pedophilia and expressing gratitude to a Catholic priest for teaching him how to perform oral sex. (Later, on Facebook, he vigorously denied that he supports pedophilia, saying he is completely disgusted by the abuse of children.)

Milo is currently on what he calls his Dangerous Faggot tour of college campuses, which has followed a now-familiar pattern: A conservative group invites him to speak, leftists on campus freak out, and he thrives on the resulting controversy, casting himself as a hero of free expression. Lately, the leftist freakouts have grown violent, culminating in a scary riot at the University of California, Berkeley.

Operating under the principle that the enemy of my enemy must be my friend, too many on the right have leapt to Milos defense, ensuring that his star just keeps rising. Every liberal conniption brings him new conservative credibility and fresh appearances on Fox News. Last week Bill Maher featured him as a defender of free speech, and for a brief time he had been expected to speak at the nations largest and arguably most important conservative gathering, CPAC. (CPAC rescinded its invitation today.)

Lets put this plainly: If Milos the poster boy for free speech, then free speech will lose. Hes the perfect foil for social-justice warriors, a living symbol of everything they fight against. His very existence and prominence feed the deception that modern political correctness is the firewall against the worst forms of bigotry.

Ive spent a career defending free speech in court, and Ive never defended a conservative like Milo. His isnt the true face of the battle for American free-speech rights. That face belongs to Barronelle Stutzman, the florist in Washington whom the Left is trying to financially ruin because she refused to use her artistic talents to celebrate a gay marriage. It belongs to Kelvin Cochran, the Atlanta fire chief who was fired for publishing and sharing with a few colleagues a book he wrote that expressed orthodox Christian views of sex and marriage.

Stutzman and Cochran demonstrate that intolerance and censorship strike not just at people on the fringe people like Milo but rather at the best and most reasonable citizens of these United States. Theyre proof that social-justice warriors seek not equality and inclusion but control and domination.

Milo has the same free-speech rights as any other American. He can and should be able to troll to his hearts content without fear of government censorship or private riot. But by elevating him even higher, CPAC would have made a serious mistake. CPACs invitation told the world that supporting conservative free speech means supporting Milo. If theres a more effective way to vindicate the social-justice Left, I cant imagine it.

David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read the original here:

Free Speech Has a Milo Problem - National Review

Burlington students press for free speech – BurlingtonFreePress.com

A bill for students rights and freedom of expression passed its first hurdle last week unopposed in the Senate. NICOLE HIGGINS DeSMET/Free Press

Burlington fans, with less controversial signs, cheer for the team during the high school football game between the Rice Green Knights and the Burlington Seahorses at Burlington high school on Friday night September 9, 2016 in Burlington.(Photo: BRIAN JENKINS/for the FREE PRESS)

A bill for students rights and freedom of expression passed its first hurdle last week unopposed in the Senate.

The legislation,Senate Bill 18was sponsored by Sen. JeanetteWhite of Putney, is timelyfor students at theBurlington High SchoolRegister, a school sponsored publication.Censorship hit the Register in Septemberwhen an editor, Alexandre Silberman, 18, wrote an articleabouta sign held by a Rice Memorial High School fan at a football game against Burlington.

The signclaimed that BHS football players were, among other things,gang members and convicts.

"They got really concerned about that story," Alexandre Silberman, said in a January interview.Silberman is also afreelance writer for the Burlington Free Press.

"They had us pull the image. They edited part of the article. We werent allowed to say what the sign said or print the image of the sign, sowe had to be really vague in describing it," Silberman said.

Inspired by whathappenedat the Register and what he heard about how a similar law benefited other student journalism programs,Silberman andco-editorJake Bucci testified before the Vermont Legislature in January, after the bill had been introduced.

Citing the First Amendment's guarantee offreedom of speech, the bill seeksto liberate students from school-sponsored censorship andprotect advisers from administrative backlash.

Burlington High School in May 2016.(Photo: FREE PRESS FILE)

David Lamberti,the adviser for the Register and a business teacher at the high school,supports the bill.

"Knowing I cannot be held legally responsible or fired for supporting my students is comforting," Lamberti wrote back after first submitting questions from the Burlington Free Pressto Principal Tracy Racicot.

"Another reason I support the Bill is because we need to teach kids at a younger age how to ask difficult questions and have conversations aboutdivisivetopics," Lamberti wrote, explaining the difficulty of starting such conversations when the studentslack skills to process them.

"The administration at BHS has always supported a student's right to voice their opinions.Indeed, in my experience, they have always respected the student voice," Lamberti said.

But Silberman says the school has taken actionsthat could createself-censorship, curbingstudents fromtrying to push for more controversial stories.

Student journalists from the Burlington High School Register stand in the Burlington Free Press news room with their editor Alexandre Silberman, who is third from the left.(Photo: Free Press File)

"Now we are required to send the entire paper in advance. They can decideto pull any articles they want," Silberman said of the school's administrative policy. Previously,according to Silberman, Lamberti would flagindividual articlesfor Principal Racicot's review.

Lamberti did not respond to an emailed question regarding how this policyequates with supportingstudents rights to voice their opinions.

The bill, nicknamed New Voices, has just made it to theHouse Committee on Education. Committee Chairman, Rep. David Sharpe, wasn'tfamiliar with the bill on Monday. His first response to the legislation was mixed.

"I can't see why we wouldn't want to protect student journalists," Sharpe said,"but at the same time administration should have some right to control hate speech on t-shirts and promoting risky behavior."

The bill, as introduced, would not givestudents the right to breakstate or federal laws regardinglibel, slander, privacy and the orderly operation of a school.

Rep. KathrynWebb of Shelburne reports that the committee will probably look atthe bill in mid-March.

ContactNicoleHigginsDeSmet, ndesmet@freepressmedia.com or 802-660-1845. Follow her on Twitter@NicoleHDeSmet.

Read or Share this story: http://bfpne.ws/2loioTr

Original post:

Burlington students press for free speech - BurlingtonFreePress.com

Va. Senate upholds campus free speech | WTOP – WTOP

WASHINGTON The Virginia Senate has passed a bill that supporters say promotes campus free speech. But some lawmakers wonder why the law is needed when the U.S. Constitution already provides the First Amendment guarantee.

By a 364 vote, the Senate has followed the lead of the House of Delegates and passed the bill which reads, Except as otherwise permitted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, no public institution of higher education shall abridge the freedom of any individual, including enrolled students, faculty and other employees, and invited guests, to speak on campus.

I wish this wasnt necessary, said Sen. Mark Obenshain, a Republican representing Virginias 26th District, the chairman of theCourts of Justice Committee.

Weve got examples that abound across the country of colleges and universities that have been unilaterally making decisions as to whats appropriate political speech on campus, he said.

During the brief debate in the Senate chamber, no one could offer an example of any such conflict pitting free speech against political correctness occurring on any Virginia campus, leading some members to wonder whether the bill was needed.

It seems to me that its akin to saying the sky is blue except on cloudy days, even on college campuses, but Im not sure why we need to put that language in the Code of Virginia, said Sen. Creigh Deeds, a Democrat representing Virginias 25th District.

But Senate supporters of the measure insisted that the bill was necessary to encourage healthy debate on the commonwealths campuses.

Free speech is uncomfortable at times, and it has to be a two-way street in order for it to be able to work, Obenshain said.

Like WTOP on Facebook and follow @WTOP on Twitter to engage in conversation about this article and others.

2017 WTOP. All Rights Reserved.

See the original post:

Va. Senate upholds campus free speech | WTOP - WTOP

Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer remind us what free … – Rare – Rare.us

Two controversies concerning so-called free speech are currently circulating in right-of-center circles.

On Saturday, white nationalist Richard Spencer was removedfrom the Washington, D.C., hotel where the International Students For Liberty Conference (ISFLC) was taking place, after a number of attendees, most notably Jeffrey Tucker, publicly reprimanded him for his racist beliefs. Today, infamous Breitbart senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos was disinvitedfrom speaking atthe Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) after a video made the roundsin which the provocateur defended pederasty.

The reaction to both events have generated predictably lazy outcries that thecontroversial speakers free speech rights have been violated. Had they been disinvited or removed from a public university, perhaps the outrage mob would have a point. But its important for libertarians and conservatives to also recognizeprivate property rights when discussing such flare-ups.

In the case of Spencer, he was not an invited speaker or even a registered guest at ISFLC. Instead, he held an impromptu discussion in the hotel bar where the event was taking place. Certainly Spencer had the legal right to be there; its a private business that accepts customers off the street. However, given that Spencer was surrounded by dozens of other conference-goers, it was to be expected that tensions would flare.

RELATED:Milo Yiannopoulos day just got a whole lot worse after the latest announcement from his publisher

Just as Spencer has the right to discuss his despicable views at a bar, so did the ISFLC conference-goers have the right to confront him about them. In matters of private property, its up to the business owners to decidewho gets to stay or leave. In this instance, they decided to disperse the crowd and eject Spencer.

Nobodys rights were violated. Indeed, givenSpencers history as the victim of a physical attack, the ISFLC crowd should be commended for respecting the non-aggression principle.

TheYiannopoulos case is even more clear-cut. CPAC is a private conference with the right to invite and disinvite anyone they wish. Its admittedly a sloppy move on their part to announce a speaker and then disinvite him within a few days.Nonetheless,a PR crisis is not the equivalent of denying First Amendment rights.

Adeeper lesson can be drawn from theYiannopoulos kerfuffle:in the dirty game of politics, libertarians and conservatives should be more conscious of whom they invite onstage in the first place.

RELATED:No, Milo Yiannopoulos is not a white nationalist, but he has spent a lot of time promoting them

ISFLCs reputation would have beentarnished in the public eye had they activelybrought inSpencer. The fact that they quickly denounced the neo-Nazistands as a moral victory for the libertarian camp.

CPAC, on the other hand, made the mistake of inviting Milo without doing their research or consulting their board of directors. As a result, the conferencesalready mixed reputation was dragged throughthe mud yet again.

CPACs slapdash organizing will doubtlessly empower Milo to paint himself as a victim and his supporters to scream, Free speech! The right should not be so careless in allowing trolls todisrespect the cherished institutions of private property and freedom of association. The best way to avoid controversy is to not invite it in the first place.

Go here to see the original:

Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer remind us what free ... - Rare - Rare.us

We shouldn’t mute free speech – The Poly Post

Recently, death threats and violent protests prevented British journalist Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at UC Berkeley.

Yiannopoulos is known for his cyber bullying of Saturday Night Live cast member Leslie Jones,.

He encouraged his fans on Twitter to bully her until she deleted her account. He was said to have done this because he thinks shes ugly and fat.

His actions lead to him being permanently banned from Twitter.

Yiannopoulos spoke at UC Irvine last year.

UC Irvine student Catherine Gonzales, a second-year transfer psychology student, said he spent his time telling everyone to vote for Trump.

He aims to spread his message against political correctness and for free speech on college campuses.

But, if he wanted to silence Jones, then isnt he only for freedom of speech for himself and not for other people?

The question remains, should free speech be permitted if it is hateful and/or degrading?

The answer is yes, because even if hateful disgusting speech was blocked, the idea behind the words lives on.

When something is ugly, people dont want to see it. So they silence it without trying to understand it.

We try to ignore it, and like a virus, it kills us before we were ever able to treat it.

People threw fireworks and rocks at police during the UC Berkley protests. Clearly, silencing people leads to radicalism.

Preventing free speech also makes people feel they are being persecuted for their beliefs, which in turn leads to feelings of martyrdom and righteousness.

When you shut people up, they will do desperate and ugly things to be heard. In reality, by taking away any type of free speech, society could create a much worse beast.

Critics may say that words started the holocaust. In actuality, it was the silencing of everyone elses words that did; after all, murder is the ultimate deterrent to speech.

To paraphrase from Holocaust survivor Martin Niemoller, the Nazis came for the socialists, the Jews and the unionists, and he didnt say anything to stop them, but then they came for him and there was no one left to speak up.

If we let them get rid of the speech we dont like at the moment; whos to say they wont come for our speech next?

People have forgotten the difference between actions and beliefs.

No one has the right to force their beliefs on other people and interfere with their lives.

People have their right to voice their opposition to gay marriage, but they dont have the right to harass them, keep them from getting married or living their lives how they want to live them.

You have the right to say and believe whatever you want, but you dont have the right to do whatever you want.

No one, no matter their ranking in society, is a moral authority on who has the right to speak and who doesnt because the meanings of words are not absolute.

The meanings of words are a subjective discussion within society at the current time, but you cannot discuss whats important or whats moral if youre not allowed to speak.

College students may feel that the only speech that they want in a learning environment is the one they agree with, but the real world doesnt care if were offended.

Sexism, racism, rape, xenophobia, suicide, poverty, mental illness, slavery, cancer, death, etc. are all real issues and they cannot be ignored like a homeless person you walk past on the street. Look at the homeless person.

Look at the issue. It exists. Its real and its not going anywhere just because it makes you feel bad.

We are defending the right to free expression at an historic moment for our nation, when this right is once again of paramount importance. In this context, we cannot afford to undermine those rights, and feel a need to make a spirited defense of the principle of tolerance, even when it means we tolerate that which may appear to us as intolerant, stated chancellor Nicholas Dirks in his message to UC Berkeley.

Thankfully, Dirks took a stand against what can only be called fascism.

So yes, Yiannopoulos stands for disgusting things, but he still has the right to speak. If you want the right to speak, then you must give it to others as well.

Angela Stevens is pasionate about free speech.

Follow this link:

We shouldn't mute free speech - The Poly Post

Tuesday’s editorial: Physicians win back free speech rights – Florida Times-Union

The issue has been called Docs vs. Glocks, a term that understates the gravity of this controversy.

When two rights contained in the Bill of Rights fall into conflict, it creates a crisis that the courts must resolve.

The current case involves a Florida law that restricts the free speech of physicians to advise their patients about the dangers of guns. Supporters of the law say doctors have no business talking about guns; just stick to medical care. Opponents of the law say discussions of gun safety are within the purview of physicians.

Doctors have every right and duty to talk to their patients about swimming pool safety, child-proofing electrical outlets, using seat belts, texting while driving, keeping chemicals out of the way of children and making sure guns are safely stored.

So lets say the doctor repeats a warning from the Jacksonville sheriff that 1,000 guns have been stolen from cars in the past two years and that this is a serious threat to public safety. Under the Florida law that could be seen as stepping beyond the bounds of health care.

Because the physician-patient relationship is special, perhaps the patient listens this time and takes action to keep gun away from possible thieves.

But gun rights advocates see that speech as overstepping the bounds for physicians and a potential threat to the right to own arms.

So the First Amendment and the Second Amendment are at odds in this case.

The battle has raged in the courts with three-judge appeal panels affirming the Florida law.

The latest ruling by a wider panel of judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta struck down key provisions of the Florida law.

Any restriction of speech must receive a higher level of review, the appeals court stated.

In fact, there was no evidence that physicians took away any firearms.

No amendment is absolute. There are limits on free speech, for instance. And no single amendment trumps all others.

As one judge said on the panel, this speech prohibition could go both ways.

A state legislature motivated by anti-gun sentiment might have passed a similar law to prevent doctors from encouraging their patients to own firearms. Such a law would be equally unconstitutional.

As a reminder, the Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court underlined the right for individuals to own firearms but it also listed several examples of the sort of restrictions that would be constitutional.

JUSTICE SPEEDED UP

Crime is so serious in Jacksonville that any move to speed up the wheels of justice deserves support.

Therefore, Mayor Lenny Currys request for $250,000 to obtain ballistic results faster deserves City Council approval.

State Attorney Melissa Nelson said this special system can obtain results on gun and ammunition used in crimes in a day or two rather than the 12 to 18 months currently.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is swamped with requests.

Now there is a better chance of solving crimes shortly after they happen, Nelson said at a press conference.

This is what the public expects.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

EXAMPLE OF POTOMAC SWAMP

Several news organizations are boycotting the annual White House Correspondents Dinner due to the war taking place between the mainstream press and the Trump administration.

Where were they during the Obama years when that administration was waging an unrivaled attack on the press? Obama talked a good game but his administration played extraordinarily tough with journalists.

At least The New York Times had ignored the dinner previously.

The event, broadcast on cable, broke down what ought to be a professional barrier between journalists and the people they cover. Washington already has too much movement from media to government to lobbyists.

Margaret Sullivan, the Washington Post ombudsman, suggests cancelling the event. In contrast, Major Garrett, the CBS reporter, notes that the event highlights excellent reporting and awards scholarships.

Fine, have the event without the politicians.

MORE FAKE VOTER FRAUD

White House aide Stephen Miller protested recently on Sunday morning talk shows that there was massive voter fraud with liberal Democrats from Massachusetts voting in New Hampshire. In fact, President Donald Trump claimed that thousands voted illegally there.

Miller provided no evidence, just his firm belief. Look at the facts:

New Hampshire is a Republican-dominated state. Its state officials found no evidence of massive voter fraud.

New Hampshire has a voter ID law.

These bogus urban legends need to be debunked, which is why a thorough study of voter fraud is justified.

LIBERALS AND CONSPIRACIES

Well, look at the people concocting new conspiracy theories. Theyre liberals.

Apparently when your party is out of power, people tend to gravitate to wild speculations.

Losing the presidential election made Democrats more likely to blame secret conspiracies for the state of the world while making Republicans less willing to indulge these sort of claims, The New York Times reported.

One rumor claims the bumbled refugee ban was part of an elaborate plan for a coup. The Snopes urban legend site is seeing more fake news and wishful thinking from liberal corners.

And guess who is discovering states rights? California Democrats in the state legislature hired former Attorney Gen. Eric Holder to represent them in battles with the federal government. And a secession movement is growing there.

The rest is here:

Tuesday's editorial: Physicians win back free speech rights - Florida Times-Union

The limits of free speech (when you have 50 million YouTube subscribers) – Polygon

There is an increasing amount of noise surrounding freedom of speech, fake news, and everyones right to be heard. This has particular bearing on the gaming community, where the term freedom of speech is often used incorrectly.

On the other hand, online personalities are often playing a role in game marketing, and issues with GamerGate and other hate groups latching onto gaming means that games, studios and publishers are confronted with the task of moderating community and forum posts and interactions while being told they are censoring others. Hence, depriving someone of their right to free speech.

As an entertainment attorney with over seven years of experience in a practice dedicated exclusively to gaming culture and industry, this has been an ongoing cause for concern. Its an issue my clients face daily.

Legally, theres no argument to be had. Let me explain why.

Felix Kjellberg, aka PewDiePie, blamed the press immediately after apologizing for his bad judgement, which brings up some interesting legal points about his situation.

He seemed to be operating under the assumption that the Wall Street Journal and mainstream media intentionally destroyed his business relationships. However, based on his own explanation, its more than likely he broke his contract under any number of contract theories, as well examine below.

This was my first notice of PewDiePie, so Im not bringing any baggage into this debate. I dont like him or dislike him. I just know hes being widely discussed, and Im familiar with the legal aspects of these situations.

His departure from Google and Disney seems like a no-brainer to anyone with a basic understanding of entertainment contracts. His first mistake likely came from his presumption that either Google or Disney have a sense of humor, or value him for his comedic chops.

Companies typically wont support you when doing so will harm their brand or otherwise expose them to liability

The contracts he signed with Google (through YouTube) and Disney (through Maker Studios) should have made it apparent that they do not. Any tolerance on their part would be based on financial interest, not out of any respect for his freedom of expression or his budding career as a rookie comedian. That is not the business they are in, as evidenced by how quickly they dropped him when his humor became a liability.

Companies typically wont support you when doing so will harm their brand or otherwise expose them to liability. Thats why YouTube has a code of conduct, and why most contracts for endorsement include rather robust non-disparagement/no disparaging effect clauses. Disney includes this in its terms of use:

You may not submit or upload User Generated Content that is defamatory, harassing, threatening, bigoted, hateful, violent, vulgar, obscene, pornographic, or otherwise offensive or that harms or can reasonably be expected to harm any person or entity, whether or not such material is protected by law.

Or, if youd like a more direct example from one of my own agreements:

Influencer may not: [.] engage in conduct or a pattern of behavior that may: (i) diminish Influencers reputation as a personality in the gaming community; or (ii) as a result of [Companys] association with Influencer, harm [Companys] reputation.

Typically a non-disparagement clause wont act alone to limit influencer conduct in an agreement. Some agreements will include strong moral clauses, broad warranties and representations, and at will termination as additional means of controlling the influencer or providing backers a buffer if the Influencers conduct creates a problem.

For example, a moral provision may prohibit an influencer from engaging in behavior in his or her private life that may amount to a scandal, while almost any reps and warranties provision will include a proviso prohibiting content that is defamatory or otherwise subject to legal action. The goal is to make sure, if you get into a scandal, you can be cast off quickly and with little legal repercussion.

In the interest of fairness, it is possible that the relevance of such provisions werent made clear to Kjellberg. In an effort to court lucrative talent, backers may treat such verbiage as boilerplate until and unless something triggers it. Ive heard they said we dont need to worry about that part, from more than a few clients.

This doesnt absolve responsibility on the part of the talent. You should read and treat as enforceable anything you want to sign. If youre not sure, consult an attorney and save yourself trouble down the road. However, its generally common sense that companies like Google and Disney are in this for two main reasons: it helps their bottom line, and its good for brand building.

When an influencer under contract does something that harms that brand, that influencer is materially breaching their contract. That means termination.

Its possible that the relationship can still be repaired. However, he broke the rule any competent attorney would advise in a matter concerning an open dispute: the less you say, the better. An eight minute diatribe placing blame on third parties and treating your business partners as complicit in the conspiracy against you probably isnt going to help smooth this out.

Thus my surprise when Kjellberg admitted that his content was offensive and he crossed the line, that he exhibited poor judgment and that his amateurish attempt at comedy was a failure. He effectively admitted to breaching his contracts with Disney and Google, and then immediately sought to blame the press.

The context for his joke, and whether mainstream media took it out of context, never really had anything to do with it. Its reasonable for companies like Disney and Google to consider mainstream media as the litmus test for what is considered offensive; their respective brands cater to a far broader demographic than PewDiePies followers, after all.

Welcome to the wonderful world of entertainment, Felix. Youve joined an elite club of performers, comedians and artists who crossed the line. No one is entitled to a platform, and your platform is a privilege that you will lose if you breach the terms under which that platform operates. In all likelihood you broke your contract. You even explained how you broke that contract in a video. Its irrational to conclude that a third party is responsible for the failure of your contract.

More alarming is the response by supporters, or rather, the response against detractors. The idea that companies or institutions are infringing on someones freedom of speech is commonly expressed, often in very strong language. When Twitter banned Milo Yiannopolous, we heard the same refrain. Kjellberg himself has already confirmed that a subset of his fan base consists of white supremacists. As many of us have witnessed, that particular subset is known to be more vocal about a perceived injustice than your average netizen.

Let me go ahead and get this out of the way:

A private individuals right to tell you to shut up, and a companys right to censor your offensive content, are both protected by the first amendment.

If a client of mine terminates a players subscription because they violated a games code of conduct by spamming a chat channel with anti-Semitic rhetoric, they are well within their contractual rights to terminate that subscription. Your participation on a platform like Twitter, YouTube or one of the excellent games offered by my clients, however, is not. That is strictly governed by the Terms of Service or EULA you agree to when you sign up.

If you are an Influencer, your continued support from your backers is contingent on your compliance with whatever non-disparagement language youve agreed to. Almost every platform available to you is offered by a private entity. Surprise! Welcome to Capitalism!

The first amendment isnt prohibitive against society at large; it protects society from government action. This typically shouldnt be a point of confusion, as the text itself is clear and unequivocal:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The context of free speech, in roughly every territory where free speech exists, is uniformly a limitation on government power to suppress that right. Your personal feelings about censorship notwithstanding (or mine, for that matter), your only recourse against censorship on a platform provided by a private company is to not use that platform. There is no legal recourse. In fact, if there were, that really would violate the First Amendment. Clearly no one wants that.

When someone decries censorship and claims free speech, they generally are not talking about the right to say what they want. They are talking about the right to say what they want wherever they want to share it, and that is a distinction that crosses the line between fundamental human right and moral rationalization.

No one is morally obligated to listen to another persons opinion. No one should feel morally obligated to offer a platform for someones message when they consider that message offensive. Freedom of speech does not place one persons rights above another persons right, simply because the other provides the platform. That rationale subverts the fundamental right to freedom of speech generally.

We like to see the Internet as an open platform for the free exchange of ideas. Many of the companies who make the Internet possible, and they are each and every one private corporations, do their best to make that a reality.

But as we begin to recognize the risks associated with that free exchange, companies must take measures to safeguard the privacy and happiness of their consumers. This necessarily means censoring the content shared online. We are comfortable with censorship intended to protect us (e.g., prohibitions against sharing your personally identifiable information, passwords, etc. online), but we are less comfortable with censorship designed to protect others (e.g., codes of conduct).

The bottom line is that when you engage in free speech online, you typically do so as a consumer of the platform you are using. Normally you wont have the opportunity to negotiate the contracts you are bound to (whether it be a ToS or EULA) when you use those services.

Even the most successful influencers, Kjellberg included, are bound by provisions that limit their behavior. Ironically, they are often subject to greater restrictions because of their influence on the brand. The reality is that your right to free speech may directly conflict with the agreement youve entered, and engaging in some kinds of speech will almost certainly cost you a contract.

Mona Ibrahim is a Senior Associate at Interactive Entertainment Law Group. She is an avid gamer and has dedicated her career to counseling the video game industry and indie development community.

See the original post:

The limits of free speech (when you have 50 million YouTube subscribers) - Polygon

Malta protesters oppose draft bill that could limit freedom of speech – JURIST

[JURIST] A draft bill [text, PDF, in Maltese] proposed by the Maltese government [official website] that aims to regulate online news could inhibit freedom of speech, argued protesters Sunday. At the protest, which was organized by the opposition party, opposition leader Simon Busuttil said [EU Observer report] that the bill would be "the beginning of the end of freedom of expression on the internet." The bill would update Malta's defamation and libel laws requiring citizens to provide their name, age, home address and valid government identification to the nearest Maltese government authority before expressing political views online. In an editorial [Independent op-ed], a Maltese newspaper expressed concern about the number of people the bill would impact and commented that "many people out there will be forced to think twice before commenting on current affairs of any sort."

Malta currently holds the rotating six-month presidency of the EU until mid-2017 and will hold elections next year. Reporters without Borders [advocacy website] ranked Malta forty-sixth on its 2016 World Press Freedom Index [ranking]. The country also received a 96 percent score in the Freedom House [advocacy website] ranking and the press freedom status label "free."

Original post:

Malta protesters oppose draft bill that could limit freedom of speech - JURIST

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion for Everyone … – ChicagoNow (blog)

By James Kirk Wall, Monday at 5:35 pm

What if the rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens were global rights? Imagine if the people of Syria were able to protest their government without being massacred Imagine if women in Islamic countries had equal rights and privileges Imagine if nobody was imprisoned or murdered for expressing themselves Imagine if nothing was exempt from criticism be it a king or a cleric

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is for U.S. citizens, but there is a document which grants these rights to every human being on earth.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. This document contains the following Articles: Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Isnt it about time that the United Nations started strongly advocating its own foundational principles? Shouldnt any member be required to comply with these standards of human rights? Or does this organization simply serve as an elitist social club?

-James Kirk Wall

Please like my Facebook page at: Secular Philosophy Trumps Theocracy And my YouTube page at: Secular Philosophy Trumps Theocracy

To subscribe to this author, type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. This list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-29068020-1']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);

(function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();

Read more:

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion for Everyone ... - ChicagoNow (blog)

Letter: Free speech doesn’t mean you’re above the law – Quad-Cities Online

While watching the news recently, I heard Madonna say she had thought about blowing up the White House. She may have her fame and fortune but she isn't above the law.

This wasn't cute nor was it funny. People have the right to protest but the manner in which they conduct themselves matters.

They have no right to break out windows and steal items, to set fire to a vehicle, harm another person, destroy someone's property; these are crimes. What is the point of stomping on old glory, setting it on fire? Some call it Freedom of Speech. I call it a heartless act.

If I want to give my opinion, I will do so. But in a respectful way, and I will not be destructive about it.

How many countries would put up with what goes on here? Freedom is priceless.

This country has its faults and government is not perfect; never was, and never will be.

If one is looking for that perfect president, or any government official just keep looking.

I wouldn't want to be going through what President Trump is going through, but he went through it before he became president.

We are so lucky in this country, and I appreciate the freedom I have always known. We have freedom of speech, a right to protest, but I don't go along with breaking the law, and you will never see me touching old glory in any way but with respect.

Shirley Barrett,

Rock Island

Read this article:

Letter: Free speech doesn't mean you're above the law - Quad-Cities Online