Posthumanism

In the space of possible modes of being, the ones accessible to human beings form a tiny subset. Our biological constraints impose real limitations on what thoughts we can think, what emotions and enjoyment we can experience, and how long we can remain healthy and alive.

Just as much of the richness of human life and human relationships is foreclosed to the comprehension of even the smartest chimpanzee, so too there are possible values that lie beyond our own comprehension - this is, at least, seems like a modest and plausible conjecture. These values are currently unrealizable. If and when we learn how to develop new capacities and extend the ones we have, we might be able to access these wider regions of modes of being, and perhaps discover some that are fantastically desirable.

To significantly modify our biological constraints, we will need to use technology. Many of the requisite technologies can be foreseen, but we do not know how long it will take to develop them.

Posthumanism (or transhumanism to use the standard term) is the view that we ought to try to develop - in ways that are safe and ethical - technological means that will enable the exploration of the posthuman realm of possible modes of being. Transhumanists believe that all people should have access to such technologies. The choice of whether to use them, however, should normally rest with the individual.

The word "posthumanism" has also been used in other senses, for example to refer to a critique of humanism, emphasizing a change in our understanding of the self and its relations to the natural world, society, and human artifacts. Transhumanism, by contrast, advocates not so much a change in how we think of ourselves, but rather a vision of how we might concretely use technology and other means to change what we are - not to replace ourselves with something else, but to realize our potential to become something more than we currently are. Just as a child grows up and develops the capacities of an adult, new technological options might one day allow adults to continue to develop and to mature into beings with posthuman capacities.

The human species is still young on this planet, and it is possible that we have as yet seen little of what is possible for us to become. But success in this enterprise is far from assured, because we still have only our rather limited human wisdom and compassion to guide us through the transition. To develop greater practical and moral understanding would seem to be a first priority. This, along with development of human enhancement tools, efforts to reduce catastrophic risks, and work to alleviate the more immediate sources of human suffering, is enough the fill the days of responsible transhumanists and others who strive to improve the human condition.

Visit link:

Posthumanism

Alex Kidd In The Enchanted Castle CENSORED – Rock Paper Scissors – Video Game Censorship – Video


Alex Kidd In The Enchanted Castle CENSORED - Rock Paper Scissors - Video Game Censorship
Did you know the non-Japanese versions of Alex Kidd In The Enchanted Castle ( ) censor the Rock Paper Scissors minigame? In the JP version of Ale...

By: Censored Gaming

Continue reading here:

Alex Kidd In The Enchanted Castle CENSORED - Rock Paper Scissors - Video Game Censorship - Video

Censorship | American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLUs Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology (SPT) is dedicated to protecting and expanding the First Amendment freedoms of expression, association, and inquiry; expanding the right to privacy and increasing the control that individuals have over their personal information; and ensuring that civil liberties are enhanced rather than compromised by new advances in science and technology. The project is currently working on a variety of issues, including political protest, freedom of expression online, privacy of electronic information, journalists rights, scientific freedom, and openness in the courts.

Additional Resources

What Is Censorship? (2006 resource): Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

Artistic Freedom (2006 resource): Provocative art and in-your-face entertainment put our commitment to free speech to the test. Why should we oppose censorship when scenes of murder and mayhem dominate the TV screen, when some art can be seen as a direct insult to religious beliefs, and when much sexually explicit material can be seen as degrading to women? Why not let the majority's morality and taste dictate what others can look at or listen to?

Brief Timeline on Censored Music (2005 resource)

Censorship at the Smithsonian (2010 blog)

Booksellers, Publishers, Librarians and Others Challenge Censorship Law (2008 press release)

ACLU and Drug Policy Groups Sue Over Censorship of Advertisements Criticizing "War on Drugs" (2004 press release)

Film Censorship: Noteworthy Moments in History (2006 timeline)

Print Censorship - Banned Books Week (2006 resource)

Continued here:

Censorship | American Civil Liberties Union

Censorship? – – Project Censored

WHAT IS MODERN CENSORSHIP?

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

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

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

Follow this link:

Censorship? - - Project Censored

Free speech in Britain: Police tracking people who bought …

posted at 5:31 pm on February 14, 2015 by Jazz Shaw

Wait a minute wasnt David Cameron at the front of the line for that Paris rally in support of Charlie Hebdo not that long ago? Im pretty sure that we were all supposed to be on the same page when it comes to the whole free speech, satire is okay bandwagon. But if thats the case, why were the British police tracking down the people who bought copies of the magazine when they put out that record setting edition?

Several British police forces have questioned newsagents in an attempt to monitor sales of a special edition of Charlie Hebdo magazine following the Paris attacks, the Guardian has learned.

Officers in Wiltshire, Wales and Cheshire have approached retailers of the magazine, it has emerged, as concerns grew about why police were attempting to trace UK-based readers of the French satirical magazine.

Wiltshire police apologised on Monday after admitting that one of its officers had asked a newsagent to hand over the names of readers who bought a special survivors issue of the magazine published after its top staff were massacred in Paris last month.

The case in Corsham, Wiltshire, was thought to be an isolated incident but it has since emerged that Cheshire constabulary and Dyfed-Powys police have also approached newsagents over the sale of Charlie Hebdo.

In at least two cases in Wiltshire and in Presteigne, Wales officers have requested that newsagents hand over the names of customers who bought the magazine.

Thats a few too many cases to be written off as an isolated incident or some rogue police chief. And its seems far too stupid for a group of random individuals to have thought it up independently at the same time. This has the appearance of an orchestrated, fairly broad intelligence gathering operation. I actually first caught wind of this story at The Pundit Press, where the incredulity of other free speech advocates is reported and understandable.

This is so ridiculous as to be almost laughable, fumed Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of a free expression campaign group. And it would be funny if it didnt reflect a more general worrying increase in abuse of police powers in invading privacy and stifling free speech in Britain.

Does possessing a legally published satirical magazine make people criminal suspects now? If so, I better confess that I too have a copy of Charlie Hebdo.

See original here:

Free speech in Britain: Police tracking people who bought ...

Danish shooter had gangland past

The suspected gunman killed by police after shooting attacks against a free speech event and outside a Copenhagen synagogue was 22 years old and had a background in criminal gangs, police said Sunday.

The suspect was born in Denmark and had a criminal record, including violence and weapons offences, Copenhagen police said. They didnt release his name.

A Danish film maker at a panel discussion on blasphemy was killed in the shooting Saturday at the free speech event and a member of the countrys Jewish community was killed outside the synagogue. Five police officers were also wounded. Police believe the suspect carried out both shootings alone.

Denmark has been hit by terror, Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said. We do not know the motive for the alleged perpetrators actions, but we know that there are forces that want to hurt Denmark. They want to rebuke our freedom of speech.

Jens Madsen, head of Danish intelligence agency PET, said investigators believe the gunman was inspired by Islamic radicalism. (AP)

PET is working on a theory that the perpetrator could have been inspired by the events in Paris. He could also have been inspired by material sent out by (the Islamic State group) and others, Madsen said.

Islamic radicals carried out a massacre at the Charlie Hebdo newsroom in Paris last month, followed by an attack on Jews at a kosher grocery store, taking the lives of 17 victims.

Earlier Sunday, at least two people with handcuffs were taken out by police from an Internet cafe in Copenhagen, Danish media reported. Police spokesman Steen Hansen told The Associated Press that the action was part of the police investigation but declined to give further details.

The Danish Film Institute said the 55-year-old man killed at the free speech event was documentary filmmaker Finn Noergaard.

The institutes chief Henrik Bo Nielsen said he was shocked and angry to find out Noergaard was gunned down while attending a discussion on art and free speech.

Read more:

Danish shooter had gangland past

Danish police kill gunman believed behind 2 shootings

LONDON Police in Copenhagen killed a gunman early Sunday they believe was responsible for a pair of deadly attacks just hours earlier, the first at a cafe hosting a forum on free speech and the second outside a synagogue where a bar mitzvah was underway.

The killings, with their eerie echo of last months terrorist attacks in Paris, had sent Denmarks capital into lockdown and had prompted a massive manhunt that extended across the border into Sweden. In all, the attacks left two people dead and five police officers injured.

At a news conference on Sunday morning, Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said the country had been hit by terror.

We do not know the motive for the alleged perpetrators actions, but we know that there are forces that want to hurt Denmark, the prime minister said, adding that they wanted to stifle Denmarks freedom of speech.

Police said Sunday that they were confident that the man they fatally shot near a train station was the assailant in both attacks and that they had identified him using CCTV footage. Police were staking out a location associated with the suspect when a man approached and began shooting, prompting officers to return fire, a police official said.

Danish police have fatally shot a man early Sunday suspected of carrying out shooting attacks at a free speech event and later at a Copenhagen synagogue, leaving two people dead and five police officers injured. (AP)

The culprit that was shot by the police task force at Norreport station is the person behind both of these assassinations, Torben Molgaard Jensen, the chief police inspector, told reporters.

Survivors of the two attacks said they appeared to have been an attempt to mimic the Paris terrorist strikes, in which the staff of a satirical publication was massacred and four hostages were shot dead at a kosher supermarket.

The French ambassador to Denmark and a cartoonist previously targeted for depicting the prophet Muhammad were among those taking part in the debate at the cafe who survived the gunfire.

It was the same intention as Charlie Hebdo, except they didnt manage to get in, the French ambassador, Franois Zimeray, told the news service Agence France-Presse, referring to the Jan. 7 attack in Paris on the satirical newspaper. Intuitively, I would say there were at least 50 gunshots, and the police here are saying 200. Bullets went through the doors, and everyone threw themselves to the floor.

View post:

Danish police kill gunman believed behind 2 shootings

WallBuilders Live 2015-02-11 Wednesday – Freedom of Speech on College Campuses – Video


WallBuilders Live 2015-02-11 Wednesday - Freedom of Speech on College Campuses
Wednesday, February 11, 2015 Freedom of Speech on College Campuses Guest: Robert Shibley, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education David, Rick, and Tim ...

By: Astonisher3

See more here:

WallBuilders Live 2015-02-11 Wednesday - Freedom of Speech on College Campuses - Video

Shots fired at Copenhagens Krudttoenden cafe free speech event a report – Video


Shots fired at Copenhagens Krudttoenden cafe free speech event a report
shots have been fired at a cafe in Copenhagen where a meeting about freedom of speech was being held, organized by Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has faced numerous threats for caricaturing...

By: WorldFastestNewsChannel

Link:

Shots fired at Copenhagens Krudttoenden cafe free speech event a report - Video

Copenhagen Shooting: Deadly attack at free speech meeting with cartoonist who depicted Muh – Video


Copenhagen Shooting: Deadly attack at free speech meeting with cartoonist who depicted Muh
Gunmen have opened fire on a cafe in the Danish capital, Copenhagen - where a debate on freedom of speech was being held. One person was reportedly killed, and several others injured. RT #39;s....

By: Alittlepart Ofme

See more here:

Copenhagen Shooting: Deadly attack at free speech meeting with cartoonist who depicted Muh - Video

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press – Lincoln University

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF PRESS

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says that "Congress shall make no law....abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint. It is closely linked to freedom of the press because this freedom includes both the right to speak and the right to be heard. In the United States, both the freedom of speech and freedom of press are commonly called freedom of expression.

Freedom of Speech

Why is freedom of speech so solidly entrenched in our constitutional law, and why is it so widely embraced by the general public? Over the years many philosophers, historians, legal scholars and judges have offered theoretical justifications for strong protection of freedom of speech, and in these justifications we may also find explanatory clues.

The First Amendment's protection of speech and expression is central to the concept of American political system. There is a direct link between freedom of speech and vibrant democracy. Free speech is an indispensable tool of self-governance in a democratic society. It enables people to obtain information from a diversity of sources, make decisions, and communicate those decisions to the government. Beyond the political purpose of free speech, the First Amendment provides American people with a "marketplace of ideas." Rather than having the government establish and dictate the truth, freedom of speech enables the truth to emerge from diverse opinions. Concurring in Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that "freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth."

On a communal level, free speech facilitates majority rule. It is through talking that we encourage consensus, that we form a collective will. Whether the answers we reach are wise or foolish, free speech helps us ensure that the answers usually conform to what most people think. Americans who are optimists (and optimism is a quintessentially American characteristic) additionally believe that, over the long run, free speech actually improves our political decision-making. Just as Americans generally believe in free markets in economic matters, they generally believe in free markets when it comes to ideas, and this includes politics. In the long run the best test of intelligent political policy is its power to gain acceptance at the ballot box.

On an individual level, speech is a means of participation, the vehicle through which individuals debate the issues of the day, cast their votes, and actively join in the processes of decision-making that shape the polity. Free speech serves the individuals right to join the political fray, to stand up and be counted, to be an active player in the democracy, not a passive spectator.

Freedom of speech is also an essential contributor to the American belief in government confined by a system of checks and balances, operating as a restraint on tyranny, corruption and ineptitude. For much of the worlds history, governments, following the impulse described by Justice Holmes, have presumed to play the role of benevolent but firm censor, on the theory that the wise governance of men proceeds from the wise governance of their opinions. But the United States was founded on the more cantankerous revolutionary principles of John Locke, who taught that under the social compact sovereignty always rests with the people, who never surrender their natural right to protest, or even revolt, when the state exceeds the limits of legitimate authority. Speech is thus a means of "people-power," through which the people may ferret out corruption and discourage tyrannical excesses.

Counter-intuitively, influential American voices have also often argued that robust protection of freedom of speech, including speech advocating crime and revolution, actually works to make the country more stable, increasing rather than decreasing our ability to maintain law and order. Again the words of Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California are especially resonant, with his admonition that the framers of the Constitution "knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones." If a society as wide-open and pluralistic as America is not to explode from festering tensions and conflicts, there must be valves through which citizens with discontent may blow off steam. In America we have come to accept the wisdom that openness fosters resiliency, that peaceful protest displaces more violence than it triggers, and that free debate dissipates more hate than it stirs.

The link between speech and democracy certainly provides some explanation for the American veneration of free speech, but not an entirely satisfying or complete one. For there are many flourishing democracies in the world, but few of them have adopted either the constitutional law or the cultural traditions that support free speech as expansively as America does. Moreover, much of the vast protection we provide to expression in America seems to bear no obvious connection to politics or the democratic process at all. Additional explanation is required.

View post:

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press - Lincoln University