The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Monthly Archives: April 2017
Going overboard with cow protection – Livemint
Posted: April 5, 2017 at 4:34 pm
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar had attracted the ire of traditionalists when he wrote more than once that the cow is not a divine mother but only a useful animal. A substance is edible to the extent that it is beneficial to man. Attributing religious qualities to it gives it a godly status. Such a superstitious mindset destroys the nations intellect, he wrote in 1935.
Recent events have not been a good advertisement for the national intellect. The party that pays homage to Savarkar has never come to terms with his modernist rationalism. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Gujarat has amended a state law so that anybody found guilty of cow slaughter will be awarded a life sentence. The chief minister of Chhattisgarh has said that those who kill cows in his state will be hanged. Even acts of homicide or sexual assault do not usually result in the hanging of the guilty.
Meanwhile, there is a massive crackdown on abattoirs by the new state government in Uttar Pradesh, ostensibly targeted at illegal establishments, but clearly trying to hurt the Muslim community that dominates the meat trade. Congress leaders such as Digvijaya Singh have said his party will back a nationwide beef bana useful reason to remember that the original laws against cow slaughter were introduced in many states when the Congress was the hegemonic force in Indian politics. This also opens up the possibility of competitive cow politics. And footloose vigilantes have taken it upon themselves to attack any person they believe is harming the sanctity of the cow, even by just throwing a stone at an animal.
There have traditionally been two main arguments in favour of cow protection. First, the cow is the pivot of an agricultural economy. Second, it is central to Hindu religious beliefs. Neither of these two arguments can justify the harsh punishments that are rather casually being talked about.
The economic argument does not survive an empirical test. First, as farming in India becomes increasingly mechanized, the demand for draught cattle in the fields is falling. Second, as milk-producing cows grow old and become unproductive, they become a financial burden on farmers. If farmers cannot sell them off to slaughterhouses, they either abandon the animals or starve them to death.
Third, the rational response by farmers to the ban on cow slaughter has been to prefer buffaloes to cows, as is evident from both the official cattle census as well as price trends in cattle auctions across the country. The economics of an asset totally changes when its terminal value suddenly comes down to zero. Economists such as V.M. Dandekar and K.N. Raj showed many years ago that the factors determining cattle population are not slaughter bans or religious sentiments but the demand for livestock products such as milk and meat as well as the levels of technology used in agriculture.
Indeed, the directive principle of state policy that says cow slaughter should be prohibited is itself derived from the economic argument. Article 48 of the Indian Constitution needs to be read in full: The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
The issue of religious sentiments is a more tricky one. There is ample proof in old religious texts that beef-eating was not uncommon in ancient India. However, that does not necessarily mean that the current generation of Hindus should not worship the cow. There is also the undeniable fact that cow slaughter was one of the flashpoints in medieval India under Muslim rule. The real issue right now is that the state has no right to send someone to jail for killing an animal.
It is also important to remember that beef is one of the cheapest sources of protein. Some 80 million Indians eat either beef or buffalo meat, including 12.5 million Hindus, as shown in an article by Roshan Kishore and Ishan Anand in this newspaper in October 2015, based on their detailed analysis of sample data.
This does not mean that devout Hindus who worship the cow should not voluntarily devote themselves to its protection by setting up gaushalas, or cow shelters, though there simply arent enough of these to cater to the growing number of abandoned cattle. The problem lies elsewhere. Bans on the killing of cows are in effect a burden on farmers who own cattle. Punishment for consumption of beef is an attack on the basic Constitutional right of every citizen to live the life she wants to.
Do you think governments are justified in banning cow slaughter? Tell us at views@livemint.com
First Published: Thu, Apr 06 2017. 12 32 AM IST
View post:
Posted in Rationalism
Comments Off on Going overboard with cow protection – Livemint
Divided We Stand: Area Scholar Examines How We Got This Way – Patch.com
Posted: at 4:34 pm
Patch.com | Divided We Stand: Area Scholar Examines How We Got This Way Patch.com ... anti-intellectualism is exceptionally strong in parts of America. This fosters anti-rationalism, skepticism of education and receptiveness to propaganda like conspiracy theories. Second, Christian fundamentalism can exacerbate certain ideological ... |
Continued here:
Divided We Stand: Area Scholar Examines How We Got This Way - Patch.com
Posted in Rationalism
Comments Off on Divided We Stand: Area Scholar Examines How We Got This Way – Patch.com
Islamic extremism results in less freedom of speech – Washington Times
Posted: at 4:33 pm
Islamic extremism results in less freedom of speech Washington Times But the biggest news is this: Canada is now considering criminalizing free speech where Islam is concerned. Last month, Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani-born Liberal member of Parliament, introduced into the House of Commons Motion 103. It calls for a study ... |
More:
Islamic extremism results in less freedom of speech - Washington Times
Posted in Freedom of Speech
Comments Off on Islamic extremism results in less freedom of speech – Washington Times
Fighting words: The campus free speech battle at UW often focuses … – Madison.com
Posted: at 4:32 pm
As Ben Shapiro delivered a speech called Dismantling Safe Spaces: Facts Dont Care About Your Feelings to an overflow crowd of 450 at University of Wisconsin-Madison in November, a group of about 20 protesters stood up and began to chant Safety! Safety!
They were met by shouts of Free speech matters! from many in the audience.
Shapiro, a conservative political commentator, used the interruption to write the word MORONS on the blackboard of the lecture hall in the Social Sciences Building.
Protesters lined up in front of the stage, their shouts about feeling at risk on campus drowned out by retorts from the audience. After some 10 minutes of chaos, the protesters filed out of the room, reportedly after being threatened with arrest by UW Police officers.
Na na na na! Na na na na! Hey, hey, hey! Goodbye! Shapiros fans taunted.
F*** white supremacy! a protester yelled as a parting shot.
Shapiro, from the stage, flipped off the protesters with both hands.
The whole scene was captured on video, viewable on the web site of Young Americas Foundation, the national conservative organization that helped bankroll Shapiros appearance.
The confrontation had a lot in common with others that have taken place at college campuses across the country over the past couple of years.
Students who feel marginalized on campus by race, gender or sexual orientation and their allies are engaged in a battle over safe spaces with classmates who insist they, and the speakers they invite to campus, can say what they like, no matter who finds it offensive.
Its a culture war for the 21st century that some say threatens Americas bedrock value of freedom of speech.
There have been skirmishes over free speech in classrooms, dorms, even the stands at Camp Randall Stadium. But exchanges have been most intense and most public around guest speaker lecterns.
Milo Yiannopoulos, provocateur and former editor at Breitbart News Network, ridiculed a transgender student by name while speaking in December at UW-Milwaukee. His scheduled appearance at University of California, Berkeley, in February touched off a riot that forced its cancellation.
And last month, protesters at Middlebury College in Vermont shut down a talk by controversial social scientist Charles Murray and attacked a professor, who was injured in the melee.
Opponents of speakers like Shapiro, Yiannopoulos and Murray argue that bringing them to campus amounts to attacking students of color.
Safe spaces for marginalized groups are really important, said Ricardo Cortez de la Cruz II, a UW-Madison junior and member of the Black Liberation Action Coalition. People who ridicule the idea of safe spaces dont know what it feels like to be oppressed or deal with microaggressions day to day.
UW-Madison professor emeritus Donald Downs, a free speech authority, countered that allowing groups to silence speakers is dangerous to freedom of expression.
Here comes a speaker who students say violates safe space by being on campus, Downs said. Boy, thats the end of free speech, because you have completely conflated speech and action.
The right to freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no lawabridging the freedom of speech.
UW-Madison student Ricardo Cortez de la Cruz II: As a rapper, I wouldnt like my speech to be limited just because I say something offensive.
What that means in practice has evolved in a body of case law, developed in court rulings.
Since the 1940s, courts have defined that freedom in terms of broad categories of protected and unprotected speech, said UW-Madison professor Howard Schweber.
Unprotected speech, which the government can silence, includes blackmail, threats, false advertising, conspiracy, libel, treason and fighting words, Schweber said.
The doctrine comes from a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which described unprotected speech as words which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, Schweber quoted in an email.
Speech that is objectively threatening may be banned, but the mere subjective feeling of being threatened by someones speech is not enough to justify such a restriction, said Schweber, a liberal-leaning professor of political science and First Amendment scholar.
Thats not to say that a symbolic threat cannot be objectively threatening, he said. For example, the Supreme Court has declared that cross burning is a threat that may be banned.
Speech condemning anothers speech a protest is protected, Schweber said.
Champions of free speech in America have traditionally emerged from the political left, rather than right, Schweber said.
It is only in the modern era that we have the spectacle of conservatives bridling against the perceived restrictions of political correctness and institutions such as universities attempting to limit the expression of right-wing sentiments, he said.
De la Cruz is a poet and rapper and part of UW-Madisons First Wave, a hip-hop learning community. He said he dreams of mounting a debate with campus conservatives in the spirit of James Baldwins famous 1965 debate at Cambridge University with William F. Buckley: Is the American Dream at the expense of the American Negro?
I think that would be powerful and impactful. Regardless of whether or not you agree, you learn from hearing other peoples perspectives. You dont grow without doing that, he said.
De la Cruz was among those who disrupted Shapiros talk in November, an action he called necessary.
He was persuading a room full of people to dismantle safe spaces. I dont trust that the people in that room will understand what hes saying. What I mean by that is they may feel empowered by his speech to hang nooses from the balcony of a frat house, call black people names on the street or make fun of LGBT members, he said.
Offensive speech, then, should be allowed unless it is threatening someone elses feelings or falls into racism or fighting words, he said.
I think thats when it comes into hate speech, de la Cruz said. As a rapper, of course, I wouldnt like my speech to be limited just because I say something offensive.
Provocative language in rap may be hyperbole, a bit of truth exaggerated to make it more creative thats when offense is cool, he said.
If his rap touching on the historic oppression of black people offends white listeners, de la Cruz said the question would be, Not are you offended, but are you triggered to the point where you think of what you did to us?
UW-Madison student Rose Klein believes speech that ridicules the concept of systemic discrimination creates a climate encouraging not only hate speech, but physical violence as well.
Klein, who is transgender, was an organizer of the protest against Shapiro and helped lead the chants that briefly silenced him.
Chair Kara Bell, left, and treasurer Michelle Walker discuss free speech in the office of the UW-Madison chapter of Young Americans for Freedom.
I entered that space willingly and knew there was a chance I might actually be physically beaten, but I was taking that risk, Klein said. Protesters were outnumbered and she speculated they may have been protected from violence only by the presence of police.
Klein argued the university should take a proactive, rather than reactive, strategy against hate speech and violence. That means not tolerating speech like Shapiros.
We didnt think the university should have let Ben Shapiro on campus in the first place. It was completely not in their interests. That was part of the reason for our protest, Klein said.
Hosting Ben Shapiro in the fall was our way of establishing ourselves as a conservative group on campus, Bell said. We knew he could combat lots of liberal arguments in a way that reflects our chapters values and beliefs. He was definitely the right choice.
Bell said participation in YAF has increased since Shapiros speech. The club paid his fee of around $15,000 using a $4,000 grant from student fees through Associated Students of Madison and a grant from the national YAF office, she said. Shapiro also gave the club a discount.
UW-Madison police waived their usual fee after it became clear in the days before the speech that security would be needed, Bell said. Protesters posted on social media that YAF was ended and the event cancelled, she said.
UW-Madison administrators told her they had received complaints that students would feel victimized by Shapiros likely speech, Bell said. She told them that Shapiro would talk about the ideology of safe spaces and trigger warnings and microaggressions.
Bell said protesters violated campus behavior guidelines by blocking the audiences view of Shapiro and temporarily drowning him out. Nevertheless, she called the talk a big success.
It was inspirational to conservative students, she said.
Student Michelle Walker, treasurer of the YAF chapter, said she doesnt understand the protesters complaints.
I dont know how his words make them feel unsafe. They are just words, Walker said. All he does is state his opinion and back it up with facts.
Shapiro has never been violent in his campus appearances, she said.
I am totally OK with people protesting the event. The only time theres an issue is when they are disrupting it. We allow them their free speech, but theyre impeding Shapiros right to free speech, Walker said.
His speech was right on target, she said.
Every day I hear more about safe spaces and microaggressions on college campuses. Things like safe spaces violate free speech because youre not allowed to say whatever you want, she said.
You should be able to have safe space within your home, but a public university should not define a space where you cant say things because its publicly funded.
It is not clear whether such acts as mandating sensitivity training, disinviting speakers or requiring trigger warnings violate constitutional guarantees of free expression, said Downs, a conservative First Amendment scholar.
Downs helped overturn a campus speech code implemented by UW in the 1990s, but this latest round of calls to limit free speech is being generated by students to a greater degree, he said.
Religion scholar Reza Aslan filled the Wisconsin Union Theater for a talk on Islamophobia in America on March 29. Despite the controversial topic, there were no insults hurled, no rude gestures made.
It creates a kind of chilling effect on campus, he said. Im being told all over campus, students are just not saying things that they think will rock the boat. Theyre afraid to speak out because the goalposts keep changing, because theyre afraid theyre going to get ostracized on social media, because of all the browbeating going on.
Downs said he thinks UW-Madison is doing a good job of moving toward the delicate balance of free speech and an environment conducive to learning.
Universities have a duty to have students feel safe from physical harm. But safety from ideas is an entirely different matter, Downs said. Our ideas should always be open to challenge. Physical safety is important. But no one should feel intellectually safe.
Students also have a right to criticize, even protest, offensive speech as a protected right of expression, Downs said, but not to silence speakers. That violates the speakers right to free expression, as well those of the sponsoring group and the audience.
Whats more, such obstructive behavior violates university norms, he said.
We have a distinctive role in society and that is to pursue the truth, Downs said. Thats why we get the privileges and rights we have in society without outside intervention.
Conservatives may have been the most vocal champions of free speech in recent years, but the recent violence at Middlebury College has been a turning point, Downs said.
That was a mob action purely because of Murrays ideas, he said. A lot of people are alarmed: conservative, liberals, moderates.
Indeed, there has been much soul-searching since the March 2 incident, particularly in the higher education press.
One college instructor wrote that it is precisely because academics give credence to the concepts of safe spaces and microaggressions that they should be open to rigorous debate.
And Jose B. Gonzalez, a professor of English, told Inside Higher Education that college leaders should hesitate before criticizing the students at Middlebury who interrupted Murray. Their actions were more than a criticism of that speaker, he said.
They arise from a higher ed system that negates the existence of suppressed views, he said. I am sure college presidents don't want to hear that their institutions are broken in some form, but they need to reflect on what made students take on this activism.
The resolution calls for a free and open exchange of ideas at UW System colleges and universities, and says institutions must not act to inhibit debate, even if topics or arguments are unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.
At UW-Madison, officials posted guidelines online referring to administrative rules governing the UW System after receiving requests for guidance following Shapiros appearance.
Protests are a part of a vibrant campus community; we facilitate them to ensure they do not jeopardize free speech, teaching, research or safety, spokeswoman Meredith McGlone wrote in an email.
Successful facilitation safely provides for the expression of First Amendment rights while at the same time not infringing any other individuals First Amendment rights.
While voluntary compliance is the goal, the university states its intention to employ a range of measures, from discipline to arrest, in response to situations that disrupt the universitys mission.
The university does not have guidelines on who may speak on campus, McGlone said, but policies on facilities use prioritize activities that promote teaching, research and public service. Outside speakers must be invited or sponsored by a campus department or organization.
We do plan to remind student organizations in the fall to reach out in advance regarding events that may have security needs so we can work with them to ensure a safe and successful event, McGlone said.
In the current political climate, as university officials develop programs to cultivate a welcoming climate for all students, some speakers, like Shapiro, are likely to provoke a backlash.
But free expression can thrive in an era of expanding inclusivity, said Lori Berquam, vice provost and dean of students.
We believe that inclusivity and free expression are not mutually exclusive in fact, we think they depend on one another, Berquam said in a statement. But we also recognize that students may not arrive on campus fully equipped with the skills to navigate difficult conversations respectfully and compassionately. Our approach is to ensure that our policies on speech apply equally to all viewpoints, as the Constitution requires, and to engage our students through programs like Our Wisconsin so they can learn how to live and work effectively with Badgers of all backgrounds.
Our Wisconsin is a cultural diversity training program introduced this academic year.
The Wisconsin Unions popular Distinguished Lecture Series has seen its share of controversial speakers over the years.
Free tickets to hear conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly had to be picked up in advance and were limited to one per person in 1993 in the hopes of defusing protests, according to news reports.
Spectators wait to ask questions of speaker Reza Aslan at the Wisconsin Union Theater in March.We believe that inclusivity and free speech are not mutually exclusive in fact, we think they depend on one another," said Lori Berquam, UW-Madison vice provost and dean of students.
Campus LGBT groups staged silent protests to greet an appearance by religious right leader Ralph Reed in 1998.
But under the current leadership of William Rosenthal, director of a student committee that selects the speakers, it is excellence, not controversy, that determines who takes the stage.
We never select a speaker based on political ideology, said Rosenthal. We want to select topics that are important for people to be more informed about and on which we can find educated speakers to broaden peoples ideas.
Expertise in their field is the first criteria, Rosenthal said. After that is a desire to present a variety of topics, so the series is not drawing the same crowd over and over again, he said.
Student Deshawn McKinney, director of the Wisconsin Union Directorate, praised Rosenthal for bringing in speakers to address topics outside the social sciences, a concentration of the past.
The folks brought in this year appeal to different communities, he said. We want to be the living room for everyone on campus, a place to come in and engage in conversation.
But its not about avoiding controversy, Rosenthal said.
We just try to make sure our speakers are high quality. And a lot of controversial issues a lot of people who talk about them dont necessarily add anything to the discussion, he said.
On March 29, the lecture series hosted Reza Aslan, an author, religious scholar and host of the CNN documentary series Believer. Aslan ran into controversy from Indian-American communities in some cities after an episode of that program showed him eating human brains with a Hindu sect.
But there was little sign of opposition when Aslan spoke to a full house at the Wisconsin Union Theater about the controversial issue of Islamophobia in America.
Aslan traced attitudes toward Muslims and anti-Muslim activities to statements made by high-ranking officials in President Donald Trumps administration. That includes pushing the idea that Islam is not a religion, but a political force.
If Islam is not a religion, it doesnt enjoy religious protection under the Constitution. This is a deliberate attempt to denationalize Muslim-Americans, Aslan said. This is no longer just on the fringes; it is at the highest levels of our government.
Maybe it was owing to the overall liberal bent of the UW-Madison and Madison communities, but only a couple of those taking the mic for a question-and-answer session after his talk probed Aslan about Islamic violence they said was encouraged in the Quran.
Aslan deftly disarmed their queries, citing passages that call for violence in both the Quran and the Bible.
Thats the thing about scriptures, he said, theres something for everyone.
View original post here:
Fighting words: The campus free speech battle at UW often focuses ... - Madison.com
Posted in Freedom of Speech
Comments Off on Fighting words: The campus free speech battle at UW often focuses … – Madison.com
Campus police, freedom of speech bills go different directions in ND Legislature – Prairie Business
Posted: at 4:32 pm
SB 2193 would expand jurisdiction lines to allow campus police to make arrests and issue tickets in a limited range projected beyond their schools and into their surrounding cities. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and cleared the House last Friday with a 71-21 vote. This week, its on its way to Gov. Doug Burgum for his signature.
Including the University of North Dakota, the campuses that have their own police units are North Dakota State University and North Dakota State College of Science in Wahpeton.
Leaders from Grand Forks, including those in the Legislature as well as local law enforcement and city officials, largely supported SB 2193, which they characterized as filling gaps in service. The bill is now subject to emergency measure, meaning the final law would go into effect immediately upon signature by the North Dakota secretary of state, a step that follows the governors approval and ends the legislative process.
Before the bill was cleared by the House, it was amended to delineate the expanded jurisdiction areas on a street-by-street basis for each of the three municipalities that now have campus police departments.
The other bill wont get as far as that. House Bill 1329 took aim at safe spaces on college campuses and called on the State Board of Higher Education, the governing body of the North Dakota university system, to adopt more rigorous protections for free speech. Though it passed 65-25 in the House, HB 1329 was defeated Friday in the Senate by a vote of 37-7.
Rep. Rick Becker, the sponsor of HB 1329, described the bill as a rejection of political correctness gone crazy. He said the proposal would have prevented universities from enacting policies that would discourage free expression.
The bill received do not pass recommendations before each vote from legislative education committees whose members cautioned the proposal could create issues for the SBHE while duplicating protections already provided by the Constitution and rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read more here:
Campus police, freedom of speech bills go different directions in ND Legislature - Prairie Business
Posted in Freedom of Speech
Comments Off on Campus police, freedom of speech bills go different directions in ND Legislature – Prairie Business
Journalists in Mexico killed in record numbers along with freedom of speech – Fox News
Posted: at 4:32 pm
MEXICO CITY One of the last stories that Mexican journalist Miroslava Breach published before she was brutally gunned down in front of her son was on how drug cartels were covertly backing mayoral candidates in a region notorious for its opium and marijuana production.
On March 23, the 54-year-old correspondent for Chihuahuas La Jornada became the 30th journalist murdered in the country since 2012.
MEXICAN JOURNALIST SHOT DEAD IN NORTHERN STATE OF CHIHUAHUA
According to Reporters without Borders, Mexico is currently the most dangerous country in the world for journalists, with nine media professionals murdered in 2016 alone.
The effect of the violence is a kind of self-censorship, said Javier Valdez, an award-winning reporter who worked with Breach in northwest Mexico. You have to know the rules how the gangs or police or a local politician here or there will respond to a certain story but those rules can change quickly, he told Fox News.
ANOTHER JOURNALIST SLAIN IN MEXICO'S VIOLENT VERACRUZ STATE
These are impossible conditions in which to practice journalism, Valdez said.
Last month alone five journalist were targeted across the country three of them fatally.
While organized crime hangs over the majority of reporters deaths, occasionally the motives are hard to pinpoint. Ricardo Monlui, a newspaper columnist in Veracruz who was shot March 19 by a gunman on a motorcycle, mostly covered issues relating to the sugar-cane industry.
As for Breach, she uncovered many scandals along her 20-year career, yet colleagues and state officials believe her work on the political activities of drug traffickers is what ultimately led to her murder.
Miroslava documented and denounced the links between state politics and drug trafficking, said Chihuahua Governor Javier Corral, who knew Breach personally, during a radio interview.
MEXICAN NEWSPAPER CLOSES CITING INSECURITY FOR JOURNALISTS
In view of the rising number of journalists being targeted, the Mexican government created the Special Prosecutor's Office for Crimes against Freedom of Expression (FEADLE) to investigate all known cases since 2006.
According to a recentfreedom of informationrequest made by the Mexican news outlet Animal Poltico,in the past seven years FEADLE has opened 798 investigations into aggressions against journalists,which included47 murders, but only three caseshave resulted in a criminal conviction.
For Esteban Illades, a leading Mexico City journalist, the problem of impunity can partly be traced to a taut relationship between media and authorities and a notoriously dysfunctional criminal justice system in which startlingly few crimes are solved.
Historically, in Mexico the government has failed to understand the role of the press and the difficulties they face in doing their jobs, Illades told Fox News. The criminal justice systems at both the state and federal level are simply inadequate.
Mexico has seen widespread drug violence since the mid-2000s when the federal government launched a crackdown on organized crime. Ironically, the attacks against journalists in recent years have come as the country transitioned into a competitive democracy after 71 years of one-party rule and the media once largely state-controlled gained unprecedented freedom.
Yet according to Illades, solidarity among Mexican media outlets and journalists is weak.
The guild of journalists in Mexico is very fragmented, there are diverse groups with diverse loyalties, he said. Almost no one supports another journalist who is threatened. On the contrary, Ive seen journalists celebrate threats against others because of the kind of work they do.
Paul Imison is a freelance journalist based in Mexico City. Follow him on Twitter: @paulimison
Like us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter & Instagram
Read the original:
Journalists in Mexico killed in record numbers along with freedom of speech - Fox News
Posted in Freedom of Speech
Comments Off on Journalists in Mexico killed in record numbers along with freedom of speech – Fox News
Former CIA Analyst: Susan Rice’s NSA demasking denials don’t add up – Fox News
Posted: at 4:30 pm
In an interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC Tuesday, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice broke her silence over this weeks stunning reports that she requested the names of Trump campaign and transition officials be demasked from National Security Agency (NSA) intercepts.
It was an awkward interview. Rice confirmed that she requested the demasking of Americans while she was National Security Adviser. While Rice would not deny that she asked that names of Trump officials be demasked, she insisted the Obama administration did not spy on Mr. Trump or his staff for political purposes. She also offered some questionable explanations for the demasking process.
As a former CIA analyst who has handled requests for demasking the names of American citizens for a U.S. policymaker, I thought Rices claims in her interview did not add up.
The names of U.S. citizens incidentally mentioned in NSA reports are masked to preserve their identities because Americas intelligence agencies are barred from spying on American citizens except in extraordinary circumstances with court approval.
Rice correctly said in her interview that policymakers sometimes request to know the identities of Americans from NSA reports to understand these reports in certain circumstances. She also tried to dismiss this controversy by claiming NSA demasking requests are routine.
They actually are not routine and taken very seriously by NSA.
Rice also said there is an Intelligence Community process to review whether to approve demasking requests. This seemed to be an attempt by Rice to make her requests look legitimate because NSA carefully reviewed them.
In fact, this review is pro forma. If a senior official gives what appears to be a national security reason, demasking requests are almost always approved.
Rices interview came amid a growing controversy that the Obama administration abused U.S. intelligence to spy on the Trump campaign and leak intelligence to the press to hurt Trump. This included the illegal leaking of General Michael Flynns name from an NSA report and press reports that the Obama administration in its final weeks lowered the threshold for access to NSA information and spread intelligence about Russian interference in the election and alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign throughout the government.
Also factor in House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nuness disclosure in a March 22 press conference that the names of Trump campaign or transition officials were demasked from NSA reports that had nothing to do with Russia or alleged wrongdoing by the Trump campaign.
Bloomberg reporter Eli Lake confirmed this in a bombshell April 3 report in which he said the demasked reports contained valuable political information on the Trump transition. Lake also broke the story that Rice asked for the demaskings in this report.
An April 3 Daily Caller report that Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce detailed spreadsheets of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president makes this story more interesting. Rice denied this allegation during her MSNBC interview.
Rices denials dont add up. It is hard to fathom how the demasking of multiple Trump campaign and transition officials was not politically motivated. While it was legal for her to do this, it was highly unethical and would be a huge scandal if a Republican senior official sought the names of Democratic political opponents from U.S. intelligence reports.
My guess is that Rices demasking requests were on behalf of the Obama National Security Council and were part of a broad campaign that began in early 2016 to abuse U.S. intelligence to hurt the Trump candidacy and then his presidency.
It wouldnt surprise me if former Deputy National Security Council Ben Rhodes was deeply involved in this campaign.
Despite determined efforts by the mainstream media to stamp out this story, the smoke of this scandal continues to grow.
Susan Rices interview Tuesday added more smoke.
Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy, a Washington, DC national security think tank. He held U.S. government national security positions for 25 years with the CIA, DIA, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. Fleitz also served as Chief of Staff to John R. Bolton when he was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz specializes in the Iranian nuclear program, terrorism, and intelligence issues. He is the author of "Peacekeeping Fiascos of the 1990s: Causes, Solutions and U.S. Interests" (Praeger, May 30, 2002).
See the article here:
Former CIA Analyst: Susan Rice's NSA demasking denials don't add up - Fox News
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on Former CIA Analyst: Susan Rice’s NSA demasking denials don’t add up – Fox News
Yul Williams on fostering innovation at the NSA – Washington Post
Posted: at 4:30 pm
Courtesy of NSA
Yul Williams is the technical director for the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, working with computer scientists, mathematicians and engineers to develop new technologies in the cybersecurity field that will assist the agency in its intelligence operations. In a conversation with Tom Fox, Williams described an NSA idea incubation technique that has led to many innovations. Fox is a guest writer for On Leadership and the vice president for leadership and innovation at the nonprofit, nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
What is your main area of focus at the National Security Agency?
My work is centered on cybersecurity, and its mostly of a defensive nature. We are trying to gather ideas from the workforce that we can develop and implement to enhance our overall mission. Our CYBERx incubation model provides a venue where anyone in the workforce can present concepts to an audience of senior leaders that may have the potential to affect the manner in which we conduct business.
If I am an NSA employee and I have an idea, how do I get it to you?
We developed a crowdsourcing tool that is available to the NSA workforce. The workforce can look at the idea submitted and vote for or against it. They can leave comments saying why an idea is great or that it has been tried before. Afterward, a group known as the Innovators In Residence reviews the idea and decides how we can bring it into the incubation stage.
What happens next?
We guarantee the idea champion will have an audience within four weeks with the Innovators in Residence, which will make the determination whether the idea should move to the next stage. The group makes a list of all the good and bad things about the idea. The focus is mostly on the negative comments because they surface the institutional fears as to why the idea hasnt been implemented before. Our emphasis is on proving why those fears are unfounded. If the idea champion cannot overcome those concerns, the idea dies on the spot. We refer to this concept as a fast failure, and it limits the energy expanded on ideas with low mission potential. If the idea has merit, the group helps the idea champion develop a pitch that can be used to convince the organization of the value of the idea to the bottom line.
What happens if an idea passes that phase?
The idea champion is given an audience with the RIP or the Resource Investment Panel that is made up of NSA senior leaders who run organizations and have staff. Instead of giving funding for the first round of development, we ask the RIP to loan a resource to the project. For example, a resource may be an analyst who might have skill in microelectronics or optoelectronics. Once the RIP concurs, it provides resources to the idea champion who then has up to five months to conduct experiments. During that phase, the idea champion must periodically meet with the RIP and explain the experiments status. If all of the requirements are satisfied, the idea champion meets with the same panel, now called the Strategic Investment Panel or SIP. The SIP must come to a consensus about turning the idea into a product and deploying it.
How many ideas on average go through this process?
There are around 117 ideas percolating in the crowdsourcing process.
Can your approach be adopted by other agencies?
I would strongly encourage other federal agencies to adopt an incubation model. I am shocked at the amount of interest employees have in lending their ideas to make us a better agency. You should see the passion that people bring to the table and the pride they have when their idea makes it to the end of the incubation model or is even considered. We dont attribute failure of an idea as a personal failure. We celebrate that the person was willing to step away from what they do on a daily basis and take an idea through the process.
Tell me about your management philosophy or management style.
My leadership style is to respect the professionalism of the people I work with. I learned long ago that if youre working with low-skilled people, it is more direction-oriented. In this environment, we have very professional people, so you want to leverage what they have to offer and challenge them to do things that they did not believe were possible. I find that people always exceed their own expectations.
Have you learned any important leadership lessons during your time as a manager?
One of the lessons I learned is to always seek out others who have more experience in areas where you may be lacking so you can consider a wider range of ideas. It is important to confer with a diverse set of people who you can bounce ideas off of and those that help you to grow as a professional and as a person.
Read also:
A Harvard professor on the five questions to ask when facing tough decisions
Like On Leadership? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and subscribe to our podcast on iTunes.
Go here to see the original:
Yul Williams on fostering innovation at the NSA - Washington Post
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on Yul Williams on fostering innovation at the NSA – Washington Post
CIA, NSA Aren’t the Only Federal Agencies Violating Privacy – American Spectator
Posted: at 4:30 pm
Wikileaks recent dump of classified information related to the CIAs secret hacking operations has once again sparked a conversation about privacy in the digital age. While similar secret surveillance programs like the NSAs PRISM have been in the public eye for years, other government agencies thatmishandle millions of Americans private information in the light of day are often left unchecked.
Take the U.S. Census Bureau, for example. Since 2005, Census has selected approximately three million Americans annually to complete the American Community Survey (ACS), collecting information on the nations demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics. While theres no question that the ACS collects some valuable information, the intrusive nature of the survey and the poor security measures with which Census handles respondents personal information should be a cause for concern no less sothan any surveillance by the CIA or NSA.
The methods used by Census Bureau employees can vary in the degree to which they violate a persons privacy. Some may only receive letters in the mail, appealing to the persons sense of community, with a veiled threat if they do not comply. Others have received a personal visit from a Census employee, often resulting in pressure or downright intimidation to complete the survey.
Take Kimberly Hayes of Sapulpa, Oklahoma. After being threatened with a fine by mail for refusing to fill out the form because some of the questions made her uncomfortable, a man sent by Census visited her home unannounced in the hopes of getting her to complete the ACS. The man started walking around and was looking in windows, according to Hayes.
If this gentleman had been trying to conduct a survey on behalf of a companys marketing department, Hayes could have told him to get lost without fear of repercussions. She might even have been able to prosecute him for trespassing. So long as the ACS exists, however, the letter of the law is against people like Hayes. If our government treated its citizens with the respect that companies reserve for their customers, violations of privacy would be far less frequent.
Unfortunately, our government is more often a technological laggard than a pathbreaker. Census has been remarkably slow in following the private sectors civilizing example. Recipients who fail to fill out the online ACS are sent a paper copy that they are asked to return in the mail, chock-full of personal information that could be damaging in the wrong hands. Questions range from the embarrassing (e.g. Question 18b, Does this person have difficulty dressing or bathing?) to the dangerous (e.g. Question 33, What time did this person usually leave home to go to work last week?).
Furthermore, the Census database is vulnerable. It has already been hacked into as recently as 2015. While Census tried to reassure nervous Americans that survey information remains safe, secure and on an internal network, bureaucrats dont always follow internal safety protocols. In 2011, the State Department operated an internal network that broke federal standards and may have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers according to the Associated Press.
Many ACS answers are already compromised by design. On the Bureaus microdata website, anyone can download data of anonymous individualized ACS responses for areas with as few as 600 people. The only defense against those who might use ACS data for nefarious purposes is the bolded command: Use it for GOOD never for EVIL.
There are better ways to acquire sensitive information while protecting the privacy of citizens. For instance, in Europe, there are many viable census models already in place that drastically reduce privacy violations, and are more cost effective to boot.
The Netherlands, Slovenia, and Austria are among eight European countries that obtain census data without employing costly survey employees to harass their constituents. These countries use models that only process data from what other government agencies have already collected, so there is no added risk of privacy violations from mandatory and redundant surveys. The monetary and psychological costs of harassment suggest that we should look for foreign alternatives, perhaps even outside any government solution.
If the destruction of the ACS does indeed leave a void in the market for knowledge, then a private company could fill this gap, while heeding a mandate to respect our privacy. The fact of the matter is that our government has rarely prioritized the right to privacy for American citizens, regardless of which party is in power.
The benefits of the ACS have been greatly exaggerated, especially when we consider viable alternatives. The monetary costs of the ACS, while excessive at over $1.3 billion per year, are nothing compared to the psychological damage done to three million Americans annually. Our right to privacy has been offered up by our government on the altar of the common good. Americans who love their liberty should support replacing the ACS with a more conscientious alternative.
Census collection c. 1940 (Wikimedia Commons)
See more here:
CIA, NSA Aren't the Only Federal Agencies Violating Privacy - American Spectator
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on CIA, NSA Aren’t the Only Federal Agencies Violating Privacy – American Spectator
Former NSA, CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden points to ‘tectonic shifts’ in national security – The Hub at Johns Hopkins
Posted: at 4:30 pm
By Saralyn Lyons
National security is undergoing a tectonic shift in the 21st century, Gen. Michael Hayden said Tuesday during a discussion at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C.
Haydenformer director of the NSA, the CIA, and a principal deputy director of national intelligence who served during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrationswarned that intelligence and security agencies not only face growing threats of cyberattacks and terror attacks, but also what he called "macro" issues that include a shakeup of the major players on the world stage.
Gen. Michael Hayden
Former NSA, CIA director
"We're kind of seeing the meltdown of the post-WWI [Treaty of] Versailles," he told Vali Nasr, dean of SAIS, who moderated the conversation. "The colonially created countries, which were always a bit artificial and held in place by a brand of autocracy that is no longer en vogue, will not survive."
Hayden predicted that the conflict in the Middle East will likely lead to the creation of entirely new nation-states in the region based on ideology rather than historical borders.
"That world that's falling away? It's got the stamp 'Made in America' on it," he said. "It is the product of American statecraft, and frankly was sustained by American power for 75 years."
Hayden warned against myopic forms of national defensestrategies that fail to address macro issues. The chemical attack in Syria on Tuesday is an example of an act of terror that deserves an investigation and strategic response, but he said that it pales in comparison to what he considers an "existential" threatthe prospect that "Syria doesn't exist anymore, and it's not coming back."
To help illustrate his point, he drew an imaginary graph in the air, with the X axis representing the timeline of a security threat, and the Y axis representing the severity. He said that issues such as cyberattacks and terrorism don't rate high on either axis, and gestured toward the bottom corner of the graph where the X and Y meet.
And yet, he said, those issues dominated his work at the CIA.
"Driven by the urgency and the immediacy of the threat, I was down in that corner," he said. "And now I fearto get modestly political on youI fear we have a political leadership whose attention is really down there, too, and that's going to make it hard to get us up here to the macro issues."
Those crucial issues, Hayden said, include the U.S. relationship with China, and the North Korean nuclear program.
"The Sino-American relationship's success or failure will broadly define how bright or how dark the 21st century is," he said. But that relationship is complicated by North Korea, which he called, among other things, "ambitious, brittle, and nuclear."
North Korea, Hayden said, only exists because of its nuclear program, which the U.S. works to counter in part by deploying anti-ballistic missile systems to South Korea. China, however, fears the collapse of North Korea, because it could lead to a refugee crisis, loss of control over North Korea's nuclear weapons, and the possibility of an American-friendly South Korean army mobilized in the region.
"My overly simplified metaphor is that North Korea is a bad toothache, and [the Chinese] know it's a bad toothache, and we keep saying, 'You know, you really should go in for a root canal,' and they keep saying, 'I'm just going to take some aspirin,'" Hayden said. "We have not yet convinced them of the dental discomfort to a sufficient level to begin to take more dramatic action [against North Korea]."
North Korea is among the big issues that Hayden said he gets asked about frequentlyquestions about what keeps him up at night.
"Before the end of President Trump's current term, the North Koreans will probably be able to reach Seattle with an indigenously produced nuclear weapon aboard an indigenously produced intercontinental ballistic missile," he said. "I know it's a low-probability shot, but what kind of odds are you comfortable with?"
Read this article:
Former NSA, CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden points to 'tectonic shifts' in national security - The Hub at Johns Hopkins
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on Former NSA, CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden points to ‘tectonic shifts’ in national security – The Hub at Johns Hopkins







