Daily Archives: July 3, 2017

Community Garden, a work in progress – Daily Journal Online

Posted: July 3, 2017 at 8:05 am

Volunteers with the Farmington Community Garden held a fundraiser Saturday to help move forward with the progress of the garden.

Garden Coordinator Melanie Montgomery said their fundraiser went very well. They held a rummage sale, seed swap and a lemonade stand.

Every person is walking away with something and that is great, said Montgomery. We have had a few people pay more than their total as a donation and we also had several people drop donations off. There was even one lady who dropped off a big bag of seeds for the garden. Another lady donated dried gourds.

Montgomery said they put this event together because they need funds to be able to buy the supplies to build the garden, which is located at Boyce and Perrine. She said last year they did really well, but have used those funds to buy the supplies for the garden.

We have had some supplies donated. The mulch was donated by Tall Timber Tree Service and the top soils was donated by CWC out of Perryville. Freedom waste also donated to the garden, Montgomery said. We are trying to build the rest of the garden. We have 12 more beds to build.

She explained there will be a childrens garden area and another area with fruit trees and berry bushes. They hope to have the garden complete by next year.

Its been moving along slowly because we have to work with what supplies we were able to buy, said Montgomery. Its been slow because we havent really had the funds to be able to buy the materials, so its taking us longer.

Montgomery said last year they had a hog roast and raised quite a bit of money, which allowed them to get the irrigation system. She stressed its really important they have that so its easier for everyone to water their beds.

Everybody really gets together and has helped build it, said Montgomery. Its really a community thing. Its all kinds of different people and it's great we can get together to so this. I want to thank everyone who has donated things and supported our events to make this possible for the community.

Brigitte Zettl, technical advisor for the garden,said the community designed the garden and she did the drafting.

We sat down together at the library and just voted on what we all wanted, said Zettl. I put it on paper and made it all fit to scale. We have a pretty strong core group of volunteers.

Zettl said to be honest, for the garden to move forward more quickly they need more help. They could use more people helping with fundraising events and especially building the garden.

Just coming on Saturdays putting the beds together, filling beds with soil and spreading mulch, said Zettl. The more the merrier and the faster we will have a beautiful garden here if more people come.

Zettl said there are people who have already bought some of the plots and they are $12 for a year to rent a plot.

You get one four by eight plot and you can do up to three per family, said Zettl. Actually we have quite a few still available and if you buy a plot this year, since the garden is still being built you can have the plot for free next year.

The page will come up and you can print off the application and send it in to the P.O. Box thats listed on the application, said Zettl. We usually have a garden meeting the first Friday of every month over at the Farmington Public Library and its at 6 p.m.

Zettl said that is great place to get more information and to meet everyone. She added this has been a really great opportunity for her and her daughter.

To do some character-building things together, helping to promote the garden and meet our neighbors, said Zettl. Building the garden together has been a wonderful thing for us to as family. It has been a real benefit to me to spend time together.

Read more:

Community Garden, a work in progress - Daily Journal Online

Posted in Progress | Comments Off on Community Garden, a work in progress – Daily Journal Online

Progress continues on Fiber to Home project – Muscatine Journal

Posted: at 8:05 am

MUSCATINE Progress continues on Muscatine Power & Water's Fiber to the Home project. Expected to be completed in 2018, the project will provide faster internet and enhanced cable television services for customers of MP&W's Communications Utility by replacing traditional coaxial cable with fiber optic technology. On Tuesday, Tim Reed, director of utility service delivery, told the Board of Water, Electric, and Communications Trustees that 73,000 feet, or around 15 percent, of the new aerial wiring is in place, with 1,000 aerial drops completed, and 13,500 feet of new underground wiring is in place with 25 drops completed.

Reed said individual activations should begin in the fall.

"I hesitate to put a date on it because there are so many pieces that have to come together," Reed said.

During the meeting, the board authorized General Manager Sal LoBianco to enter into an agreement for competitive local exchange carrier switching services and operational support for the project. LoBianco said a five-year contract is being negotiated with ImOn Communications of Cedar Rapids to provide voice services.

"This will allow us to get into a business relationship with ImOn a little more quickly," LoBianco said.

All three utilities at Muscatine Power & Water continue to outperform the budget.

The Electric Utility was budgeted to post a deficit of $1,008,131 in May, but the actual loss was $467,510. Jerry Gowey, director of finance and administrative services, reported revenue of $7,383,000 in May was $555,000 more than budgeted. From January to May, a loss of $3,419,487 was budgeted, but the actual deficit was $1,676,283 with a cash balance of $46,227,000 and no debt.

The Water Utility was budgeted to post a loss of $27,898 in May, but the actual loss was $18,917. Gowey said May revenue of $527,000 was $6,707 better than budget. For the year to date through May, profit of $28,877 was budgeted, but actual profit of $154,816 has been posted with a cash balance of $461,000 and debt of $5.6 million. Of that, $5.5 million was to the Electric Utility and $100,000 was to Iowa's State Revolving Fund.

A profit of $147,459 was budgeted for the Communications Utility in May, but the actual profit was $210,103. Gowey said May revenue of $1,158,000 was $10,642 better than budget. For the year through May, a profit of $557,879 was budgeted, but actual profit of $918,967 was posted with a cash balance of $881,000 and debt of $9,044,000, all to the Electric Utility.

The board approved changes in its leadership, effective July 1. Board Chair Susan Eversmeyer, co-owner of River Rehabilitation, stepped down as board chair. Vice Chair Doyle Tubandt, president of Kent Corporation, will replace Eversmeyer. Keith Porter, president and CEO of Stanley Foundation, will be the new Vice Chair.

Gowey will continue as the Board Secretary.

Link:

Progress continues on Fiber to Home project - Muscatine Journal

Posted in Progress | Comments Off on Progress continues on Fiber to Home project – Muscatine Journal

Small progress in budget standstill as one NJ assemblyman changes vote – New Jersey 101.5 FM Radio

Posted: at 8:05 am

Michael Symons, Townsquare Media

TRENTON The board that counts votes in the Assembly chamber stayed largely as it was on Sunday from where it was when the government shutdown began with one small difference, a vote moving from the abstention list to those voting in favor of the budget.

Assemblyman James Kennedy from Rahway said that while he knows it may take longer for some of his colleaguesto move on the budget he did what he believed was right, and was going back to where he originally stood on the budget.

Kennedy said after he first cast his vote he noticed the rest of the votes made what he described as a Christmas tree.

It was divided almost in thirds, he said. I believe there were 27 yes votes and 25 no votes and then 22 abstentions.

Christie OKd posters at government offices blaming speaker for shutdown. Is that legal?

After 30 minutes of seeing very little movement on the votes Kennedy said he changed his vote to abstain when he realized things were at a standstill.

The speaker asked me why I had changed my vote, and I told him that we need to go back and negotiate some sort of settlement, he said. The message I was sending to leadership was go back in the back room (and negotiate). It doesnt seem like were so far away from a settlement based on what everybody is saying. Theres gotta be something that makes this move.

Horizon in the conversation as shutdown continues, Sweeney says

When members of the assembly asked about the disparity in votes Kennedy said initially they were told that the divide was not related to Governor Chris Christies plans to overhaul the funding and governance of Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield, but rather to do with an issue of the governor looking for the newspapers or something else that had been previously talked about.

After a full day passed with little to no movement Kennedy said It became blatantly obvious that this was about Horizon, and nothing but Horizon.

I find it difficult to understand why youd shut down government over an issue thats not even in this particular budget, he said. So here we are. Hes down at a state park and nobody else is and the rest is history.

After two decades as the mayor of Rahway, Kennedy is at the end of his first term in Trenton, and said he has heard the concerns of his constituents.

Primarily we were hearing anger over the Horizon bill, he said. Theres a great number of people in New Jersey that are covered by them including myself and others.

While the Horizon bill has not yet been presented to the Assembly, Kennedy said he had heard enough talk about it among his colleagues to believe that a compromise could be reached.

Theres room for negotiation and it seems unconscionable to shut down government on Fourth of July weekend, he said.

Even as Kennedy moved to the yes column and there was talk of a second moving on Sunday as well Kennedy said he knows it could be a long process to get to a final resolution.

Im a realist. I think youll see a few more, but I dont see it reaching 41 that easily, he said. I wouldnt be surprised if I saw at the end of the frustration when the public is totally disgusted with the inaction that maybe the Rs come over and approve the budget.

Even if the budget is approved Kennedy said he and his colleagues are aware there could be consequences if the Horizon bill is not approved as well.

Budget impasse leads to NJ government shutdown heres whats open & closed

Everybody knows the results of that. Its going to be a slash and burn approach instead of realistically looking at this without punishing people whose opinion is different than others, he said. Thats the sad part of government today.

At a time when partisan politics is at a boiling point at all levels of government Kennedy, a Democrat, said he is a team player to a point, but when its irrational Im not.

Theres a lot of Republicans that are like that. Theres a lot of Democrats that are like that. And there needs to be some common sense here, he said. This budget should be approved. Ive talked to colleagues on both sides of the aisle that say hey, this is as good of a budget as were going to carve. They should approve it.

Whenthe shutdown comes to an end and the government reopens Kennedy said there will still be plenty of work for the legislature to do.

Then you go back to governing, he said. Its last weeks news and therell be new issues to deal with. Its not like the state isnt suffering from important things to deal with.

Christie has called for a special session of both houses of the legislature for 10 a.m. on Monday morning to address the shutdown and budget standstill.

More From New Jersey 101.5

Subscribe to New Jersey 101.5 FM on

Contact reporter Adam Hochron at 609-359-5326 orAdam.Hochron@townsquaremedia.com

More:

Small progress in budget standstill as one NJ assemblyman changes vote - New Jersey 101.5 FM Radio

Posted in Progress | Comments Off on Small progress in budget standstill as one NJ assemblyman changes vote – New Jersey 101.5 FM Radio

With new affirmative action case, no progress – UT The Daily Texan

Posted: at 8:05 am

Another summer, another affirmative action lawsuit.

Edward Blum, the legal strategist and conservative activist who orchestrated the Fisher v. University of Texas lawsuit, is seeking to sue the University over concerns regarding the admissions process once more. Blum argues this time using the Texas Constitution that UT cannot consider applicants differently because of race and ethnicity.

Blums lawsuit, filed in support of white and Asian plaintiffs who felt disadvantaged by the policy, makes the same denunciation of affirmative action as in the previous Fisher v. University of Texas case. This isnt an issue of whether or not certain groups, including Asian applicants, have a right to feel wronged this is a matter of repeatedly attacking a necessary protection and offering nothing constructive in its place.

Blum, a Texas Ex, isnt a lawyer, but nonetheless has a knack for ushering cases into the federal arena. A seasoned strategist, Blums current mission is to reconstruct the Universitys admissions processes so that they adhere to one interpretation of Texas Equal Rights Amendment (1972). That is, disable the consideration of race when reviewing the 25 percent of students who are not admitted automatically to the University, a process he feels violates the amendments equality protection.

The lawsuits goal of eliminating a system which protects one population black and Hispanic applicants but sporadically hinders another in the eyes of his nonprofit, Students for Fair Admissions, is tantamount to simply shifting the burden of inequality. We need to be constructive instead of targeting already disadvantaged populations when tackling the staggeringly tricky issue of discrimination.

Disabling Texas use of affirmative action is a mistake that will only benefit the select members of Blums nonprofit, students who decry a perceived inequity in admissions when white and Asian students are stacked up against students of other races.

To those who feel wronged by the system, consider the inherent advantage in being white, in being male and white, or even the advantage in being poor and white instead of poor and black or Hispanic. Consider the gradation of discrimination experienced by Asians: Some Asians benefit from affirmative action, while others are less advantaged. Changing the demographics wont alter the far-reaching, and harmful, precedent Blums case hopes to set.

Affirmative action provides Texans with greater opportunity to succeed. Top universities, including Harvard University, Brown University and The University of Chicago, stand firmly in support of affirmative action. Fortune 500 companies support affirmative action. The growth of the UT student body agrees with affirmative action: Diversity increased once the measure was readopted in 2005.

The legal battle over equality in university admissions will not end once the new suit has been filed and resolved. This is a contentious issue with no obvious resolution. Affirmative action is a strong step in the right direction. While I might be counted among those who benefit from a ruling in Blums favor, I know that we must continue to protect diversity in our student body with every instrument available.

We have to stand firmly against discrimination. In the face of pressure to alter admissions processes, we must use affirmative action as a tool to level the playing field for all Texans.

Emily Severe is a Business Honors junior from Round Rock, Texas.

More:

With new affirmative action case, no progress - UT The Daily Texan

Posted in Progress | Comments Off on With new affirmative action case, no progress – UT The Daily Texan

Super Sad True Love Story – Wikipedia

Posted: at 8:04 am

Super Sad True Love Story is the third novel by American writer Gary Shteyngart.[1] The novel takes place in a near-future dystopian New York where life is dominated by media and retail.

The son of a Russian immigrant, protagonist Leonard (Lenny) Abramov, a middle-aged, middle class, otherwise unremarkable man whose mentality is still in the past century, falls madly in love with Eunice Park, a young Korean-American struggling with materialism and the pressures of her traditional Korean family. The chapters alternate between profuse diary entries from the old-fashioned Lenny and Eunice's biting e-mail correspondence on her "GlobalTeens" account. In the background of what appears to be a love story that oscillates between superficiality and despair, a grim political situation unravels. America is on the brink of economic collapse, threatened by its Chinese creditors. In the meantime, the totalitarian Bipartisan government's main mission is to encourage and promote consumerism while eliminating political dissidents.[2]

The novel won the Salon Book Award (Fiction, 2010) and the Bollinger Everyman Wodehouse Prize (2011). It was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year (Fiction & Poetry, 2010), New York Times bestseller (Fiction, 2010), and Amazon's Best Books of the Month in August 2010. It was named one of the best books of the year by numerous publications, including The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, O:The Oprah Magazine, Maureen Corrigan of NPR, and Slate.[3] The literary critic Raymond Malewitz has recently published an article on "digital posthumanism" in the novel in the journal Arizona Quarterly.[4]

Ben Stiller and Media Rights Capital are producing a TV series for Showtime.[5]

More:

Super Sad True Love Story - Wikipedia

Posted in Posthumanism | Comments Off on Super Sad True Love Story – Wikipedia

Would human enhancement create Supermen or super tyrants? – RT

Posted: at 8:03 am

Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RTs Sputnik and Al-Mayadeens Kalima Horra.

The dream that we may one day transcend our physical and intellectual barriers through advancements in cybernetics and nanotechnology could became a reality during this century. But would this be a blessing or a curse?

As science expands its frontiers and technology continues to evolve, ideas once deemed fanciful or considered part of science fiction find themselves within the realm of possibility. New discoveries may give rise to unique potential and perils, as the field of ethics struggles to keep pace with the latest technological advancements. The dream that one day we humans may eclipse our physical and mental fetters through augmentation by cybernetics or nanotechnology could become a reality. Although transhumanism and posthumanism are considered modern concepts, the idea of improving or transcending the human condition has been explored in philosophy and literature since at least the mid-19th century.

In his bookThus Spoke Zarathustra, 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche introduced the concept of the bermensch (overman or superman) as a goal towards which humans ought to strive, whereby they take control of their own destinies, work collectively towards the betterment of humanity and create a higher set of ideals to give their existence greater meaning. Nietzsche wrote Man is something that shall be overcome. (The notion of bermensch was later corrupted by the Nazis, who integrated it into their perverse racial theories).

Samuel Becketts playEndgame (1957) suggests some possible outcomes from refining the human body with technology, before rejecting transhumanism as a sinister concept: the very technology which keeps Becketts characters alive, after they have exceeded their natural lifespans, also entraps them and makes them over-reliant upon it. Even as far back as 1839, American writer Edgar Allan Poe made reference to unnatural life extension in a satirical short story The Man That Was Used Up where a mysterious and eulogized war hero, whose body parts have been replaced with prosthetics, needs to be assembled piece by piece each day by his African American valet.

Artificial limbs, mechanical heart valves, and devices such as pacemakers already exist to reduce disability and improve, or extend, an individuals quality of life. British engineer Professor Kevin Warwick and his wife took things to another level in 2002 when they had microchips and sensors implanted into their arms, and connected to their nervous systems, enabling them to feel each others sensations. Professor Warwick could reportedly feel the same sensations as his wife from a different location.

Some might dismiss this project as a curious gimmick, but Warwick has voiced plans to expand the project and develop a community of fellow cyborgs connected via their chip implants to superintelligent machines, creating, in effect, superhumans.

He hopes such future technology might greatly enhance human potential, commenting Being linked to another persons nervous system opens up a whole world of possibilities.

The prospect of attaining superior intelligence or physical attributes may be tempting or appear liberating, but cybernetic enhancement could, theoretically, also be used as a means of control. Whoever manufactures the technologies that augment humans would be in a very powerful position and wield an immense degree of control over their human customers (or subjects). Moreover, cybernetically enhanced humans could see their microchips hacked, have their sensations detected by unwanted parties and stored in a database, or be at risk of receiving unsolicited or unpleasant impulses. Might we evolve from homo sapiens to homo servus?

Read more

Ray Kurzweil, American author and advocate for transhumanism, predicted in his 2005 book The Singularity Is Near that within a few decades time the human organism will become upgraded, due to mindboggling advancements in genetics, nanotechnology and robotics, to create, in effect, a new species with superior skills and intelligence, virtually immortal lifespans, and unforeseen capabilities. Kurzweil predicts the Singularity will occur by the middle of this century and realize the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but that transcends our biological roots. There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine or between physical and virtual reality.

While considering the possibly that augmented humans might exist within our lifespans, it becomes clear that the technology to transcend our bog-standard homo sapiens existence would not be available to all simultaneously. The wealthy, or otherwise privileged, could become yet more powerful and emotionally distant from those they rule, or over whom they exert economic control. Would the elites use bermensch making technologies to forever establish themselves as a ruling class with God like powers to laud over the Untermensch poor and oppressed who toil until their comparatively short and expendable lifespans give out?

Alternatively, if the means to augment humans became widely available, would there be pressure to convert to a transhuman state? Would those who transcend, or those who refuse to do so, be discriminated against? While many barriers presently divide humans (economic, religious, cultural, political, ethnic), is it wise to introduce what could become yet another excuse for division and antipathy?

Of course, military applications of human enhancing technologies would soon be found. Armed forces across the globe would want to give their soldiers an edge over the enemy. Soldiers having no physical, physiological, or cognitive limitation will be key to survival and operational dominance in the future, says Michael Goldblatt, former director of the Defense Sciences Office (DSO), part of the US Department of Defense's DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). DSOs scientists have reportedly sought ways to make soldiers remain active on the battlefield for up to seven days with little or no sleep, and have considered how neural implants might improve cognitive function or allow future soldiers [to] communicate by thought alone.

Whilst we humans spend much time feuding and fighting, is it wise to give ourselves superhuman abilities before we have developed the ethical reasoning, moral compass, and maturity to wield such power? Upgrading ourselves by way of advances in genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics could usher in a new era of ultimate freedom, where even the most oppressed are liberated from their drudgery, or condemn the human race to permanent slavery. Although new technologies can be used for either laudable or nefarious purposes, they are typically used for whatever purpose creates the most profit.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Read more:

Would human enhancement create Supermen or super tyrants? - RT

Posted in Transhumanism | Comments Off on Would human enhancement create Supermen or super tyrants? – RT

Politics podcast: Anna Krien on the climate wars – The Conversation AU

Posted: at 8:02 am

Melbourne-born author Anna Kriens latest Quarterly Essay explores the debates on climate change policy in Australia and the ecological effects of not acting.

She interviewed farmers, scientists, Indigenous groups, and activists from Bowen to Port Augusta. She says climate change denialism has transformed into climate change nihilism.

Krien says the Finkel review provides another opportunity in a long line of proposals to take up the challenge of legislating clean energy. We just need to get that foot in the door. The door has been flapping in the wind for the past decade.

On a current frontline battle the planned Adani Carmichael coalmine she found the people who would be affected were being ignored and blindsided.

Meanwhile, the potential for exploitation of local Indigenous peoples through opaque native title legislation was high. Outsiders are not meant to understand it and to tell you the truth you get the sense that insiders arent meant to understand it either.

See the article here:

Politics podcast: Anna Krien on the climate wars - The Conversation AU

Posted in Nihilism | Comments Off on Politics podcast: Anna Krien on the climate wars – The Conversation AU

Free speech takes a hit – Washington Post

Posted: at 8:00 am

July 2 at 6:30 PM

The June 20 editorial Free speech wins took the view thatthe Supreme Court decision striking down the restriction on trademarking offensive namessomehow represented an expansion of free speech.But the law at issue, theLanham Act,actually places limits on free speech by allowing trademark holders to excludecompetitors (or innovators, as classical liberals would say) from using trademarked names. Atrademark holder canseek the assistance of thefederal courtsin enforcing that exclusion.

When the statute was written, offensive words could still be banned from public use and were not consideredeligible for trademark protection;free-speech protection has since been expanded to includesuch words. But make no mistake: The court, ostensibly in defense of free speech, has now expanded governmental trademark protection tooffensive speech.

The outcome of the case may be legally correct, but by plugging the disparagementgap in the Lanham Act, the court, ironically, has limited free speech.

Kenneth Hall, Rockville

Read the rest here:
Free speech takes a hit - Washington Post

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Free speech takes a hit – Washington Post

Stifling free speech promotes polarization, not conversation – Washington Examiner

Posted: at 8:00 am

Last week, we saw first-hand that for some legislators, ignorance is bliss. During the Senate Judiciary Committee's free-speech hearing last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., remained blissfully unaware as she claimed, "I know of no effort at Berkeley, at the University of California, to stifle student efforts to speech." I guess the Democratic Party is more out-of-touch than we thought.

This hearing came less than 24 hours after the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision protecting all speech, even offensive speech. Yet, on college campuses across the country, students have increasingly begun lashing out against speakers and students groups whose message they deem distressing. The university response often protects these perpetrators by hindering the ability for dissenting opinions to flourish.

As university censorship has risen, so too has the polarization of their campuses. The most blatant example of this environment can be seen at Berkeley. This past February, 1,500 protesters stormed the campus with posters reading, "This is war," in response to Milo Yiannopoulos' speaking engagement. By the end of the night, the event was canceled, and the campus suffered $100,000 in damages. No arrests were made. Just a few months later, Berkeley officials stood by and watched as violent protests continued to erupt again, this time due to Ann Coulter's scheduled appearance.

If universities continue to allow students to violently protest against speakers they disagree with, they will be conditioned to believe this behavior is acceptable, and even noble. This was the exact point Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who participated in the panel before the Senate Judiciary Committee, made throughout his testimony last week.

"Administrators are not going to pay attention to what's legally right unless they are forced to do so," commented Isaac Smith, a former student of Ohio University also testifying at the hearing. Isaac, who shared his story of facing censorship from his campus for a message written on a t-shirt, didn't have his First Amendment rights reinstated until after partnering with Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and successfully winning a lawsuit against his school.

Unfortunately, Isaac's experience with administrative censorship is not unique. At Bunker Hill Community College, members of the campus Young Americans for Liberty chapter were forced to present their IDs to campus police, who then filed a disciplinary report against the students for distributing pocket-sized copies of the Constitution. Campus police justified their actions because the students had failed to obtain administrative approval beforehand. The very document the institution is bound by was not acceptable for distribution. On some public campuses, your rights come with terms and conditions.

While campus bureaucrats remain attached to their restrictive codes, communities are taking action. At YAL, our Fight for Free Speech campaign has mobilized students to successfully overturn 25 of these speech codes, restoring rights to 544,452 students. Increasingly, state legislatures have begun introducing legislation that places additional pressure on campus administrators to educate students on their free speech rights and require colleges to take disciplinary action against students who attempt to interfere with their peers' speech.

But free speech does not always have to be a fight. At the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, YAL chapter president Savannah Soto approached her administration with potential reforms for the current restrictive codes. Soto stressed the importance of free expression in higher education and presented a petition with 800 student signatures supporting these reforms. Within a few weeks, the campus revised their codes. Rather than forcefully clutching to these campus speech regulations that cast a wide net for censorship, her campus listened to its student body and protected its students' rights.

When campuses force students into suppression, resentments grow between the silencers and the silenced, and the results, as we've seen at Berkeley, are chaotic. As Justice Louise Brandeis put it in Whitney v. California, "The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Cliff Maloney (@LibertyCliff) is president of Young Americans for Liberty.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read ourguidelines on submissions here.

Continue reading here:
Stifling free speech promotes polarization, not conversation - Washington Examiner

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Stifling free speech promotes polarization, not conversation – Washington Examiner

Juan Williams: The land of free speech – The Hill

Posted: at 8:00 am

Conservatives are right to skewer liberals as snowflakes who need to go back to their safe spaces when the left starts promoting codes that limit free speech.

That critique is largely aimed at college students who dont want to listen to controversial speakers.

In our politically divided nation, it is too often being left to big corporations to decide the limits of acceptable political speech.

And those companies are concluding that defending free speech is not worth their time if it damages their brand and their stock price.

On this Independence Day, ask yourself what the authors of the Declaration of Independence men heavily influenced by the works of Shakespeare and Roman philosophers might have said about corporate sponsors like Delta and Bank of America pulling their support for the Public Theaters production of Julius Caesar in New York City.

Those big companies ran away from free speech and artistic freedom when far-right talk radio and websites produced a swarm of social media outrage suggesting that the assassination of a Trump-like Caesar could promote violence against the real President Trump.

Top executives at those companies failed to notice that the play was written in 1599. They also ignored that a recent production of the play had the lead character played by a black actor who looked and acted a lot like President Obama. He, too, was assassinated. Yet no sponsors pulled their financial support from that show.

But in these politically polarized days, the billion-dollar brands are skittish about being trolled online by provocateurs on the right and left.

By the way, the takeaway from that play is a warning that stands the test of time about the danger of political violence and its unintended consequences.

The same dynamic featuring big corporations instead of citizens deciding the limits of free speech is now also at play in the fight over the value of opinion shows presented on our ideologically divided media outlets.

The right and the left now press big companies to pull advertising from media personalities with whom they disagree.

They are counting on timid executives to focus only on their profits without giving a thought to the basic American tenet of free speech.

I am not asking corporations to spend a dime on the racists, the women-haters, the gay-bashers, liars or people calling for violence. They deserve to be shunned.

But lets stop and consider how corporate bosses with the power of their advertising dollars have taken charge of determining acceptable speech in America.

Last month, I took my family to the Washington D.C. Capital Pride Parade.

The parade was the biggest and best in years. It was a rainbow-flag-waving celebration of the progress made by the LGBT community in terms of marriage equality and broad social acceptance.

Several parade watchers pointed out to me that some of the corporations whose logos were now proudly placed on floats had not long ago fired those who were open about their homosexuality.

More than a few of these companies stood silent as states passed anti-gay laws. They thought standing up for equal rights might be bad business.

But as the culture shifted on gay rights, those same corporations hopped on the rainbow bandwagon.

Isee the critics point.

But just as the Supreme Court changed the laws to protect gay marriage, I am glad to see corporations take a stand for individual rights.

The heart of the issue is sincerity. Are these firms sincere in promoting gay rights or do they have their fingers in the air, checking comments on social media and fearing for their stock price with no regard for the principle of protecting constitutional rights, even when they are unpopular?

Controversy about free speech on a politically sensitive subject is a storm I know all too well.

Seven years ago, I was fired by NPR for telling Bill OReilly, then of Fox News, that since the September 11 attacks I get nervous whenever I see people dressed in Muslim garb boarding an airplane.

By acknowledging my personal fears, I was pointing out the need to speak freely and have honest debate in a time of crisis. I was making the case for tolerance and for avoiding the kind of fear-mongering that might lead to zoning restrictions against a particular religions house of worship.

My point was this: Giving voice to hidden fears allows for clear thinking and full-throated discussion. This, in turn, can prevent a free people from falling into the same kind of policy mistakes seen in the past the setting up of internment camps for Japanese-Americans during the Second World War, for example.

But the argument was lost on the politically correct crowd who quickly labeled me an anti-Muslim bigot. They didnt like the idea that I work at Fox News, engaging in debate with its conservative personalities, either.

Many people on the right and the left only want to hear news and opinion that confirms their pre-existing point of view.

And they are willing to demonize opposing views. Often dangerously they even try to silence them.

This July 4, liberals and conservatives We the People, not big business, need to find common ground in defense of honest debate and its life blood, free speech.

Free speech can lead to revolution. But we are a nation born of revolution. And the greatest gift of our founders remains the right to speak out.

Juan Williams is an author, and a political analyst for Fox News Channel.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Go here to see the original:
Juan Williams: The land of free speech - The Hill

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Juan Williams: The land of free speech – The Hill