Free Speech, Not Hate Speech | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

After violent protests raised concerns of student safety, administrators at UC Berkeley canceled a planned event featuring controversial far-right speaker Milo Yiannopoulos last Wednesday. 150 masked agitators interrupted an otherwise peaceful protest, causing $100,000 of damage to the universitys campus. We commend UC Berkeley administrators for effectively and efficiently handling this situation.

While the incident has been framed as a battle over free speech on UC Berkeleys liberal campus, it is important to distinguish intellectual diversity from hate speech on college campuses. It is imperative that college students gain a wide range of perspectives and evidence-based ideas to continue challenging their own opinions and worldviews, but universities should foster this intellectual growth by inviting principled conservatives to provide educational experiences for their studentsnot polemicists such as Yiannopoulos who hold little substance behind their contrarian views.

Yiannopoulos does not deserve to be granted the platform of a university campus to espouse his hateful beliefs. Institutions of higher education pride themselves on generating new knowledge and challenging old beliefs for the purposes of advancing our understanding of the world. Furthermore, these institutions are built on the principle of evidence-based research. In contrast, Yiannopoulos appears to challenge others beliefs simply for the sake of being a contrarian, and he does so with little tenability for his claims. Yiannopoulos is little more than a racist, sexist, and anti-semite who encourages hate and fear rather than intellectual thought.

There is strong precedent for believing that Yiannopoulos poses a tangible threat to the safety and well-being of university students. For example, in a sold-out talk at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee last December, Yiannopoulos singled out Adelaide K. Kramer, a transgender student at the university, by projecting her face on a large screen and proceeding to mock her in front of a packed crowd of laughing students. Following the incident, Kramer wrote to the chancellor of UW, Do you know what its like to be in a room full of people who are laughing at you as if youre some sort of perverted freak, and how many of them would have hollered at me (or worse) if I was outed? Do you know what this kind of terror is? The far-right speakers views are incredibly hateful towards students who deserve to feel welcome on their college campuses. Yiannopoulos has proven multiple times that he is a significant threat to specific students. This alone should be more than enough for administrators to bar him from campuses in the first place.

In the midst of the debates of free speech and intellectual diversity, the irony of President Donald J. Trumps Twitter responses is especially disheartening for student protesters across this country. Following the Berkeley campus protests, President Trump tweeted, If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS? Moving forward, advocates of free speech must work to also expand their selective view of the constitution and recognize that the Berkeley student protesters who were peaceful were exercising their first amendment rights. President Trumps immediate threats to pull federal funds from a public university due to student protests must be taken as a serious infringement on one of Americas most powerful democratic rights.

Members of Harvard should think twice before inviting speakers such as Yiannopoulos to our campus. Granting these figures a platform at our universities only serves to further legitimize their untenable, hateful claims and poses a threat to fellow classmates. Milo Yiannopoulos and other members of the alt-right have no place on college campuses. Harvard College's mission statement "seeks to identify and to remove restraints on students full participation"; the identification and prevention of hate speech is critical in this mission.

Read more in Opinion

See the original post here:

Free Speech, Not Hate Speech | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

The Campus Free Speech Act Is Desperately Needed – National Review

I wrote last week about the importance of the model bill drafted by the Goldwater Institute the Campus Free Speech Act. In my latest Forbes article, I elaborate on the problem and why state legislators must take action.

Free speech is far too important to leave to the campus crowd of administrators, faculty, and zealous students who are little inclined to stand up for free speech. Mostly, anti-speech views rule that is to say, speech is tolerated only if it aligns perfectly with progressive ideology. Since campus officials have shown that they cannot be entrusted with the crucial task of justifying and defending free speech, its time for state lawmakers to step in. Sure, the academic elite will howl that such legislation interferes in their domain, but public colleges and universities are not theirs to run.

Let us hope that legislators who want to restore the First Amendment and its values on our campuses introduce the model bill in each state. It certainly wont pass everywhere, but the debate will be enlightening.

See the original post:

The Campus Free Speech Act Is Desperately Needed - National Review

Portland International Airport is Now Requiring a "Free Speech Permit" for Protests – Willamette Week


Willamette Week
Portland International Airport is Now Requiring a "Free Speech Permit" for Protests
Willamette Week
Under applicable law, airports are not public forums for free speech activity. he Port elects to provide space for free speech activities, but restricts the time, place and manner in which these activities occur to make sure the airport continues to ...
Portland Airport Protests Lead To Free Speech Zone Being EstablishedPatch.com
PDX bans large protests in airport terminalkgw.com
Planning a protest at PDX? You'll need a permitKATU

all 5 news articles »

Read more:

Portland International Airport is Now Requiring a "Free Speech Permit" for Protests - Willamette Week

The war on free speech is alive and well – Page Six

Besides the Why-Cant-We-All-Just-Get-Along cry going up the poop, Wednesday it again went up in flames.

Recap: Right-winger Milo Yiannopoulos. Greek-born Brit. Breitbart News editor. Gay. Bounced off Twitter for his supervillain anti-political correctness.

His last weeks invite by Republican students at U of California, Berkeley, resulted in police, protests, violence, demonstrations, pepper spray, flames, arrests, objects thrown, bodies in lockdown. Security blocked some, faculty blocked others.

Some authors pulled their submissions when Simon & Schuster bought his book outline for $250,000.

E pluribus unum. One-for-all-all-for-one. Land of the Free speech, Home of the Driven.

New news: His book title is Dangerous. Theres a co-writer. Pushing this dialogue himself, he personally made the rounds of publishers. As we speak its being minutely examined by lawyers. No photographs.

Inching through wall-to-wall editors, the size of its first printing is not yet decided, although Simon & Schuster is known for publishing political works. The copy price? Around $25.

Called racist, acknowledged provocateur, controversial, its all his ideas. He writes of his sexuality, free speech, why campuses cant have dialogue with those who dont agree, and why full-on war could be coming to a head. He asks why those who disagree get trashed inside Starbucks. He asks why people lack a right to their own opinion.

Oddly, Threshold, an S&S subprint, published a campaign-time book about Donald Trump. And Hillary is now grinding out a volume of personal essays. Pubdate, this fall. Publisher? Simon & Schuster.

Glenn Close, who lives the high life in Sunset Boulevard, gets a high-life opening Thursday. Black tie ... Neil Diamonds 50th anny tour starts April 7. He once razzberryd playing NY. Over it now, hell do the Garden on June 15 and 17 ... Armand Assante getting a ready? Hoboken International Film Festival award. Hoboken, an international Film Festival? Must be Newark means crossing the border ... Conan plays the Apollo in November. Another Festival. Comedy Festival.

J.K. Simmons, Oscar winner for Damien Chazelles Whiplash, hired for his musical La La Land while still filming Whiplash ... Foodies: Grocery man Stew Leonard and WNBC vegetable man Produce Pete sharing Beach Cafe fries Rich Russians shop Cartiers small neighborhood branches, not its iconic main store. They do not want to be seen or photographed there. Ask not what you can do for your country nor how I know this. I know it.

Broadway Records (two Grammy noms this year) releasing newcomer Tyces Hero. Songs by Jim Steinman, who wrote Meat Loafs 1977 album Bat Out of Hell, which sold 43 million albums The Founder, about salesman Kroc making burger joint McDonalds into a mega moneymaker, is confounding Hollywood kvetchers: Michael Keatons terrific. Story terrific. Why no nomination?

The Emotionary is Penguins new Eden Sher/Julia Wertz nonexisting words for existing feelings. Like: To predict a worst outcome mix catastrophe and extrapolate for castrapolate. Happiness and apprehensive begets happrihensive. And pretending to get something finally after someones repeated it nine times? Feignderstand. Its a fun read.

Handsome starting-out lawyer on the dating scene: One chick said: Opposites make good marriages. So I want a guy with money.'

Only in New York, kids, only in New York.

Go here to read the rest:

The war on free speech is alive and well - Page Six

When Free Speech Turns Into Harassment, It Isn’t Okay or Legal – Huffington Post

Why are gender pronouns being forced into law?originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Answer by Jae Alexis Lee, Trans Woman, Technology Enthusiast, Martial Arts Instructor, long time manager, on Quora:

Why are gender pronouns being forced into law?This is a distortion of reality that's popular in some social circles and it really, really bugs me. Let meexplain, we'll start with the basics: Harassment isn't okay. We good with that? I hope so because if not there's no hope for the rest of this conversation. Harassment isn't okay.

What constitutes harassment? Well, lots of things. Anyone who's ever been a manager for a sufficiently large corporation has probably sat through at least one mandatory training session about what the company considers harassment, what the law considers harassment, and what they're expected to do about it. We'll skip the minutia and leave it at high, high-level concepts for now: Harassment can include physical behavior (inappropriate touching, hitting, etc.), verbal behavior (teasing, lewd comments, etc.) and direct actions (work assignments, dismissals or threats of termination, etc.) Got it? 1,000 foot level.

Let's descend a bit to talk about verbal harassment. Some things would be considered harassment regardless of the gender, ethnicity, religion or orientation of the target. If I make a point of loudly addressing one of my staff as "Dumb F***" and pile onto that with abusive language every time I give them instructions both in private or publicly, that's not okay. (All right, I'm wandering into hostile work environment land a little bit, but hang with me, we're not going to get sucked into that level of minutia here.) If that member of my staff quits and files for unemployment, I promise you, I'm going to have a hard time explaining my behavior to a judge on that.

Some forms of verbal harassment are unique to traditionally oppressed groups. Racial slurs, sexist remarks, religious slurs. We've got a list of things that as an employer, it's not okay to call your employees. If those employees complain and we keep doing it anyway, that's explicitly not okay.

So, now we're looking at trans people, a historically oppressed minority that studies have demonstrated face significant rates of harassment and discrimination. Like many other groups, there are collections of slurs and methods of being verbally abusive that are specific to the group. In areas where we talk about gender identity being a protected class, using trans-specific verbally abusive language would be forbidden in the same contexts that using racial slurs would be prohibited or making lewd sexual comments would be forbidden.

Still with me? Good. When it comes to trans people, in addition to slurs like shemale and tranny, denying a trans person's identity can constitute harassment. Terms commonly used in the trans community are misgendering (referring to a person with incorrect pronouns, or other gendered parts of speech), and deadnaming (using a trans person's pre-transition name.) Same as using racial slurs or making lewd sexual comments, this kind of behavior can have significant negative impact to the person on the receiving end of it.

So, Jae, what you're telling me is that if I screw up and call a trans man 'she' it's the same thing as if I asked my receptionist to show me her tits?

I get this a lot. No, not that exact question, but the idea that people are afraid that screwing up will get them in legal trouble.

This isn't about verbal stumbles. In general, when we're talking about non-discrimination legislation that creates protection for gender identity what we're doing is placing behavior that is explicitly anti-trans on the same level as behavior that is specifically anti-any other protected class.

Verbal stumbles happen, we all know that. Show of hands from everyone who's never said she when they meant to say he? Who's never opened their mouth to mention a person by name only to have the wrong name come out? It happens, and in general, we make a quick comment/apology about it, and then we move on.

There's no reason to feel like a law that protects trans people would be different in application. In any legal case we're going to be looking at severity (saying 'show me your tits or you're fired' is on a different level than calling someone the 'company slut' where it can be overheard, both are bad, one is worse), there's going to be an examination of frequency, of intent, and of circumstances.

When you dig into harassment in the workplace, you learn that there's a whole lot of gray. We can't write laws that spell out every word that can or can't be used, or every phrase or how often people can or can't say something. Instead, we have a framework of guidelines that the justice system can use to assess the situation.

So, I get that Jae, but... are you saying this is just for employers and employees?

No, not at all. Looking at from a corporate perspective is easy for me because I've been in management for so long, but it's also an approachable lens for a broad swath of people because most of us have had jobs at one point or another.

This sort of thing applies to a large number of relationships where there is an institutional power differential. It applies from employer to employee where we talk about things regarding hostile workplaces, harassment and a host of other employment related things. It also applies when we're talking about how law enforcement treats suspects. In investigations of bias and excessive force, the use of slurs on the part of the LEO can be employed as part of proving that an officer acted inappropriately due to bias. We look at this in relationships between teachers and students, especially in instances where there is a reason to suspect that grading which may be subjective has been unfair towards minority students, or that classroom environments were too hostile for students to be able to engage and learn. We talk about this in the contexts of landlords and tenants, business owners and clients and on and on and on.

Fundamentally, harassment and discrimination are issues we face in the modern world. We have laws to address these things because harassment and discrimination aren't okay. Legislation that adds gender identity to the list of protected classes aren't enforcing an Orwellian form of thought control on the population, but they recognize that trans people are frequently targeted for harassment and discrimination. Some laws make explicit note that misgendering and deadnaming are specific methods by which people harass and make transgender people feel unwelcome or unsafe.

But Jae, what about free speech?

You still have freedom of expression, as much as you ever did. It hasn't gone away. Want to call me a delusional dude on your blog? Go for it, knock yourself out. Want to demand you have the right to call Caitlyn Jenner Bruce? Be my guest. It isn't an issue until you do so in a way that is specifically harmful to another person. If you're my boss, and you call me 'he' or 'it' every time you talk about me at work, then you're going to get a complaint from me letting you know that I'm not okay with it. I'm going to copy HR on the complaint, and if it keeps happening then things escalate as appropriate for the situation (that may mean internal escalations to my boss's boss, that might entail talking to an employment attorney, again, situational.)

Speech has consequences, and in general, our rights stop when our method of exercising them hurts other people. You're welcome to say or think whatever you want, but in some situations, there are things you shouldn't say because of the harm it will cause and if you do cause damage with what you say then you may be held accountable for the harm you caused.

That's what this is about. Not about Orwellian thought police, not about an out of control radical left, but about recognizing that the trans population is a minority that faces significant harassment and discrimination. That harassment and discrimination aren't okay, and that deliberately misgendering or deadnaming a trans person may be a form of verbal abuse that would be actionable under appropriate laws regarding specific forms of verbal abuse.

Got it? Good, now go be nice to each other, class dismissed.

This question originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:

The rest is here:

When Free Speech Turns Into Harassment, It Isn't Okay or Legal - Huffington Post

5 ways free speech is under attack – The Rebel

I support free speech but.. That is a worrying statement to hear from anyone that lives in a Liberal Western Democracy like Canadas.

I support free speech but. always means theres some kind of speech the person speaking, would like to see shut down.

And the problem with that is, where do you stop?

If you trust the current government to restrict speech you dont like, what about the next government led by that leader you hate or that party you cant stand.

Would you be comfortable handing over the ability to criminalize speech?

And yet, from people rioting to shut down civil discourse on campuses to calls for advertising bans and having the government police Twitter or Facebook for mean posts and fake news, this is a worrying time for free speech.

- Riots - Fake News - Twitter police - Ad bans - Political targeting

Watch as I go through each of the ways free speech is under attack in the current environment.

Doesnt it remind you all of 1984?

Freedom of speech, freedom of expression its all taken for granted but as we have seen in the past with issues like Section 13 of the Human Rights Act - the hurt feelings on the internet section, many people, including elected officials are more than happy to let freedom of speech be curtailed for the latest fashionable idea.

The answer however should always be no.

Visit link:

5 ways free speech is under attack - The Rebel

Super Bowl Ads Illustrate Importance of Free Speech Rights for All, Even Corporations – Reason (blog)

84 LumberDid you see the Super Bowl ad about Mexican avocados? The Coke commercial? Budweiser's mini-bio of its immigrant founder? Was corporate America trolling Donald Trump with ads that celebrated free trade, diversity, and immigration? Or were they just selling products to people perhaps more sensitive to gleaning political messages than they have been before? Do you want the government to decide that?

Breitbart commenters, among other Trump loyalists, have been concerned about political ads at the Super Bowl since last week, when the Budweiser ad hit the news cycle. Fox initially rejected one ad from a lumber company that featured a long journey to a border wall, and a big beautiful door, although the beginning of the ad, from Lumber 84, did airthe whole thing was put online. Nevertheless, there was no paucity of ads from which viewers gleaned political messages. And that's a good thingdespite the heated rhetoric against Citizens United and corporate speech rights during the 2016 election, the Super Bowl ads and the discussions they're inevitably launching are an illustration of why protecting free speech rights from government regulation is important, even for corporations. Free expression is a crucial component of a free society and a healthy democracy, and sustains a marketplace of ideas. The notion that government interference can have anything but a deleterious effect is ridiculousit shouldn't have to take a character like Trump to head the government for people to realize that; there have been enough examples of what supposedly well-intended regulations have done.

Tonight's ads reflected the American populationcompanies, unlike governments, have to offer people something they want or they won't get their money, so they are far better at delivering to and so reflecting the many moods of the American people. The inevitable complaints, even the boycotts, are part of that too, and it's all part of a process of self-regulating speech, where ideas, ideally, rise and fall on their merits, where individuals get to argue about the meaning of things instead of having government decide. Only through open discussions, unfettered by the coercions of a government inevitably interested in protecting itself and its narrow interests, can better ideas develop and thrive.

Both Trump and his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, who courageously stood up against Citizens United, which ruled in favor of free speech that was critical of her, have abysmal records on free speech. But perhaps 2017 will make more free speech fans out of people sometimes too quick to take their leaders' words on it.

Follow this link:

Super Bowl Ads Illustrate Importance of Free Speech Rights for All, Even Corporations - Reason (blog)

Berkeley Campus Chaos Spurs Questions at Free-speech Bastion – Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

February 5, 2017 | :

BERKELEY, Calif. Chaos that erupted at the University of California, Berkeley, to oppose right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was shocking not just for the images of protesters setting fires, smashing windows and hurling explosives at police, but because of where it took place.

UC Berkeley is the birthplace of the free-speech movement and has been known for more than a half-century as a bastion of tolerance. As the university cleaned up Thursday, it struggled with questions of why the violence spun out of control and what has happened to the open-minded Berkeley of the 1960s.

It was not a proud night for this campus, school spokesman Dan Mogulof said, later adding, We are proud of our history and legacy as the home of the free-speech movement.

The school prides itself on its liberalism and political correctness, but many on campus pointed to the irony of the historical fight for free speech turning into a suppression of unpopular views today.

The mayhem achieved its goal of canceling an appearance by Yiannopoulos, a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump and a self-proclaimed internet troll whose comments have been criticized as racist, misogynist and anti-Muslim.

Berkeley has always stood for self-expression, said Russell Ude, a 20-year-old football player. Things like this discredit peaceful protest.

Philosophy professor John Searle, a leader of the free-speech movement and professor since 1959, called the cancellation an absolute scandal. He said most of what Yiannopoulos professes is disgusting but that hes entitled to be heard.

Free speech has to be allowed for everyone, Searle said.

School officials said they knew of the potential for unrest and went to extraordinary lengths to prepare. Other stops on the Breitbart News editors college tour have stirred protests and sporadic violence. But Berkeley authorities say they believe the instigators were not students and what unfolded was unprecedented.

Related: Engaging Latino Alumni: Basic Steps

Police from other campuses helped UC Berkeley as it shut down the building where Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak and erected barricades.

Yiannopoulos told Fox News Tucker Carlson on Thursday that police did not seem to do much and that he was whisked away by car after putting on a bulletproof vest.

This is political violence in response to perfectly mainstream opinions, he said.

Peaceful protests grew to a crowd of over 1,500, police estimated, before more than 100 armed individuals clad in ninja-like uniforms showed up. They hurled fireworks, Molotov cocktails and rocks at officers, UC Berkeley Police Chief Margo Bennett said.

She said officers exercised tremendous restraint to protect a crowd filled with students. No arrests were made and no major injuries were reported, a change from some high-profile protests at Berkeley decades ago.

Police did not advance on the crowd as they used barricades to bash windows and set fire to a kerosene generator, sparking a blaze that burned for over an hour.

A small group later took the chaos into nearby city streets.

Workers at several banks replaced broken windows Thursday, repaired damaged cash machines and cleaned graffiti from walls. Campus officials estimated the damage at about $100,000.

Amid the cleanup, a 21-year-old student who supports Trump was attacked on campus. Jack Palkovic wore a Make America Great Again cap as he headed to class when two young men jumped from a car and pummeled him. Police arrived and arrested them. The university said the alleged assailants had no connection to the school.

The campus Republican club says they invited Yiannopoulos to give a voice to repressed conservative thought on college campuses.

Related: Obama Administration Issues New Guidelines for College Admissions

Wheres my freedom-of-expression rights? said Jose Diaz, head of the Berkeley College Republicans, citing insults and harassment his club has faced. We are trying our best to engage in civil debate.

Not everyone who bought tickets for the speech supported Yiannopoulos.

I dont necessarily agree with his views. I just wanted to hear the other side, said sophomore Cole Diloreto, 19, noting the irony of the protesters demands to cancel it. Usually these are the same people who are arguing for free speech.

Student activism was born during the 1964-1965 free-speech movement at Berkeley, when thousands of students mobilized to demand the school drop its ban on political advocacy. Hundreds of protesters were arrested, but it was a largely peaceful movement that attracted the likes of folk singer Joan Baez.

Other protests could be violent and destructive.

Students and activists who transformed a vacant university-owned lot into Peoples Park, a countercultural gathering place, in May 1969 soon faced a chain-link fence that Berkeley installed.

A few thousand people marched to take it back. In battles with police, at least 169 people were injured, about 50 hit by police shotgun fire. One protester was killed.

Then-Gov. Ronald Reagan called in National Guard troops, and a helicopter sprayed tear gas on a protest over the mans death, galvanizing the school community.

Today, the tension over politics is fueling deeper divisions on campus that extended to the White House.

Trump tweeted about the unrest Thursday, questioning whether Berkeley should be granted federal funding: If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

Related: Princeton Forms Diversity Council for Staff Related Diversity Matters

The debate extended to the state Senate, where Democrats urged Trump not to take aim at elite universities and Republicans bemoaned what they characterized as a campus culture that devalues free speech.

Universities should be the most open, the most welcoming harbor of all ideas, left or right, GOP state Sen. Ted Gaines said. But they have turned into rigid ideological prisons where stepping outside the latest progressive liberal path is considered a thought crime.

Associated Press writers Tim Reiterman in San Francisco and Jonathan J. Cooper in Sacramento contributed to this report.

View original post here:

Berkeley Campus Chaos Spurs Questions at Free-speech Bastion - Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

A Free Speech Battle at the Birthplace of a Movement at Berkeley – New York Times


New York Times
A Free Speech Battle at the Birthplace of a Movement at Berkeley
New York Times
BERKELEY, Calif. Fires burned in the cradle of free speech. Furious at a lecture organized on campus, demonstrators wearing ninja-like outfits smashed windows, threw rocks at the police and stormed a building. The speech? The university called it off.
The No Free Speech Movement at BerkeleyLos Angeles Times
Free speech takes a hit in BerkeleySan Francisco Chronicle
Free speech: Milo is all of usThe Seattle Times
The Mercury News -Breitbart News -UC Berkeley -Twitter
all 845 news articles »

Here is the original post:

A Free Speech Battle at the Birthplace of a Movement at Berkeley - New York Times

Berkeley Riots: How Free Speech Debate Launched Violent Campus Showdown – RollingStone.com

Last week's riot at University of California Berkeley has raised some big questions about the future of the free speech movement. A divided campus which once incubated the ideals of the 1960s was sent into lockdown as it struggled to balance inclusive values with its legacy of fighting for the right to voice your opinion, however ugly it may be.

When the Berkeley College Republicans invited inflammatory Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos to speak on campus, over 100 faculty members signed letters of protest, urging the administration to cancel his visit, while an op-ed by veterans of the free-speech movement defended his right to speak. The university decided that the Berkeley College Republicans, a separate legal entity from the school itself, had the right to host Yiannopoulos but many in the community didn't agree with that decision, pointing to other schools that have successfully prevented his appearances.

The night Yiannopoulos arrived on campus, 1,500 people showed up to protest some carting a giant, homemade dove to symbolize their peaceful intentions. But just after sundown, the protests turned violent, as roughly 150 black-clad, anti-fascist radicals with clubs and shields lit fires, hurled Molotov cocktails, smashed windows and caused enough of a scene to achieve their objective: deny Yiannopoulos the opportunity to spread what they view as dangerous hate speech at the university's new Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union Center.

They were successful. But what does that mean for a campus uniquely tied to the idea that everyone even those holding ideas widely condemned and deemed to be offensive, ignorant or hateful has the right to say their piece?

University officials were disappointed by the events, quickly distancing themselves from the rioters. "It's not a proud moment for us," says Dan Mogulof, assistant vice chancellor of the university. "It was a sad day, given UC Berkeley's legacy, history and institutional values We want to provide a venue for speakers across the political spectrum."

Although it's difficult to determine the affiliations of the more militant protesters who used the "black bloc" tactic of wearing all black and masking their faces, in order to avoid police recognition and appear as a cohesive group they have been depicted as being from out of town and unrelated to the UC Berkeley community. YetRolling Stone spoke to one participant who said they graduated from the university and cited not only fears that a rising far right could bring about more "xenophobia, misogyny and [white] ethno-nationalism" but also anger and disappointment directly pointed at the university's administration.

"Shutting down the talk was successful," the protester, who asked to remain anonymous, saidin an email. "But it was also about sending a message to everyone else: We aren't about to allow white supremacist views to be normalized. It was about striking at the seemingly impervious confidence the far right has been boasting."

But it isn't just about blocking a single speaker. "It is really about making them understand the danger they pose by treating these insane neo-Nazi ideas cavalierly," the protester says. "People talk a lot about 'freedom of speech' and I think this fetish of speech misses the larger point. It is about ideas of freedom itself. Who has it, and who is denied it."

Lately, Trump supporters at UC Berkeley have had reason to be fearful. One, who told news cameras he was attacked by protesters, was seen bleeding from his eye. Another was pepper-sprayed by a masked individual after giving an interview to a local TV station. A day after the protest, two people were arrested for attacking a man walking near campus with a "Make America Great Again" hat. Video of an unconscious Trump supporter lying face down in the street and being struck in the head with what was described as a shovel circulated online.

"It's become evident that the black bloc is not just a matter of concern for local agencies," says Assistant Vice Chancellor Mogulof. "We've taken note of the tactics, weapons, discipline, organization and training. We will not be caught unprepared for them again."

The majority of protesters didn't engage in violence. Max Raynard, a Bay-Area native who attended the protests, witnessed students attempting to give water and medical attention to the Trump supporter with the eye wound. UC Berkeley says the next day students formed an ad-hoc group via social media to clean up campus.

But despite the majority's actions, university policies and widely condemned views of Yiannopoulos, the shut-down of the event brought a larger issue to light. "The whole point of the free-speech movement was to defend unpopular speech. There's no point in defending popular speech," says Jack Citrin, professor of political science and director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the university. "This could have been a teaching moment for our students: that it is legitimate for people with views you find abhorrent to speak, and to debate them, and to do so with a superior argument. Instead, it ends up a moment where this provocateur gets exactly what he wanted."

Citrin, who received his PhD from Berkeley in 1970 and was passionate about the free speech movement as a student, says he was heartened by the chancellor's decision to resist pressure and allow the event to go forward. He argued much along the same lines as the op-ed written by the Free Speech Movement Archive Board of Directors. "If even a 10th of the 100 or so faculty who signed those pro-ban open letters showed up to ask this bigot tough questions or held a teach-in about what's wrong and unethical in his vitriol," read the op-ed,"they could puncture his PR bubble instantly, avoid casting him in the role of free speech martyr and prove that the best cure for ignorant and hateful speech is speech that unmasks its illogic, cruelty and stupidity."

Citrin believes the battle for free speech on college campuses is still raging, just in a new way. "I think the defense of free speech is a very real issue now," he says. "And that battle takes place in many forms, and includes demands for so-called 'safe spaces,' which I view as absurd. There's a whole range of issues that have arisen that has made the firm commitment to free speech in academia less secure."

These violent protesters, he says, claim to be liberal but don't believe in free speech. "This is a gift to Milo, and of course presents Trump with an opportunity to get on his horn." (The president tweeted at 3:13 a.m. "If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view NO FEDERAL FUNDS?" Experts quickly responded saying the president's ability to fulfill this threat was "unlikely.")

According to a statement put out by the university, there was one arrest (for failure to disperse) and six minor injuries the night of the protests. The school's early estimate is that $100,000 worth of damage was done to the area outside its new MLK Student Union building a popular study spot. A large diesel-fuel fire, started after protesters tipped over a light post and generator, was hot enough to be felt 20 or 30 feet away, scorch nearby steps, and thin out a couple of trees, students present at the protest told Rolling Stone.

Robert Borsdorf, a 20-year-old third-year art student at Berkeley spent part of the night documenting the protests on behalf of the art department, and another part of it wrestling with protesters who didn't want him to photograph their faces.

"I look over my right and this dude has a fucking mason jar," says Borsdorf. "He lit it and tossed it up at these cops. When I turn around, there's something going toward the cop and it exploded. It was insane."

The black-bloc protester who spoke to RSon condition of anonymity says they "took it pretty easy that night," and that they still believe in the tactics.

"In this case, with the goal being to absolutely shut down a central target, it made sense to employ these means to ensure that the University understands there are consequences for enabling fascism," the protester says. "The demonstration had less to do with stopping one particular right-wing narcissist than it did combatting the movement he is part of."

Peaceful activists, direct-action anarchists, conservative provocateurs, campus faculty and the UC Berkeley Police can't agree on much. But there is one topic where they do: The police presence and response to the protest was small and non-interventional. And that's not by mistake.

The notably muted response was not part of a conspiracy by administrators to allow protesters to stop the event despite suggestions on social media and from Yiannopoulos himself in interviews. Rather, it was the direct result of officials following the guidelines of the Robinson-Edley report, campus officials said. The report was drafted to suggest changes to protest-management on California universities after two clashes between protesters and police in November 2011. One, when protesters were pepper sprayed at UC Davis, and the other a violent beating of protesters at UC Berkeley. The report's findings prioritize student safety, and support more non-physical methods, like opening lines of communication and building trust.

But after the violent clashes, the lines of communication and bedrock of trust on campus can be hard to find. Mogulof recalled a phone call he received before the protests.

"I had a faculty member of the campus call me and say, 'You must ban him,'" he recalls. "I said, 'We're not allowed to do that, he is protected by the first amendment.' They say 'No, he's not.' So I say, 'Why do you believe that?' and they said, 'Because he's wrong.'"

Sign up for our newsletter to receive breaking news directly in your inbox.

Read the rest here:

Berkeley Riots: How Free Speech Debate Launched Violent Campus Showdown - RollingStone.com

Activists Claim DIA Infringed On Freedom Of Speech – CBS Local

By Rick Sallinger

DENVER (CBS4) Protesters have asked a federal court judge to issue an injunction against the City of Denver and police after demonstrators were asked to leave Denver International Airport last month.

The response was strong and immediate to President Donald Trumps travel ban. Protestors rushed to airports around the country including DIA.

(credit: CBS)

But in Denver, police told the demonstrators that they needed to have obtained a permit seven days in advance of the protest.

They were addressed by a man with an airport badge on a megaphone who announced, You need a permit to conduct this activity on airport property.

And a Denver police officer told them, Stop doing anything that can be construed as Free Speech without a permit.

(credit: Darren OConnor)

Now some of those protesters have filed a lawsuit in federal court asking for the airport rule that requires a permit a week in advance to be lifted.

Civil Rights attorney David Lane is representing the protesters.

(credit: CBS)

Those protesters were out there the day that occurred and Denver expects them to wait seven days? The Supreme Court says thats unconstitutional, said Lane.

The protests continued inside DIA despite the request by police. Then, to avoid arrest, some demonstrators moved outside by the Westin hotel. The city insists its actions were within the law.

Travel ban protesters gathered Jan. 28 at Denver Intl Airport. (credit:: CBS)

DIA issued a statement, Denver police and the airport worked to balance the rights of individuals to express themselves with the need to protect passengers and airport operations.

Those who filed the lawsuit continued their protests at DIA. CBS4 Investigator Rick Sallinger asked them a question as they carried one of the signs they had at the protest.

(credit: CBS)

Are you a little worried about holding up this sign? asked Sallinger. Yes. Any minute DPD could arrive and take it, said one protester.

CBS4s Rick Sallinger is a Peabody award winning reporter who has been with the station more than two decades doing hard news and investigative reporting. Follow him on Twitter @ricksallinger.

Continued here:

Activists Claim DIA Infringed On Freedom Of Speech - CBS Local

Freedom of speech talk stirs debate – The Brown Daily Herald

Debate is what Geoffrey Stone, professor of law at the University of Chicago, came to the University to encourage, and debate is what he got.

In a lecture at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs Friday, Stone discussed the importance of fostering an environment that encourages free expression, especially controversial opinions. His talk was followed by a heated question and answer session about the pragmatism and presentation of his ideas.

Free speech on college campuses has come under national scrutiny again with the protests at the University of California at Berkeley that led to the cancellation of an alt-right speakers event Wednesday, said President Christina Paxson P19 as she introduced Stone.

Stones talk, Free Speech on Campus, dealt exactly with these issues and was part of a University speaker series Reaffirming University Values: Campus Dialogue and Discourse.

Stone chaired the University of Chicagos Committee on Freedom of Expression in 2015. My own personal view is that if (universities) aspire to be serious academic institutions, they have to have a profound commitment to debate, discussion and disagreement because thats how we create knowledge, Stone told The Herald. If institutions cut off that debate (and) disagreement, they are, in my view, undermining the central purpose of their being, he said.

Increasingly, faculty members and students are less comfortable taking controversial positions, Stone told The Herald. One reason is that some students have been raised by helicopter parents who have shielded or protected them from discomfort, risk and failure in ways that their predecessors have not, Stone said. Additionally, those who share controversial views on social media may risk offending potential employers.

I think its an unhealthy thing that social media has produced that environment, but its a healthy thing that students and marginalized groups such as racial and religious minorities, women (and) gays have become more vocal about their experiences and intolerance for certain views, Stone told The Herald.

Contrary to the position espoused by the University of Chicagos Dean of Students John Ellisons letter to incoming freshman of the class of 2020, Stone said trigger warnings and safe spaces are not violations of free speech in his view. The letter written by the dean of students in the college did not reflect the reality or the policies of the University of Chicago. I regard that aspect of that letter as unfortunate, Stone told The Herald.

The decision to use trigger warnings should be left to professors rather than dictated at an institutional level, Stone told The Herald, emphasizing that faculty members should feel free to use trigger warnings if they think that it would improve the quality of education that students receive.

The University of Chicago is filled with safe spaces, Stone said.There are endless organizations that are designed to bring together students (with) particular experiences, interests (and) background(s).

But while student groups can serve as safe spaces, universities as a whole must be open to even the most loathsome, odious, offensive, disloyal arguments, Stone said in a speech at the American Law Institutes meeting in May 2016. Universities must ultimately uphold free speech even in the case of hate speech, he said.

I dont believe that the idea of hate speech is one that universities should get involved in addressing any more than it should get involved in communist speech or pro-abortion speech, Stone told The Herald. Hate speech is simply speech that says bad things about certain people, and my view is that the right response to it is to address it and explain why one thinks its hateful and wrong instead of seeking institutional censorship, he added.

In addition, universities should not take political positions to protect freedom of speech on campuses. But exceptions can be made if political actions have a direct and real effect upon the operation of universities, such as President Donald Trumps recent executive order banning immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries, Stone said.

Responding to a question from a professor at the event about a universitys responsibility to address institutional oppression, Stone said, In university communities like ours, were not the ones afraid to speak out. Rather, those afraid to speak out on college campuses are the Trump supporters or evangelical Christians, he said.

Across the University, you should not have certain types of perspectives unrepresented (or) not reasonably represented because of some bias about those views, Stone said. But in his view, a liberal bias has already taken root at most universities across the country.

A persistent point of tension in Stones speech was the conflict between freedom of speech and the need to be civil in an academic setting. Stone said that professors have a right to intervene when racial epithets are directed at students in a classroom. He proceeded to directly name certain racial epithets as examples of unacceptable language.

Naomi Chasek-Macfoy 18 requested that Stone discontinue the use of racial slurs in his speech, to which Stone replied that racial epithets should be allowed in the classroom if they are relevant to the discussion or mentioned in course materials. Someone who goes around yelling and screaming racial epithets even outside the classroom, I would say, is being a jackass. Is that okay can I say that? he joked.

Many attendees told The Herald that they were uncomfortable with Stones response to Chasek-Macfoys question. While some students might have even agreed with Stone, the fact that he was mocking (Chasek-Macfoy) from then on, I lost my respect for him, Areeb Mahamadi 17 said. I thought he was rude.

More:

Freedom of speech talk stirs debate - The Brown Daily Herald

Our fight to the death with nature is not one we can win – The Age – The Age

In population biology a refugium, or simply fuge, is a protective place for a relict population that has become threatened in its native habitat. Paradoxically, refugiums often make things worse for individuals and populations remaining in nature.

The vast royal greenhouses at Laeken, near Brussels, are such a refugium. Built as a pirate showcase for the extraordinary biodiversity of the Congo rainforest that Leopold II had so brutally colonised, they now preserve these fast-disappearing species. Yet the paradox: the 800,000 litres of fuel oil burnt each year to keep these plants alive help drive the climate change that is destroying what natural populations remain.

Another refugium is the evangelical rapture. Relying on expected end times, as seen by many in the "Trumpocalypse", it yields such gems as the "rapture index", reported in the Daily Mail this week, which lists anti-semitism, droughts, false prophets and civil rights as signs of imminent end. When the excrement really hits the whizzer the idea goes the faithful elite will be airlifted bodily, rapturously, to heaven, leaving the rest of us to our miserable fate.

The paradox?Given the number of evangelical Christians in Sydney leadershipand that a 2011 survey that found "six of ten evangelical leaders believe in the rapturea few wouldactually believe this arrogant nonsense. That way - naturally counting themselves amongst theliftees - it'ssuddenly easy to treat climate change as no big thing.

This tussle between "I" and "we" underpins everything humans do on Earth. Clearly, our fight to the death with nature is not one we can win, because if we win, we die. Yet we continue to act on the delusion of wasteless, costless abundance, designing our arrant theologies to ignore the evident oneness of economy and ecology. For me, two recent Sydney events Melissa and Mary brought all this ineluctably to mind.

Melissa and Mary. These innocuous-sounding names could be the most significant you'll hear this century. Melissa, properly written MELiSSA (Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative) cropped up in a Sydney Festival art event by extraordinary scent artist Cat Jones. MELiSSA is the European Space Agency's bare-minimum ecosystem for indefinite human existence in deep space.

Mary is, well Mary, Mother of, as voiced by Colm Toibin's Testament of Mary, currently at Sydney Theatre. Toibin's Mary is overwhelmingly a mother: harrowed, heartbroken, doubtful of her son's divinity, insisting he just got in with the wrong crowd.

At first, MELiSSA and Mary seem to occupy opposite extremes of the existential spectrum abstract, hyper-sterile reductionism versus stoic, earthy humanism. Each represents a future, a power relationship with nature: which (assuming we still have a choice) will we choose?

But perhaps, under the surface, Mary and MELiSSA are singing the same anthropocentric tune.

To be honest, the words European Space Agency seem almost a contradiction in terms, so far does old textured Europe (and especially Barcelona, where MELiSSA is based) seem from the abstract nothingness of space. But MELiSSA takes abstract nothingness totally on board which is why it's terrifying.

The yearning for space is deep, but still morally ambiguous. There's the brave and noble urge to explore, self against Big Universe, chasing the final frontier. And there's the less noble more brutal and territorial urge to colonise.

The colonial drive has always been dodgy both because it generally involves stealing other peoples' lands and lives, and because it offers the illusion of something for nothing: free resources, costless plunder and, as UTS social scientist Dr Jeremy Walker notes, escape from the moral and environmental responsibilities of home.

Walker has studied MELiSSA, parsing the eco-political ramifications of "guiltless abundance". MELiSSA, he writes (with colleague Celine Granjou), "emboldens the utopian anticipation of a synthetic biosphere within which the privileged may continue to elude the earthly consequences of their history".

MELiSSA is more exploratory than colonial, aiming to garner the fewest, smallest, most transportable species necessary to sustain human life with no input except sunlight.

But anyone who saw Matt Damon in The Martian knows that, ship or planet, it's the same deal. You're in space, you need water, oxygen, food. How do you make it? How do you treat waste?

The inverse relationship between respiration and photosynthesis is clearly key. That each process absorbs the other's waste and excretes the other's raw material seems one of evolution's little gifts to space travel. Certainly, it lets MELiSSA whittle the "necessary" species to a few photosynthetic bacteria and algae, 30 or 40 needed food crops and the billion-odd microbes that, extracted from the human gut, compost the waste back into nutrients. As Walker notes, MELiSSA demands "a claustrophobic proximity between the crew and its wastes".

Forget Noah. This is an ark sans trees, elephants, gibbons and grasshoppers. Multicells unnecessary. If Earth dies (we decide), they die with it while in cold loveless space, humans live on in their hyper-sterile pharma-factory, feeding forever on hydroponic, shit-fed veges without gravity, mystery or chance

For me, it has strictly limited appeal. If Trump presses the button, I'll probably head for the epicentre and be done with it.

But MELiSSA's founding premises also need scrutiny. One is that storming off to new planets is legitimate as a response to having wrecked this one. The other is that "necessary" species are definable in strictly anthropocentric terms.

Enter Mary. Although Toibin's Mary grudgingly acknowledges one or two of her son's miracles, she denies the immaculate conception ("I was there") and insists the resurrection story is a dream repeated in error. She herself worships Artemis, goddess of animals and the hunt.

Many see this as the play's strength. Tracing our planetary exploitation to our shift, way back, from embedded pantheism to transcendent monotheism, they regard Mary's stoic humanity as one for the planet.

I'm less sure. Transcendence is not arrogance. It doesn't mean remaking yourself as some space-based jet-propelled sky god. What you're meant to transcend is not Earth, but ego. Exploitation should become impossible.

Neither space nor rapture will save us; not heaven, not Mars, not the Starship Enterprise. The gods, one or many, have no interest in slithering us from our deeds. Earth is our refugium. Fade to black.

Twitter: emfarrelly

Continued here:

Our fight to the death with nature is not one we can win - The Age - The Age

Ricky Gervais on Atheism, Donald Trump, and the Return of David Brent – Variety

Its been over 13 years since Ricky Gervais bade farewell to David Brent, the middling middle manager on the original U.K. version of The Office that launched his career. Since then, hes had other successful series (Extras,Derek), dabbled in movies (The Invention of Lying), and sold out venues with his standup tour. Yet the character who considered himself friend first, boss secondprobably entertainer third has never really gone away. There wasnt a day that went by where I wasnt managing the estate of David Brent, Gervais notes. There were remakes around the world, I would get requests every day to show clips, or something would could up with licensing.

SEE MORE: Awards: The Contenders

After short appearances on the American version of The Office or at Comic Relief, Gervais has brought Brent back in full force with the release of David Brent: Life on the Road. Written and directed by Gervais, the film hits American theaters and streaming platform Netflix on Feb. 10. It follows Brents attempts to extend his modicum of fame by launching a music career with typically uncomfortable results. As Gervais puts it, If you went on Facebook and found out the most boring man you went to college with was trying to be a rock star, youd have to watch.

We spoke with Gervais on the phone from England the morning of Donald Trumps inauguration, mere minutes after Trump was sworn in. The outspoken comedian noted some parallels between his fictional character and the new president.

Thank you for bringing David Brent back, I didnt realize how much I missed him.That was sort of the point, really, for people to catch up on an old friend. Its a fake documentary but I deal in realism. And I suppose theres parallels to real life where everyone wants to be famous. He had a bit of fame at the turn of the century, and we thought hed go away. But now fame is a different beast and people dont give up. And its easier to be famous because people are willing to do anything to be famous. Theres no difference now between fame and infamy. Weve just seen the host of The Apprentice become President of the United States.

Did you see some news reports are saying he lifted parts of his speech from Bane in The Dark Knight Rises?And Im not shocked. A year ago, I would have been horrified. But then again, the things he said running up to thisif any other politician or any other world leader had said it, he would have resigned. He confessed to abusing women and that wasnt enough. There is no greater role model in the western world arguably, so what happens when a guy is caught for attacking a woman and says, My president said it was all right? Its off the charts. I do sort of blame reality TV in a way because we are all made from our input. Hes a man who wants to be famous. Donald Trump has more in common with David Brent than he does with JFK or Lincoln or Roosevelt. Hes not even a smart man who had to work for it. Hes not particularly erudite or educated or caring. He wants to be famous, he wants to be loved. Im not saying that makes him a terrible president or its the end of the world, Im just saying he is different from other presidents and he is a product of the last 50 years of people wanting to be famous. Its like he wasnt satisfied with having $5 billion and running companies, he had to be on telly every possible moment.

When thinking of ideas for a David Brent movie, did you ever imagine a storyline where he or someone like him ran for president? It would seem too outrageous.Thats exactly right, nothing is fiction now. It seems like the way it first started was a little bit like one of those 80s movies where two old billionaires in a gentlemans club make a bet that they can make any idiot into the president of the United States. One says, Where are you going to find someone that stupid? And it cuts to Trump and the one says, Youre on sir! Its like Pygmalion in a bad, Hollywood 1980s genre movie. And it worked.

Do you still watch reality TV?Its been good to me. Ive watched it and found it enjoyable and laughed at some things and been angry at others but I have studied it, it has been my muse. I wrote The Office based on my experiences as a middle manager, I worked at an office for 10 years. I also watched a lot of those quaint docu-soaps in the 90s that followed someone at work and they sort of became a household name for 15 minutes. But now its different. Now you get on The Apprentice by saying, Ill destroy anything that stands in my way. They choose the people who are willing to do anything, and people get on by promising to behave badly. And theyre rewarded for it. Though I dont think it ever ends well.

You seem to be drawn to the subject of fame in a lot of your work.The Office was about a man who wanted to be famous. Extras was about a man literally on the first rung of being famous. The Golden Globes was a study in fame to me. I was shocked by how worried everyone was about what I would say. I just dont get it. It was a shock that people were that sensitive or that worried about what a little fat guy from Reading said about them. I always like to sort of play with that. I think its staple of British comedy, even more than American, we always try to bring down authority. Theres something were trying to undermine when people take themselves too seriously. It was reflected in the remake of the American Office. Its more hopeful. Americans are told you can grow up to be the next president of the United States. Brits are told to not even try, who do you think you are? Its funny because my sense of humor is British but my comedy is American. I embrace both things.

What do these characters or someone like David Brent hope to get out of fame?Ive always been fascinated with what people think leading a good life is. Good people do bad things, for many reasons. For money, for fame, because they think it will make them happy. They should just cut out the middle man and just be happy. So Im always on the side of the deluded, if theyve got a good heart. David Brent isnt an evil person. Now hes 55, not 39, hes not the boss. Hes not doing a job that anyone ever dreams of as a child. So he believes, like most people, that fame will sort their life out. Hes putting all his money on one number and cashing in his chips to buy fame. Hes looking for the wrong thing and hes certainly looking in the wrong place. We see sort of a more sympathetic side of him.

It would be easy to mock David Brent as a musician, but the music in the film actually isnt bad.Well, David Brent is paying for it so David Brent would get the best musicians he could. Hes hemorrhaging money because he wants a real band. But at least hes trying and it is his money, hes not stealing or conning anyone. Hes following a dream, no matter how deluded that may be and thats admirable. Thats the staple of comedy. Comedy at its essence is the normal guy trying to do something hes not equipped to do. And when were snickering at him, were only snickering at ourselves. When we laugh at David Brent were sort of going, Oh, Ive done that.

But the album actually charted internationally, it hit number three in Britain and number one in New Zealand.Yeah, but people are in on the jokethey know theyre not buying a cool album. Its David Brent, not me releasing my songs. When you see Ricky Gervais Sings the Blues, shoot me. Thats when its all over. The problem is in the narrative, David Brent isnt as successful as he is in real life. When we do gigs, we sell out huge venues. I have to keep the narrative piece not a huge success otherwise its a bit too far-fetched.

Wait, so you as David Brent is selling out concerts? Yeah, thats how it all started. I brought David Brent back for a Comic Relief sketch and he did a track called Equality Street. It went really well and I did a couple gigs and people went crazy. We had 110,000 ticket requests for these small venues. They called and said I could play Wembley Stadium. I said, This is mad. Why would David Brent play Wembley? Thats when it hit me; he paid top musicians, hes booking venues, and thats where the idea for the movie came.

The Office spawned a lot of comedies that used the fake documentary format or played up the comedy of discomfort. How does it feel to have been at the forefront of that?I dont think I started it, but I fused a few genres so it looked original. I wasnt the first to tap into that stupidity and those idiot characters, Laurel and Hardy did it. I wasnt the first to do a naturalistic fake documentary, you could point to This Is Spinal Tap. Awkwardness and discomfort were done in Seinfeld. What I did do was probably up everything a notch. Mine was slower, more uncomfortable, more desperate.

In addition to your performing, youre an outspoken animal rights activist and atheist. How does it feel to be almost as well-known for your causes as for your work? Its funny isnt it? Those things have always been my passion but you get a bigger platform. As your fame grows, those things about you grow as well. With the invention of social media, the more famous you get and the more access people get to you, the more youre loved but they more youre hated as well. But thats no reason to not still give your opinion and tell the truth. Its never worried me to have a popular or unpopular view. One of my favorite tweets Ive ever got said, Everyones entitled to believe what they want, so shut up about your atheism.

View post:

Ricky Gervais on Atheism, Donald Trump, and the Return of David Brent - Variety

Devout Atheists – Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

My Great-Great-Aunt Kit might have been, in the parlance of her times, an infidel. In the 1890s, she loaded her scrapbook with the blasphemous speeches of the eras most famous agnostic, Robert Ingersoll, marking them up with apparent appreciation.

A student of American religious history, I was surprised to find such interest in unbelief among these ancestors because that side of my family is a long line of Ohio farmers. The instincts of my discipline recommend for them a quiet but dogged Methodism, maybe a flash of revivalism here and there. "Ignorance is the soil of the supernatural. The miraculous is false" wasnt the first thing I would have expected to find circled and starred in a family heirloom.

Village Atheists: How America's Unbelievers Made Their Way in a Godly Nation By Leigh Eric Schmidt

(Princeton University Press)

Schmidt wants to neutralize some of the polemicism surrounding the topic. The very words by which we name this strand of American religious history are negations, inherently adversarial: atheist, nonbeliever, irreligious. Even freethinker is a provocation, if one is just a thinker. Schmidt, though, discovers gray areas and blurred lines between belief and unbelief. "Certainly many freethinkers and evangelicals saw this as a war without a middle ground, but forbearance and mutual recognition nonetheless frequently emerged amid the Manichean opposition."

This is complicated, however, by Schmidts own title character, a composite "cultural figure" drawn from the lives of his four contrarians. Samuel Porter Putnam once published a pamphlet called "Religion a Curse, Religion a Disease, Religion a Lie" (1893). Charles B. Reynolds co-opted the methods of evangelicalism and traveled the country holding tent revivals, preaching a gospel of freethought. Elmina Drake Slenker defied obscenity laws to spread advice about sex and the body, taking particular pride in using "short, emphatic, and clear" words i.e., four-letter ones. Watson Heston drew cartoons demonstrating the absurdity of belief and the unfairness of religions hold on the nations institutions. A typical Heston cartoon mocked common Protestant imagery about "clinging to the cross" by labeling the suffering souls supposed life-saver "a piece of worthless theological driftwood." A "Freethought Life-Boat" offers rescue as the sharks of priestcraft close in.

Schmidt wants the lives of these characters to "capture the dilemmas of a quotidian secularism the tensions between combat and courtesy, candor and dissembling, irreverence and respectability that marked the everyday lives of Americas unbelievers." He succeeds to the extent that these public atheists wrote and spoke to audiences of everyday nonbelievers living amid the assumptions of belief. His four main subjects do not appear to have dissembled much, though, and most of the book is about court cases and public controversies, moments not easily thought of as part of their normal daily lives.

The fact is that much of the everyday 19th-century atheism Schmidt set out to chronicle might have been characterized by silence. Proclaiming oneself an atheist has been and still is in many circles simply considered rude. Schmidt chronicles a recurrent argument among freethinkers themselves about how impolite to be, but does not reflect on the constant violence of self-censorship that this implies. Self-censorship in the face of overwhelming cultural pressure is as much a part of the American atheist experience as irreverent provocation. Family members who knew her she lived to be 99 have no memory of Aunt Kit ever discussing religion.

Beyond the risk of social stigma, atheists have been subject to violence, imprisonment, and the denial of political rights. True, they are not exactly like other persecuted religious minorities in American history. For one thing, they have not been powerless. Contemporary surveys indicate that they tend toward the white, male, and educated, and that is not a new trend. Even in the 19th century, the self-consciously irreverent edge of so much atheist rhetoric came from a place of relative privilege. Compared with the violence wrought along lines of race, gender, and class, the challenges faced by atheists can seem minor, or quaint, or even funny. Schmidt recounts the story of a one-armed Kansan named Jacob B. Wise who was prosecuted in 1895, under the Comstock obscenity laws, for mailing a minister a postcard with a single line on it about eating and drinking human waste. The joke was that the line was from the Bible (Isaiah 36:12).

Schmidt is mostly mindful of this tension, punctuating stories of relative tolerance toward atheists with the real consequences of persecution. (Wise spent a month in jail and was fined $50, all for sending a postcard with a Bible verse on it.) Even as the religious right has wrapped itself in the rhetoric of victimhood, claiming to feel oppressed in a secular nation, surveys continue to suggest that it is atheists who might feel most compelled to hide their commitments of conscience. Americans feel coldest about atheists and Muslims, and admit that they are less likely to vote for members of these groups than any others. In 2005, Justice Antonin Scalia may the God he worshiped rest his soul argued in a dissent "that the Establishment Clause permits the disregard of devout atheists."

Nevertheless, the irreverent work of the village atheist goes on in a public arena radically changed by high-profile 20th-century Supreme Court cases. The Satanic Temple is easily the most entertaining avatar of the village atheists spirit today. They are atheists who claim Satan as a metaphor, not a deity, and they recently announced an "After School Satan" program as a counter to Christian programs permitted to evangelize in public schools. And the University of Miami will soon run a search for an endowed chair in "the study of atheism, humanism and secular ethics." It took the donor more than 15 years and $2.2 million to get the university to agree to use the word "atheism" in the title, but the term might soon be an everyday presence.

Seth Perry is an assistant professor of religion at Princeton University.

Original post:

Devout Atheists - Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

Ricky Gervais and Stephen Colbert Debate Atheism – Yahoo TV (blog)

Ricky Gervais gave a defense of atheism on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. The British comedian and actor is an outspoken atheist, and Colbert is somewhat of a rarity in comedic circles: a devout Catholic. Unlike similar conversations with Bill Maher, this was far more gracious than it was testy.

Ricky Gervais has never been shy about sharing his beliefs. (Photo: Getty Images)

So this is atheism in a nutshell, said Gervais. You say, Theres a god. I say, You can prove that? You say, No. I say, I dont believe you then. So you believe in one god, I assume but there are 3,000 to choose from So basically, you believe in you deny one less god than I do. You dont believe in 2,999 gods. And I dont believe in just one more.

Colbert explained that his gratitude for existence needs to be expressed and winds up being directed toward God. Gervais explained his gratitude for existence is displayed in an appreciation for scientific discovery. We want to make sense of nature and science. It is too unfathomable everything in the universe was once crunched in some small atom, said Gervais. But you dont know that, Colbert interjected. Youre just believing Stephen Hawking, and thats a matter of faith in his abilities. You dont know it yourself. Youre accepting that because someone told you.

Stephen Colbert is a rarity in comedic circles for his deep Catholic faith. (Photo: Getty Images)

Gervais then explained why Colberts argument wasnt compelling to him, and did so in such a succinct manner that Colbert had to give him credit. You see, if we take something like any fiction and any holy book and any other fiction and destroyed it, in 1,000 years time, that wouldnt come back just as it was, Gervais pointed out. Whereas if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed them all, in 1,000 years theyd all be back, because all the same tests would be the same result. Thats good, Colbert acknowledged. Thats really good.

Previously on Colbert: Jon Stewart Reveals Trumps Next Executive Order:

Tell us what you think! Hit us up on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram or leave your comments below. And check out our host, Khail Anonymous, on Twitter.

Go here to see the original:

Ricky Gervais and Stephen Colbert Debate Atheism - Yahoo TV (blog)

Filthy Assistance: Revisiting ‘Transmetropolitan: Lust for Life’ – ComicsAlliance

Image Credits: Vertigo

In the 1990s,Warren EllisandDarick Robertson foresaw a future of twisted behavior, renegade politics, and uncontrollable technology inTransmetropolitan. Wererevisiting the series book by book, because in a time of unrest anduncertainty we could all usesome Filthy Assistance.

In book two, Lust For Life, the world is brought into sharper relief as the new and the old crash into each other repeatedly, leaving our characters dealing with the fallout. Spider Jerusalem also confronts assassins putting a hit on his life as part of a convoluted scheme tied up in a messy divorce in a storyline that may go a bit too far

In the second volume of Transmetropolitanthe world and our narrator and guide to it come into focus more clearly.

Three one-shot stories open the volume, which was written by Ellis, with pencils by Darick Robertson, inks by Rodney Ramos, colors by Nathan Eyring, and letters by Clem Robbins. In the first, Channons boyfriend is leaving her, joining a transhumanist movement where he is literally going to be uploaded to the cloud. (If Dropbox formed a human face and created flowers, I might be more forgiving of those times theres a data breach that leaks all its files to the world.)

Neural uploading nicknamed braintaping in the cyberpunk fiction I read growing up, back when magnetic tapes existed and the occasional dinosaur roamed the Earth is a long-speculated end goal for transhumanist perspectives on the human race, a cure for death itself. Heaven on Earth. Except that in Transmetropolitan, anyone selling you on Heaven is either lying to you or to themselves.

One of Channons boyfriends first acts as a foglet is to get intimate with another foglet, right in front of Channon, andthe story ends with Spider in the unique position of running out to comfort Channon. All this brings into sharp relief one of the running themes of Transmetropolitan: that better cars and better computers didnt make us better people, and the worst frailties of the human condition are frailties of compassion and the heart.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the second story, arguably the best story in all of Transmetropolitan, and certainly my favorite. Spooling out of a single panel of shell-shocked street people in the first issue, this story takes the promise of the post-death future and reaches back into the past, to tempt us with it; you too, can be immortal, since in the future death will have been conquered.

But none of us float alone in a void; all of us are shaped by the forces around us. (This life extension service is specifically only available in first-world countries; like William Gibson said, the future is here, but unevenly distributed, and the fly in the ointment of transhumanism is that one-third of the world still lacks electricity.) We have family; we have friends; we have a society we understand, jobs we know how to do, favorite hobbies, favorite keepsakes, wedding bands and knickknacks, and our favorite coffee mugs.

For Mary, the subject of the story that Spider tells the reader, all of this is stripped away as she is reborn in a future that doesnt preserve any of that (or it does see the next story but again, the future is distributed unevenly). She is even stripped of most of her voice there is only the bare snippet of a conversation with a faceless man, the rest conveyed via Spiders writing, which forces us to look at her at a remove, and to empathize with her anyways.

She is shoved out into the world without all of the context that makes her her, and she is lost without it, realizing just how small in the face of the towering forces of society we all are, buoyed along by an ocean we cant tame and a wind we cant predict. The future is a place where death has been beaten back, making life so cheap that any excuse not to care about it is one that societys taken.

The last of the three one-shot stories is about the future reaching back into the past via different means, sending people back to live out the ultimate in LARPing, fully stepping into a long-decayed culture. That no-one thinks to match up the Revivals of the previous story with one of the cultural preserves from this story, where they might live in comfort, is a testament to how much the City suffers from institutional failure; an obvious solution forgotten because, again, not enough people care.

One of the preserves is less a preserve of times long past and more a quarantine zone where legal regulations of technology are relaxed, and it sets up years in advance Spiders tragic ailment, a testament to the power that playing the long game can bear out, much as it did with Preacher. Robertson and Nathan Eyring are the stars of this one shot, illustrating a variety of cultural periods and a realm of future-tech beyond the neon-cyberpunk aesthetic of the City proper.

The final story in the book, clocking in at multiple chapters, is an extended shaggy dog story with a literal shaggy dog (okay, a sentient shorthaired pitbull who also is a cop, because comics are great). Spider is deprived of his legal protections and attacked in his home

and the artful cussing and choreography of, say, Preacher is a million miles away. The fight is bloody and horrifying, making Spider sick, and robbing him of his gift with words.

It also does some notable worldbuilding, based around Ellis and Robertsons conception of the future as monocultural in many ways, down to the French language being eradicated in the name of the cultural supremacy of English, showing us a world where colonialism marches on in search of new targets to eradicate. It also gives us naked newscasters, which became a reality one year later. (Okay, so that wasnt a difficult one to predict.)

It also features an extremely sketchy plot point, in the form of Indira Ataturk, the woman on the inside who helped orchestrate an assassination attempt on Spider as part of the longest, messiest divorce in history. In The Words medieval-style interrogation room, she confesses that due to at best criminal negligence and at worst deliberate action, going on assignment with Spider exposed her to the electronic equivalent of an aphrodisiac, and she was filmed having sex with an entire room.

While underage.

This feels like it crosses a line, since shes made out to be a villain of a sort, but her motivation is honestly 100% justifiable. Spider is meant to be a good journalist, but this is the action of a bad one; hes supposed to be a charming bastard, our bastard, but this just makes him into a bastard. It barely comes up again, other than a running gag about how Spider treats his assistants, and I have to ask if the creators decided this was best swept under the rug.

Of course, nothing stays buried under the rug forever, especially in politics, and in the next volumeSpider confronts the journalists natural enemy: politicians. Well see you all next time, two weeks into the future.

If you would like to support good journalism which never stops being necessary in any era these organizations can always use your help:

Next: Five Comics To Read To Prepare You For Trump's America

Go here to see the original:

Filthy Assistance: Revisiting 'Transmetropolitan: Lust for Life' - ComicsAlliance

Human Genetic Engineering – The Future of Human Evolution

Human genetic engineering is but one aspect of the overall field of Human Biotechnology. It is the most fascinating aspect of Human Biotechnology with the power to improve everyones quality of life, healing all of our genetic diseases permanently. We will soon be able to improve our mental, physical, and emotional capabilities. Well be able to introduce regenerative functions natural in other animals, increase longevity, and ensure a healthy diversity in the human genome. It carries the promise of enabling humanity to survive a wider range of environments on alien worlds ensuring our long term survival.

In this section of the website we have several articles on exactly what genetic engineering is, up to the state of the art, how it is accomplished, how we humans have been engaged in the activity for our own betterment for thousands of years, and how we can and are applying it to humans.

In addition to just the facts we also have a number of speculative articles that extrapolate the plausible, the probable, and the very unlikely in our exploration of the many paths to the future of human evolution.

The menu to the right has links to our genetic engineering articles.

Human Genetic Engineering: Improving the Quality of Life Now. Ensuring the Diverse, Robust Future of Human Evolution.

Go here to see the original:

Human Genetic Engineering - The Future of Human Evolution

Human-pig hybrids might be unsettling. But they could save lives. – Washington Post

By Paul Knoepfler By Paul Knoepfler February 2

Paul Knoepfler is a stem-cell biologist at the University of California at Davis and writes about innovative science at the Niche. His most recent book is GMO Sapiens: The Life-Changing Science of Designer Babies. You can watch his TED talk on that topic here and find him on Twitter: @pknoepfler.

A new study out of California unsettled a lot of people last week after revealing that scientists had, for the first time, made part-human, part-pig embryos referred to as chimeras. That should be expected: The debate over the technology is a mixed bag of difficult issues not unlike the fire-breathing hybrid Chimera from Greek mythology.

But on balance, the promise of this biotechnology should outweigh our fears and ethical questions. Chimeras could be a game-changer in terms of organ transplants in coming decades, and for that reason, scientists should carefully proceed with the research.

More than 100,000 people in the United States currently sit on organ waiting lists, struggling to stay alive long enough to get a new liver or kidney. With few realistic alternatives to the limited supply of cadaver-based transplants, about 22 Americans die each day. Hundreds more die daily at the global level.

[Eight questions to ask before human genetic engineering goes mainstream.]

Our recent renaissance of cutting-edge biotechnologies particularly based on the utilization of pluripotent stem cells gives real hope for these people in need of transplants. What exactly is a human chimera? Its a mixture of a small number of human cells within an otherwise predominantly animal embryo, such as a pig. The hope is that, if allowed to grow, a chimera embryo would develop entirely as animal except for one harvestable organ that is human. It might even be possible for that organ to be produced from the patients own stem cells, making it a perfect match.

In the past, other researchers have made similar chimeric embryos, mixing human stem cells with mouse cells. But a mouse-size kidney or liver even if made of human cells cannot help a human, because these organs would be about the size of a small kidney bean. Pigs, on the other hand, are relatively closer to humans on the evolutionary tree, perhaps bringing us a small step closer to actual clinical use.

Even so, theres a long road ahead. The California researchers found that many of the human-pig chimeric embryos did not grow properly. And even if organs in pig chimeras ended up 100 percent human at a cellular level, they are certain to contain other factors such as pig proteins that could spark a patient immune reaction leading to organ rejection. Still, every cutting-edge biomedical technology faces technical obstacles at first, and there is a good chance that researchers might overcome these hurdles in the future.

Its understandable if people imagined full-grown, human-pig creatures when reading about this new research. In reality, though, the chimeras produced were only embryos just tiny collections of cells. If the technology progresses further, chimeras would have to be taken to term or near-term before full-size organs could be harvested. Inevitably that means there may be large chimeras produced and photographed for the world to see; but remember, these animals wouldnt look any different from ordinary animals, because only a single organ would be human.

Animal rights advocates were quick to raise ethical questions: Should we allow chimeric pigs to be used as a biomedical incubator of sorts and then sacrificed to obtain a human organ? But this ignores the fact that people are eating billions of animals each year.

Tougher questions focus on the human side of chimeras and include the dilemma of what makes an animal a human in terms of cells. How many human cells within a chimera overall would make that chimera too close to a human being? How many human brain cells and in particular neurons in a human-pig chimera would be too many? What should we do if a human-pig chimera accidentally ended up with an abundance of human cells in its brain? What if a human-pig chimera made human sperm or eggs?

[Whats the difference between genetic engineering and eugenics?]

Fortunately, there are some simple technological answers to many of these questions. We could agree, for example, to prevent all chimeras from being born. We could also use animals that are sterile as the basis for making chimeras and closely monitor human cell numbers in chimeras (including in the brain) during early research studies. We could also ban organ production if human-cell levels consistently fall outside acceptable parameters.

Overall, though, the global shortage of organs for transplants is too urgent a problem to refuse to explore innovative solutions. We should pursue more human-chimera technology while from the start acknowledging and addressing the important bioethical considerations it faces. We should also carefully plan outreach efforts to the public as the technology advances.

Human chimeras not only have potential to address the organ shortage; they also could educate us about unexplored questions of human development. Groundbreaking biomedical technologies might be unnerving, but they have real potential to positively change our world.

Read more:

Eight questions to ask before human genetic engineering goes mainstream

Whats the difference between genetic engineering and eugenics?

In defense of transhumanism

Read the original here:

Human-pig hybrids might be unsettling. But they could save lives. - Washington Post

Trump may fund the Spacex Mars Colonization plan – Next Big Future

Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX and Tesla, has made trips to Trump Tower. He met with Trump and the Washington Post has ben reliably told, discussed Mars and public-private partnerships.

Elon Musk and SpaceX have the bold dream of colonizing Mars, and think they can launch the first human mission to the surface of the Red Planet as soon as 2024 when Trump, if reelected, would still be in the White House. (We understand that Musk also talked with Trump about other issues, including the need for a smart grid the kind of infrastructure that would give a boost to the solar energy business, in which Musk is a leader via his investments in the company Solar City.)

Trump seems to be cozying up to Elon Musk and is entertaining the idea of financing Musks Mars colonization project

Elon's Vision of the Mars Colony

Initially, glass panes with carbon fiber frames to build geodesic domes on the surface, plus a lot of miner/tunneling droids. With the latter, you can build out a huge amount of pressurized space for industrial operations and leave the glass domes for green living space.

Real Mars and Spacex Plans

The current Mars plan is:

The Flight Tank for the Interstellar Transport was the most important part of the announcement

The flight tank will actually be slightly longer than the development tank shown, but the same diameter.

That was built with latest and greatest carbon fiber prepreg. In theory, it should hold cryogenic propellant without leaking and without a sealing linker. Early tests are promising.

Will take it up to 2/3 of burst pressure on an ocean barge in the coming weeks.

The spaceship would be limited to around 5 g's nominal, but able to take peak loads 2 to 3 times higher without breaking up.

Booster would be nominal of 20 and maybe 30 to 40 without breaking up.

Spacex and Elon Musk have the 61 page presentation of the Interplanetary Transport System and the plan from early exploration to a sustainable colony on Mars

Spacex has built a full sized carbon composite fuel tank.

The Interplanetary Transport system can launch 550 tons to low earth orbit which is nearly four times as much as the Saturn V. It would be over four times as powerful as the SLS in the final version of the SLS

Next version of Falcon 9 will have uprated thrust

Final Falcon 9 has a lot of minor refinements that collectively are important, but uprated thrust and improved legs are the most significant.

Elon thinks the F9 boosters could be used almost indefinitely, so long as there is scheduled maintenance and careful inspections. Falcon 9 Block 5 -- the final version in the series -- is the one that has the most performance and is designed for easy reuse, so it just makes sense to focus on that long term and retire the earlier versions. Block 5 starts production in about 3 months and initial flight is in 6 to 8 months, so there isn't much point in ground testing Block 3 or 4 much beyond a few reflights.

Robert Zubrin, Longtime Mars Colonization advocate, gives a Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System.

Zubrin was struck by many good and powerful ideas in the Musk plan. However, Musks plan assembled some of those good ideas in an extremely suboptimal way, making the proposed system impractical. Still, with some corrections, a system using the core concepts Musk laid out could be made attractive not just as an imaginative concept for the colonization of Mars, but as a means of meeting the nearer-at-hand challenge of enabling human expeditions to the planet.

Zubrin explains the conceptual flaws of the new SpaceX plan, showing how they can be corrected to benefit, first, the near-term goal of initiating human exploration of the Red Planet, and then, with a cost-effective base-building and settlement program, the more distant goal of future Mars colonization.

Robert Zubrin, a New Atlantis contributing editor, is president of Pioneer Energy of Lakewood, Colorado, and president of the Mars Society.

Highlights * Have the second stage go only out to the distance of the moon and return to enable 5 payloads to be sent instead of one * Leave the 100 person capsule on Mars and only have a small cabin return to earth * use the refueling in orbit and other optimizations to enable a Falcon Heavy to deliver 40 tons to Mars instead of 12 for exploration missions in 2018, 2020 etc... * Reusable first stage makes rocketplanes going anywhere point to point on Earth feasible. Falcon Heavy would have the capacity of a Boeing 737 and could travel in about one hour of time anywhere

There are videos of the Elon Musk presentation and an interview with Zubrin about the Musk plan at the bottom of the article

Design of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System

As described by Musk, the SpaceX ITS would consist of a very large two-stage fully-reusable launch system, powered by methane/oxygen chemical bipropellant. The suborbital first stage would have four times the takeoff thrust of a Saturn V (the huge rocket that sent the Apollo missions to the Moon). The second stage, which reaches orbit, would have the thrust of a single Saturn V. Together, the two stages could deliver a maximum payload of 550 tons to low Earth orbit (LEO), about four times the capacity of the Saturn V. (Note: All of the tons referenced in this article are metric tons.)

At the top of the rocket, the spaceship itself where some hundred passengers reside is inseparable from the second stage. (Contrast this with, for example, NASAs lunar missions, where each part of the system was discarded in turn until just the Command Module carried the Apollo astronauts back to Earth.) Since the second-stage-plus-spaceship will have used its fuel in getting to orbit, it would need to refuel in orbit, filling up with about 1,950 tons of propellant (which means that each launch carrying passengers would require four additional launches to deliver the necessary propellant). Once filled up, the spaceship can head to Mars.

The duration of the journey would of course depend on where Earth and Mars are in their orbits; the shortest one-way trip would be around 80 days, according to Musks presentation, and the longest would be around 150 days. (Musk stated that he thinks the architecture could be improved to reduce the trip to 60 or even 30 days.)

After landing on Mars and discharging its passengers, the ship would be refueled with methane/oxygen bipropellant made on the surface of Mars from Martian water and carbon dioxide, and then flown back to Earth orbit.

Zubrin's Problems with the Proposed Spacex System

The SpaceX plan as Musk described it contains nine notable features. If we examine each of these in turn, some of the strengths and weaknesses in the overall system will begin to present themselves.

1. Extremely large size. The proposed SpaceX launch system is four times bigger than a Saturn V rocket. This is a serious problem, because even with the companys impressively low development costs, SpaceX has no prospect of being able to afford the very large investment at least $10 billion required to develop a launch vehicle of this scale.

2. Use of methane/oxygen bipropellant for takeoff from Earth, trans-Mars injection, and direct return to Earth from the Martian surface. These ideas go together, and are very strong. Methane/oxygen is, after hydrogen/oxygen, the highest-performing practical propellant combination, and it is much more compact and storable than hydrogen/oxygen. It is very cheap, and is the easiest propellant to make on Mars. For over a quarter century, I have been a strong advocate of this design approach, making it a central feature of the Mars Direct mission architecture I first laid out in 1990 and described in my book The Case for Mars. However, it should be noted that while the manufacture of methane/oxygen from Martian carbon dioxide and water is certainly feasible, it is not without cost in effort, power, and capital facilities, and so the transportation system should be designed to keep this burden on the Mars base within manageable bounds.

3. The large scale manufacture of methane/oxygen bipropellant on the Martian surface from indigenous materials. Here I offer the same praise and the same note of caution as above. The use of in situ (that is, on-site) Martian resources makes the entire SpaceX plan possible, just as it is a central feature of my Mars Direct plan. But the scale of the entire mission architecture must be balanced with the production capacity that can realistically be established.

4. All flight systems are completely reusable. This is an important goal for minimizing costs, and SpaceX is already making substantial advances toward it by demonstrating the return and reuse of the first stage of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle. However, for a mission component to be considered reusable it doesnt necessarily need to be returned to Earth and launched again. In general, it can make more sense to find other ways to reuse components off Earth that are already in orbit or beyond. This idea is reflected in some parts of the new SpaceX plan such as refilling the second stage in low Earth orbit but, as we shall see, it is ignored elsewhere, at considerable cost to program effectiveness. Furthermore the rate at which systems can be reused must also be considered.

5. Refilling methane/oxygen propellant in the booster second stage in Earth orbit. Here Musk and his colleagues face a technical challenge, since transferring cryogenic fluids in zero gravity has never been done. The problem is that in zero gravity two-phase mixtures float around with gas and liquid mixed and scattered among each other, making it difficult to operate pumps, while the ultra-cold nature of cryogenic fluids precludes the use of flexible bladders to effect the fluid transfer. However, I believe this is a solvable problem and one well worth solving, both for the benefits it offers this mission architecture and for different designs we may see in the future.

6. Use of the second stage to fly all the way to the Martian surface and back. This is a very bad idea. For one thing, it entails sending a 7-million-pound-force thrust engine, which would weigh about 60 tons, and its large and massive accompanying tankage all the way from low Earth orbit to the surface of Mars, and then sending them back, at great cost to mission payload and at great burden to Mars base-propellant production facilities. Furthermore, it means that this very large and expensive piece of capital equipment can be used only once every four years (since the feasible windows for trips to and from Mars occur about every two years).

7. The sending of a large habitat on a roundtrip from Earth to Mars and back. This, too, is a very bad idea, because the habitat will get to be used only one way, once every four years. If we are building a Mars base or colonizing Mars, any large habitat sent to the planets surface should stay there so the colonists can use it for living quarters. Going to great expense to send a habitat to Mars only to return it to Earth empty makes no sense. Mars needs houses.

8. Quick trips to Mars. If we accept the optimistic estimates that Musk offered during his presentation, the SpaceX system would be capable of 115-day (average) one-way trips from Earth to Mars, a somewhat faster journey than other proposed mission architectures. But the speedier trips impose a great cost on payload capability. And they raise the price tag, thereby undermining the architectures professed purpose colonizing Mars since the primary requirement for colonization is to reduce cost sufficiently to make emigration affordable. Lets do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. Following the example of colonial America, lets pick as the affordability criterion the property liquidation of a middle-class household, or seven years pay for a working man (say about $300,000 in todays equivalent terms), a criterion with which Musk roughly concurs. Most middle-class householders would prefer to get to Mars in six months at the cost equivalent to one house instead of getting to Mars in four months at a cost equivalent to three houses. For immigrants, who will spend the rest of their lives on Mars, or even explorers who would spend 2.5 years on a round trip, the advantage of reaching Mars one-way in four months instead of six months is negligible and if shaving off two months would require a reduction in payload, meaning fewer provisions could be brought along, then the faster trip would be downright undesirable. Furthermore, the six-month transit is actually safer, because it is also the trajectory that loops back to Earth exactly two years after departure, so the Earth will be there to meet it. And trajectories involving faster flights to Mars will necessarily loop further out into space if the landing on Mars is aborted, and thus take longer than two years to get back to Earths orbit, making the free-return backup abort trajectory impossible. The claim that the SpaceX plan would be capable of 60-day (let alone 30-day) one-way transits to Mars is not credible.

9. The use of supersonic retropropulsion to achieve landing on Mars. This is a breakthrough concept for landing large payloads, one that SpaceX has demonstrated successfully in landing the first stages of its Falcon 9 on Earth. Its feasibility for Mars has thus been demonstrated in principle. It should be noted, however, that SpaceX is now proposing to scale up the landing propulsion system by about a factor of 50 and employing such a landing techniques adds to the propulsive requirement of the mission, making the (unnecessary) goal of quick trips even harder to achieve.

Improving the SpaceX ITS Plan

Taking the above points into consideration, some corrections for the flaws in the current ITS plan immediately suggest themselves:

A. Instead of hauling the massive second stage of the launch vehicle all the way to Mars, the spacecraft should separate from it just before Earth escape. In this case, instead of flying all the way to Mars and back over 2.5 years, the second stage would fly out only about as far as the Moon, and return to aerobrake into Earth orbit a week after departure. If the refilling process could be done expeditiously, say in a week, it might thus be possible to use the second stage five times every mission opportunity (assuming a launch window of about two months), instead of once every other mission opportunity. This would increase the net use of the second stage propulsion system by a factor of 10, allowing five payloads to be delivered to Mars every opportunity using only one such system, instead of the ten required by the ITS baseline design. Without the giant second stage, the spaceship would then perform the remaining propulsive maneuver to fly to and land on Mars.

B. Instead of sending the very large hundred-person habitat back to Earth after landing it on Mars, it would stay on Mars, where it could be repurposed as a Mars surface habitat something that the settlers would surely find extremely useful. Its modest propulsive stage could be repurposed as a surface-to-surface long-range flight system, or scrapped to provide material to meet other needs of the people living on Mars. If the propulsive system must be sent back to Earth, it should return with only a small cabin for the pilots and such colonists as want to call it quits. Such a procedure would greatly increase the payload capability of the ITS system while reducing its propellant-production burden on the Mars base.

C. As a result of not sending the very large second stage propulsion system to the Martian surface and not sending the large habitat back from the Martian surface, the total payload available to send one-way to Mars is greatly increased while the propellant production requirements on Mars would be greatly reduced.

D. The notion of sacrificing payload to achieve one-way average transit times substantially below six months should be abandoned. However, if the goal of quick trips is retained, then the corrections specified above would make it much more feasible, greatly increasing payload and decreasing trip time compared to what is possible with the original approach.

Changing the plan in the ways described above would greatly improve the performance of the ITS. This is because the ITS in its original form is not designed to achieve the mission of inexpensively sending colonists and payloads to Mars. Rather, it is designed to achieve the science-fiction vision of the giant interplanetary spaceship. This is a fundamental mistake, although the temptation is understandable. (A similar visionary impulse influenced the design of NASAs space shuttle, with significant disadvantage to its performance as an Earth-to-orbit payload delivery system.) The central requirement of human Mars missions is not to create or operate giant spaceships. Rather, it is to send payloads from Earth to Mars capable of supporting groups of people, and then to send back such payloads as are necessary.

To put it another way: The visionary goal might be to create spaceships, but the rational goal is to send payloads.

Alternative Versions of the SpaceX ITS Plan

To get a sense of some of the benefits that would come from making the changes I [Zubrin] outlined above, lets make some estimates. In the table below, I [Zubrin] compare six versions of the ITS plan, half based on the visionary form that Elon Musk sketched out (called the Original or O design in the table) and half incorporating the alterations I [Zubrin] have suggested (the Revised or R designs).

Our starting assumptions: The ship begins the mission in a circular low Earth orbit with an altitude of 350 kilometers and an associated orbital velocity of 7.7 kilometers per second (km/s). Escape velocity for such a ship would be 10.9 km/s, so applying a velocity change (DV) of 3 km/s would still keep it in a highly elliptical orbit bound to the Earth. Adding another 1.2 km/s would give its payload a perigee velocity of 12.1 km/s, sufficient to send it on a six-month trajectory to Mars, with a two-year free-return option to Earth. (In calculating trip times to Mars, we assume average mission opportunities. In practice some would reach Mars sooner, some later, depending on the launch year, but all would maintain the two-year free return.) We assume a further 1.3 km/s to be required for midcourse corrections and landing using supersonic retropropulsion. For direct return to Earth from the Martian surface, we assume a total velocity change of 6.6 km/s to be required. In all cases, an exhaust velocity of 3.74 km/s (that is, a specific impulse of 382 s) for the methane/oxygen propulsion, and a mass of 2 tons of habitat mass per passenger are assumed. A maximum booster second-stage tank capacity of 1,950 tons is assumed, in accordance with the design data in Musks presentation.

Using the improved plan to send 40 tons (3.3 times more) to Mars with Falcon Heavy

Consider what this revised version of the ITS plan would look like in practice, if it were used not for settling Mars but for the nearer-at-hand task of exploring Mars. If a SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch vehicle were used to send payloads directly from Earth, it could land only about 12 tons on Mars. (This is roughly what SpaceX is planning on doing in an unmanned Red Dragon mission as soon as 2018.) While it is possible to design a minimal manned Mars expedition around such a limited payload capability, such mission plans are suboptimal. But if instead, following the ITS concept, the upper stage of the Falcon Heavy booster were refueled in low Earth orbit, it could be used to land as much as 40 tons on Mars, which would suffice for an excellent human exploration mission. Thus, if booster second stages can be refilled in orbit, the size of the launch vehicle required for a small Mars exploration mission could be reduced by about a factor of three.

In all of the ITS variants discussed here, the entire flight hardware set would be fully reusable, enabling low-cost support of a permanent and growing Mars base. However, complete reusability is not a requirement for the initial exploration missions to Mars; it could be phased in as technological abilities improved. Furthermore, while the Falcon Heavy as currently designed uses kerosene/oxygen propulsion in all stages, not methane/oxygen, in the revised ITS plan laid out above only the propulsion system in the trans-Mars ship needs to be methane/oxygen, while both stages of the booster can use any sort of propellant. This makes the problem of refilling the second stage on orbit much simpler, because kerosene is not cryogenic, and thus can be transferred in zero gravity using flexible bladders, while liquid oxygen is paramagnetic, and so can be settled on the pumps side of the tank using magnets.

Dawn of the Spaceplanes

Toward the end of his presentation, Musk briefly suggested that one way to fund the development of the ITS might be to use it as a system for rapid, long-distance, point-to-point travel on Earth. This is actually a very exciting possibility, although I would add the qualifier that such a system would not be the ITS as described, but a scaled-down related system, one adapted to the terrestrial travel application.

For a rocketplane to travel halfway around the world would require a DV of about 7 km/s (6 km/s in physical velocity, and 1 km/s in liftoff gravity and drag losses). Assuming methane/oxygen propellant with an exhaust velocity of 3.4 km/s (it would be lower for a rocketplane than for a space vehicle, because exhaust velocity is reduced by surrounding air), such a vehicle, if designed as a single stage, would need to have a mass ratio of about 8, which means that only 12 percent of its takeoff mass could be solid material, accounting for all structures, while the rest would be propellant. On the other hand, if the rocketplane were boosted toward space by a reusable first stage that accomplished the first 3 km/s of the required DV, the flight vehicle would only need a mass ratio of about 3, allowing 34 percent of it to be structure. This reduction of the propellant-to-structure ratio from 7:1 down to 2:1 is the difference between a feasible system and an infeasible one.

In short, what Musk has done by making reusable first stages a reality is to make rocketplanes possible. But there is no need to wait for 500-ton-to-orbit transports. In fact, his Falcon 9 reusable first stage, which is already in operation, could enable globe-spanning rocketplanes with capacities comparable to the DC-3, while the planned Falcon Heavy (or New Glenn) launch vehicles could make possible rocketplanes with the capacity of a Boeing 737.

Nextbigfuture notes that reusable first stages are now technically functioning but safety and reliability would need to be improved by about 1000 to 10,000 times for point to point manned travel.

SOURCES- Spacex, Zubrin, the New Atlantis

More here:

Trump may fund the Spacex Mars Colonization plan - Next Big Future