Director of Development, Free Speech Nonprofit

Posted on by

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT

The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression of Charlottesville, Virginia is seeking an individual with a demonstrated record of success in fundraising to design, build, and direct the Center's development program. Although Center staff has always expended significant time on fundraising, this position represents the Center's first full-time development position. As such, the position presents an exciting opportunity for an experienced development professional to build a signature fundraising program. The Center's sole mission is the protection of the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. Although candidates need not possess a detailed knowledge of First Amendment law, a person with a strong belief in the value of free speech will find this position especially rewarding.

Qualifications:

* Bachelor's Degree and a minimum of five years' experience in a development position of increasing responsibilities * Strong written and oral communication skills * Successful grant writing experience * Proficient online research skills * Able to work independently and with a team * Strong interpersonal and organizational skills * Experience with social media fundraising is desirable * An interest in First Amendment rights and free expression advocacy

Responsibilities:

* Report directly to the Center director in designing a multi-year fundraising plan, including an action timetable * Research and identify potential corporate and philanthropic sponsors, draft grant proposals to those identified * Research, identify, and cultivate individual donors * Stewardship of past donors * Occasional travel to meet with potential donors * Plan and supervise special fundraising events * Devise effective messages for print, web, and video that will raise public awareness of the Center's efforts

Located in Charlottesville, Virginia, the Thomas Jefferson Center enjoys close ties to the University of Virginia but is an autonomous, not-for-profit entity. Its independence is assured by a Board of Trustees whose members reflect a broad spectrum of views, yet share a commitment to protecting the right of others to express views different from their own. Recognizing that threats to free expression come from all parts of the political spectrum, the Center maintains a nonpartisan stance in all that it does. Since its founding in 1990, the Center has sought to fulfill its mission through a variety of programs designed to foster greater awareness of, and appreciation for, the role of free speech in a democratic society. The Center has organized dozens of conferences, programs, and presentations on timely First Amendment issues, including one that reunited formal legal adversaries Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt. The Center also defends the right of free speech in state and federal courts across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Each year on or near April 13 (the anniversary of the birth of Thomas Jefferson) the Center focuses national attention on especially egregious or ridiculous affronts to free expression by awarding "Jefferson Muzzles" to the responsible individuals or organizations.

Apply to: fundraiser@tjcenter.org

Read this article:

Director of Development, Free Speech Nonprofit

Law faculty take stand on poverty centers potential closing

Posted on by

By Caroline Lamb | Published 6 hours ago

More than 60 UNC law faculty have signed onto a statement asserting that the UNC Board of Governors recommendations on the future of two centers in the law school limit academic freedom and chill free speech.

The response comes after a working group tasked with reviewing the UNC systems 237 centers and institutes recommended the elimination of the Center on Poverty, Work & Opportunity. Some board members also suggested that the Center for Civil Rights stop engaging in litigation against the state and municipalities which law professors say would limit their work.

Such active suppression of free speech contravenes the very lifeblood of a public university, where dialogue and dissent must be permitted to survive, the statement said.

Some faculty believe the recommended closing of the poverty center is an attempt to chill the free speech of Gene Nichol, the centers director, who is known for his passionate editorials opposing Republican state leadership.

Jack Boger, dean of UNCs law school, said faculty were distressed to hear the poverty center might close since it does a lot of good work.

Boger said academic freedom is at risk because the board is suggesting that they will take action if they disagree with what faculty members say.

Thats what would strike at a universitys core circumstances, that the first-rate university is a place where people are permitted to speak freely and controversially on lots of issues, Boger said.

Conflicting court rulings regarding the free speech rights of public employees such as professors make the topic a national debate, said Victoria Ekstrand, a UNC media law professor.

Its about whether the employees interest in speaking outweighs the employers interest in regulating that expression, she said.

See more here:

Law faculty take stand on poverty centers potential closing

Sports Hotline: What happened to freedom of speech – have Rangers fans lost their right to offend?

Posted on by

NO surprises that the thorny subject of sectarian singing should prompt a major backlash on yesterdays Hotline.

After Keith Jacksons column savaged both sides of the Old Firm support with a particularly fierce blast at Rangers for their songs of hate at Starks Park the outraged Whataboutery defence was as predictable as it was depressing.

Chris Lowe, Glasgow, emailed: So Rangers get a kicking once again from the media.

Compare and contrast to Celtic Park only 24 hours earlier where clear, audible pro-IRA chants were heard, something Celtic have been fined for in the past by UEFA .

The Celtic support were largely praised all round for creating a magnificent atmosphere and not one person reported what their fans were chanting let alone go seeking the match observer to ask if he would be including it in his report.

Whatever happened to the whole of Europe claiming freedom of speech and the right to offend after Paris? Are Rangers fans exempt?

RAITH ROVERS 1 RANGERS 2 - VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS:

Robert Forrest emailed: I have no problem with Keith Jackson criticising Rangers fans singing banned songs, it is not right.

However, he fails to point out the difference in the way the support of either team has been treated by the authorities. A Rangers supporter was jailed for singing a banned song but no Celtic fan, and I could include their player Leigh Griffiths, has been anywhere near this.

He also completely ignores the offensive banner on display at Hampden.

See the rest here:

Sports Hotline: What happened to freedom of speech - have Rangers fans lost their right to offend?

Freedom of Speech: Canadians support Charlie Hebdos choice to publish images of Prophet Muhammad

Posted on by

Free speech trumps religious sensitivities, but Canadians split on whether national media should have republished

The majority of Canadians support the decision by French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo to publish cartoons lampooning Muhammad, but are split on whether Canadian media outlets should or should not have made the same decision.

The latest survey from the Angus Reid Institute of more than 1,500 Canadian adults shows that nationally, seven-in-ten said it was right for Charlie Hebdo to publish cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammad.

Publishing the cartoons, which went against Muslim strictures banning images of their prophet, led to the January 7, 2015 attack on the Paris office of the magazine that left 11 people dead. There is also speculation the decision to publish also inspired the February 13th attack on a Copenhagen caf that killed two more.

Key Findings:

Did Charlie Hebdo make the right decision?

As already noted, the majority (70%) of Canadians stand behind Charlie Hebdo magazines decision to publish the cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammed. In Quebec, support for the magazines rises to nearly four out of five (78%), followed by Alberta (73%) and British Columbia (69%). Atlantic Canada residents were the least supportive (59%) although it is still the majority view.

Men were more inclined than women (75% versus 65%) to believe it was acceptable to print the cartoons, with support strongest (72%) in the 35-54 age group. The more that people knew about the attack, the more they agreed that the magazine was right to publish its cartoons 74 per cent in favour among those who knew a lot compared to 65 per cent among those who said they knew a little.

Support for Charlie Hebdo also crossed federal party lines in Canada. Three-quarters (74%) of people who voted for the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) in the last federal election, along with 65 per cent of past Liberal Party of Canada voters and 74 per cent of those who voted for the New Democrats agreed with Charlie Hebdos editorial policy on publishing images of Muhammad.

See the original post here:

Freedom of Speech: Canadians support Charlie Hebdos choice to publish images of Prophet Muhammad

Big Brother Watch calls for reform of social media communications laws

Posted on by

Britain's communications laws need to be reformed to take account of the explosion in online communications wrought by broadband internet.

That is the conclusion of a report by civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, which claims that there were 6,329 people charged or cautioned under either the Communications Act of 2003 or the Malicious Communications Act of 1988 in the three years between November 2010 and November 2013.

Avon & Somerset Police head the table for the total number of charges and convictions under the two Acts, with Lancashire, Suffolk, Northumbria and Great Manchester Police also particularly active.

Big Brother Watch argues that in an age of semi-personal online communication via media such as Facebook and Twitter, the two Acts are outdated and stifling freedom of speech. Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003, it added, can be dated back to the Post Office (Amendment) Act of 1930, which was intended to reduce abuse of telephone operators in the days before automated exchanges.

It was followed by the Telecommunications Act 1984, which contains very similar wording to Section 127. This legislation enables a court to convict you based on whether it deems a message to be 'grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character'. "It is arguable that the outdated nature of the law is why we are seeing an increase in legal cases involving comments made on social media," claims the report.

Guidelines drawn up to govern the prosecution of social media cases did not address the key concerns, claims Big Brother Watch.

The two main problems with Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003, claims the organisation, is that it was drafted to deal with one-to-one communications, rather than one-to-many, but was nevertheless extended into the social media area by case law. It was also originally aimed at public utilities, but has been extended to cover any communications company, including social media service providers.

Big Brother Watch has called for the repeal of Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003 and the removal of the phrase "grossly offensive" from the Malicious Communications Act of 1988.

"The phrase 'grossly offensive' is highly subjective and causes more problems than it solves. More importantly it shouldn't be a crime to cause offence. The wording sets a very dangerous precedent, without a clear definition it is very difficult to ensure a standardised approach across police forces in the types of cases that require their attention," it concludes.

The report, wrote John Cooper QC in the foreword, highlighted "in clear terms the problems that the present criminal law has with adapting to the fresh and vibrant world of social media". He added that there was an "urgent need for a rationalisation of existing law to reflect the new mediums at a time when cash-strapped police forces across the country are struggling to cope with social media-related complaints".

Original post:

Big Brother Watch calls for reform of social media communications laws

Comment on Have an opinion? Stuff it! by boh-liao

Posted on by

Fa Abdul | February 24, 2015 Free Malaysia Today

How come freedom of speech is limited to a select few who can say what they please while the majority spend a night in the lock-up for doing the same?

COMMENT

When I was growing up, reading the daily newspaper and watching the 8pm news was a must in my home. And every day during family time, my dad would open the floor for discussion. We used to discuss (and sometimes debate) various issues politics, social, religion, entertainment, the works. Sometimes we got too excited over certain issues that we continued the same discussion for a few days.

Thanks to my dad, my brothers and I grew up having the ability to form our own opinions on matters that concerned us. And having strong opinions meant standing up to it as well.

But lately, Ive begun to wonder if my dad made a big mistake having raised us the way he did. Because of my dad, I now have a tough time keeping my thoughts to myself and my mouth shut.

Like the other day, when I wrote about why I wasnt offended by the Charlie Hebdo cartoons I received piles of hate messages.

And then there was one time when I politely advised the security guards in my apartment that it was against the law for them to hold a visitors important documents and the head of security raised his baton over my head.

Since when did freedom of speech and expressing oneself become an offence?

This reminds me of an acquaintance of mine who was arrested recently on a sedition charge for criticising the Federal Court judgement over the Anwar Ibrahims sodomy case.

Here is the original post:

Comment on Have an opinion? Stuff it! by boh-liao

Chinese Communist Officials Turn to Monks for Advice

Posted on by

Not content with the Communist Partys Marxist atheism, many officials in the Chinese regime seek out the friendship and services of Buddhist monks and Daoist mystics to help them through their tumultuous careers. The officials are in it for advice, good fortune, and even clemency for misdeeds.

While monks and Daoist cultivators of antiquity may have kept away from the chaos of the secular world, their modern counterparts, branded by official Communist ideology as superstitious, have turned the position into a profitable line of work.

According to the Hong Kong-based Phoenix magazine, Yang Weize, the ousted municipal Communist Party secretary in eastern Chinas city of Nanjing, maintained a close relationship with Buddhist abbot Shi Chuanzhen. Following Yangs downfall at the hands of the regimes disciplinary agency, Phoenix released a number of photos showing the party boss and Buddhist monk together.

Shi told the Southern Weekly, a Chinese newspaper, that officials would come to him for consultation about their troubled careers or lives, or seek advice for the auspicious scheduling of events such as weddings.

Other communist officials donated large sums of money to Xuanzang Temple, which Shi Chuanzhen heads, hoping to gain clemency for committing sinful deeds.

In Shis reception room at the Xuanzang Temple, photographs showing the abbot with local and central high-ranking Communist Party officials were hung up all over the walls, according to the Southern Weekly report. Yang Weize had also visited the temple.

Other officials who had made friends with Shi were also sacked, including former Nanjing Mayor Ji Jiangye and Feng Yajun, a member of a municipal committee.

Shi Chuanzhen is not just an abbot. He also serves as the deupty president of the regime-approved Nanjing Buddhist Association and is a member of the citys Political Consultative Conference.

Some famous Chinese monks have become key networkers among high officials, according to overseas Chinese language online media Duowei on Feb. 18. Many officials seek those famous monks to make connections with other high officials, seeking opportunities of promotion and wealth, the report said.

Qigong master Wang Lin, known for his magic power of producing snakes from empty washbasins, has been active in business and entertainment circles, according to mainland Chinese media.

Read the original here:

Chinese Communist Officials Turn to Monks for Advice

Bulgaria: Sofia activists rally against NATO and complicity in Ukraine – Video

Posted on by


Bulgaria: Sofia activists rally against NATO and complicity in Ukraine
Around one hundred anti-NATO activists gathered in front of the Presidency in Sofia on Sunday early afternoon, calling for the Bulgarian government to distance itself from NATO #39;s actions in...

By: RuptlyTV

Read more here:

Bulgaria: Sofia activists rally against NATO and complicity in Ukraine - Video

NSA: Snowden leaks hurt ability to track terrorists – CNN.com

Posted on by

"I would say that it has had a material impact in our ability to generate insights as to what counterterrorism, what terrorist groups around the world are doing," Adm. Michael Rogers told a group gathered in Washington for a cybersecurity summit hosted by the New America think tank.

READ: Jeb Bush defends NSA dragnet

"Do you have new blind spots that you didn't have prior to the revelation," moderator and CNN National Security correspondent Jim Sciutto asked.

"Have I lost capability that we had prior to the revelations? Yes," Rogers responded. "Anyone who thinks this has not had an impact I would say doesn't know what they're talking about."

Snowden himself remains free in Russia. A film about him won an Academy Award on Sunday evening.

Rogers says he knew U.S. infrastructure would likely come under cyber-attack on his watch, but the target of Sony Pictures was a surprise.

"I fully expected, sadly in some ways, that in my time as the commander of United States Cyber Command the Department of Defense would be tasked with attempting to defend the nation against those kind of attacks," he said. "I didn't realize that it would be against a motion picture company, to be honest."

North Korea is widely believed to be behind the hack in response to Sony's production of the film "The Interview," which depicts a comedic plot to kill leader Kim Jong-un

Rogers declined to respond to a question if the United States was behind a retaliatory online attack that took down North Korea's Internet access.

When asked which nations had the ability to strike U.S. cyber interests Rogers declined to provide assessments of most countries.

View original post here:

NSA: Snowden leaks hurt ability to track terrorists - CNN.com

Posted in NSA

NSA: Snowden leaks hurt us

Posted on by

"I would say that it has had a material impact in our ability to generate insights as to what counterterrorism, what terrorist groups around the world are doing," Adm. Michael Rogers told a group gathered in Washington for a cybersecurity summit hosted by the New America think tank.

READ: Jeb Bush defends NSA dragnet

"Do you have new blind spots that you didn't have prior to the revelation," moderator and CNN National Security correspondent Jim Sciutto asked.

"Have I lost capability that we had prior to the revelations? Yes," Rogers responded. "Anyone who thinks this has not had an impact I would say doesn't know what they're talking about."

Snowden himself remains free in Russia. A film about him won an Academy Award on Sunday evening.

Rogers says he knew U.S. infrastructure would likely come under cyber-attack on his watch, but the target of Sony Pictures was a surprise.

"I fully expected, sadly in some ways, that in my time as the commander of United States Cyber Command the Department of Defense would be tasked with attempting to defend the nation against those kind of attacks," he said. "I didn't realize that it would be against a motion picture company, to be honest."

North Korea is widely believed to be behind the hack in response to Sony's production of the film "The Interview," which depicts a comedic plot to kill leader Kim Jong-un

Rogers declined to respond to a question if the United States was behind a retaliatory online attack that took down North Korea's Internet access.

When asked which nations had the ability to strike U.S. cyber interests Rogers declined to provide assessments of most countries.

Visit link:

NSA: Snowden leaks hurt us

Posted in NSA

NSA director wants gov't access to encrypted communications

Posted on by

The U.S. should be able to craft a legal framework to let government agencies read encrypted data, Rogers says

It probably comes as no surprise that the director of the U.S. National Security Agency wants access to encrypted data on computers and other devices.

The U.S. should be able to craft a policy that allows the NSA and law enforcement agencies to read encrypted data when they need to, NSA director Michael Rogers said during an appearance at a cybersecurity policy event Monday.

Asked if the U.S. government should have backdoors to encrypted devices, Rogers said the U.S. government needs to develop a "framework."

"You don't want the FBI and you don't want the NSA unilaterally deciding, 'So, what are we going to access and what are we not going to access?'" Rogers said during his appearance at the New America Foundation. "That shouldn't be for us. I just believe that this is achievable. We'll have to work our way through it."

Justsecurity.org has a transcript of an exchange between Rogers and Yahoo CISO Alex Stamos at Monday's event.

Rogers isn't the first member of President Barack Obama's administration to call for encryption workarounds in recent months. In September, after Apple and Google announced encryption features on their smartphone OSes, both FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Eric Holder raised concerns that additional encryption tools would hinder law enforcement investigations.

Stamos questioned whether it is a good idea to build backdoors in encryption. "If we're going to build defects/backdoors or golden master keys for the U.S. government, do you believe we should do so .... for the Chinese government, the Russian government, the Saudi Arabian government, the Israeli government, the French government?" he said, according to the Justsecurity transcript.

Rogers objected to using the word "backdoor". "When I hear the phrase 'backdoor', I think, 'Well, this is kind of shady. Why would you want to go in the backdoor? It would be very public,'" he said. "Again, my view is: We can create a legal framework for how we do this. It isn't something we have to hide, per se."

An NSA spokeswoman wasn't immediately available for further comment.

See the original post:

NSA director wants gov't access to encrypted communications

Posted in NSA